The Real Threats to Australia

I logged into Facebook this morning and the screen lit up with irate comments from all my Brisbane-based friends about the G20 and the extreme levels of security being deployed in and around the city. Many of them regretted the fact that they didn't get out of town for a few days, as apparently it almost impossible to move around up there. I can't blame them, when going down to the local supermarket and buying a carton of eggs becomes a crime then the world has definitely gone mad. Guys, better put your hankering for an omelette on hold for a few more days until Putin and Obama split town.

In the current paranoid environment, it is of course unsurprising that Brisbane has been inundated with police is for the duration of the G20 talks. Every other day in the press we are bombarded with stories about ISIL or another renegade Muslim sect wanting to blow up some building or other that it is no wonder people are on edge. The coup-de-gras came the other day when I was riding the escalator down to the platform at Parliament station and the walls were littered with entreaties to dob in a terrorist. If one were a cynic (and its hard not to be where politicians are concerned), you might draw the conclusion that these ads were deployed by the Napthine government to scare the bejesus out of voters and cause them to keep the status quo and re-elect the Liberals in a couple of weeks.

I don't dispute that there are a lot of bad people in the world, not to mention a lot of crackpots, and that many of these wish harm towards their fellow man. But I seriously have to question whether the threat they pose is so serious as to justify the sort of rubbish that the inhabitants of Brisbane are having to endure this week, or that we all have to submit ourselves to every time we want to get on an aeroplane.

You also have to wonder about the motives of intelligence organisations like ASIO. I am a firm believer in the Steven Levitt school of thought that people respond to incentives, and faced with the opportunity to grow its budget and increase its power, what do you think ASIO is likely to do? Send out soothing press releases that the terrorist threat is a beat up and we should all just relax a bit? Of course not, it is going to stir the pot as much as it can and thereby increase its share of the hapless taxpayers' money. This is made all the more worrisome by the fact that ASIO has a rich and long history of major cock-ups but at the same time, by virtue of its mandate, doesn't have to be held accountable for what it does.

What concerns me the most about all this focus on threats from outside our borders is that it is taking attention away from what I see are the real threats to this country - which to my mind are all internal and have nothing whatsoever to do with national security.

Subject to commitments with work and the endless round of Christmas parties that go on in the property industry, I intend to elaborate on some of these things in the coming weeks. However, if people are really looking for something to worry about, they should consider the following:

• The economy: the dramatic slowdown in mining activity combined with the corrosive effects of a high Australian dollar has horribly exposed just what a "one trick pony" the Australian economy has become. Now that mining investment has dropped off, it is really hard to identify any industry in this country that is doing well, except perhaps housing which is being driven by the emergency low interest rates needed to try and stimulate the rest of the economy. The key in times like this is for people to innovate and come up with clever ideas to stimulate business activity, however the 3 groups with the biggest pools of money to help fund entrepreneurs in the banks, the government and the super funds are so risk averse that it almost impossible for anyone with a good business idea to secure funding.
• Infrastructure: its really hard to think of any major port, transport or other major infrastructure which isn't related to mining that is underway or on the drawing boards. For example, for years it has taken 50% longer than it should to fly to Sydney because of choked up runways, yet the desperately needed second airport is no closer to happening than 30 years ago when it was first proposed. There just doesn't seem to be the political will or intelligence at any level of government to try and make these things happen, and this is a real concern considering Australia's population is still growing strongly - and all these people coming into the country mostly want to live in the big cities. 
• The environment: if you subscribe to the view of 98% of the world's scientists that the climate is a serious issue and we really ought to be doing something about it, then our lack of action in this area is a real worry and will leave us on the outer with the major world powers. It was interesting to see this week the Chinese starting to take the issue seriously and while the deal they have struck with Obama has no chance of getting through the US Congress, it is a definite sign that the large countries see this as a priority and not as a load of "crap", as our foot-in-mouth prime minister once described it.

The list could go on and on, but as it is Saturday afternoon and I have some domestic matters of my own that I need to worry about such as a filthy swimming pool and a garden that is starting to grow triffids, I will have to leave it there. I sincerely hope that life gets back to normal in Brisbane very soon and that Napthine or Andrews gets rid of those stupid ads at Parliament Station  when the election is over in a couple of weeks.

These will be small wins, but the bigger stuff like being allowed to buy eggs in peace and being able to flip the bird at those annoying tits at the airport who scan you for gunpowder will need to wait until our political leaders put ISIL in proportion and start focussing instead on the real problems in this country. God knows when that will be.

  

A Tale of Two Budgets

I was pottering around the house this Sunday morning doing some chores and flicked on the ABC's "Insiders" program to provide some background noise and keep me company. Incredibly, almost 2 weeks after the Abbott government's first budget was handed down, the show was more or less dedicated entirely to an analysis of the budget, how it will affect the government's re-election chances and whether there were rumblings in the party to replace Abbott as leader.

 

It's hard to think of another budget in recent times that has provoked such a sustained outpouring of emotion from the community or has continued to be front page news so long after its release. The first budget Paul Keating handed down after his re-election as Prime Minister in 1993 where the "L.A.W. - law" income tax cuts were revoked comes to mind, but even then the hubbub seemed to die away after a couple of days. On the other hand, this budget looks set to be a running sore for the government well into the foreseeable future, especially when you consider the way the state governments have reacted and the fact that the measures are still to be negotiated through an increasingly eccentric Senate. Abbott came out talking tough this week and said if necessary, he was prepared to go through a double dissolution process in order to get the legislation through. However given recent polling this could prove quite foolhardy, and one suspects that compromise with the Clive Palmers and Nick Xenophons of the world may prove to be the order of the day.

 

I can quite understand why certain elements of the community, most notably anyone on a pension, the long term unemployed and low income earners are aghast at the measures in the budget. What I can't understand though is why anyone was surprised about it. Apart from the fact that the government lied through their teeth about not introducing new taxes - something everyone ought to be well-accustomed to by now from any government - the Abbott government's agenda and policy direction has been pretty transparent from day one. The following points sum up their philosophy as I see it reflected in the budget:

• the government should be as small as possible and invest as little as possible in providing services to its citizens; 
• the government should as far as possible not participate or intervene in the economy and instead it should be left to big business to run things ... because we all know how smashingly well that worked out in 2008;
• tertiary education ought to be only available for those who can afford to pay for it. After all, they don't want all those poor people who probably vote Labor to get a leg up in society;
• even though citizens have contributed a significant part of their income over their working lives to the government, providing a safety net in retirement, helping with finding alternative employment or with disability or illness is not the responsibility of the government and when they fall on hard times, people ought to fend for themselves or rely on charities, not call on government assistance;
• although Australia is a rich country and is a signatory to the Millenium Goals designed to mitigate global poverty, because of our "budget emergency", we are now going to renege on our treaty obligations to poorer nations and dramatically cut foreign aid. Furthermore, to save money, we are going to send refugees from those countries to rot in Papua New Guinea in squalid detention camps rather than dealing with them here;
• science and education ought generally to be treated with suspicion, as academics and scientists often publish inconvenient research which challenges the status quo and may prejudice the interests of big business. Under no circumstances should their funding increase, and where possible, money allocated to areas like the CSIRO should be re-directed to areas like Defence, which to their mind can never have enough funding;
• despite an urgent need for it, we are not going to invest in infrastructure, nor facilitate any measures to come up with clever means of partnering with the private sector to deliver and fund this infrastructure.

The government even propagated the biggest lie of all to support their budget measures, namely that the Labor government left the country broke and all of the budget measures are necessary to stop Australia being placed in the hands of the IMF. When you analyse the facts, this is of course a load of rubbish. While it's true the government had debts when the Liberals took over government, this was nothing compared to the mess that the Fraser inherited in 1975, Hawke inherited from Fraser in 1983 or Jeff Kennett took over in Victoria in 1992. If things were so bad, then why didn't the government act immediately and decisively like Kennett did to stop the bleeding?

 

I tend to agree that it's a good idea to rein in spending at a time when, due to a range of factors including a slowing in mining sector, government revenue is falling . However, there is nothing so drastic in this fall off in income nor the finances the Abbott government inherited to warrant the severe measures taken in the budget. Put simply, this budget is all about implementing the Neo-Conservative agenda the government so admires the Republican Party for. The problem they are finding though is that Australia is a very different society to America and Australians won't put up with Republican-style measures for very long. Just look at the recent polls.

 

The measures contained in the Federal Budget look even more stark when you compare it to the recent Victorian budget handed down about a week before the Federal one. In contrast to their Federal colleagues, and after 3 years of relative inaction, the Victorian Liberal Party has now turned the corner and delivered a largely positive budget, the cornerstone of which was the announcement of a series of important infrastructure projects in and around Melbourne which the government intends to deliver in partnership with the private sector. 

 

At a time when other sectors of the economy are slowing and excess capacity is being freed up in the construction sector, this sort of thing makes excellent economic sense. Not only will the Victorian government benefit from cheaper pricing on delivering the infrastructure, they will create plenty of jobs in the construction sector at a time when other sectors like manufacturing and mining are shedding jobs. More jobs of course equates to a happy electorate which may yet equate to another term in office for Denis Napthine and his crew, despite them trailing in the polls up to this point.

 

It is also shows you the contrast between what a true Liberal government does as opposed to one that may be liberal in name, but which is very illiberal in nature. While generally supporting a free market ideology, Liberal governments understand that from time to time, government intervention in the economy is necessary - usually at a time when the private sector is struggling and is shedding rather than generating jobs. For example, while Abbott and Hockey dithered round on providing short-term assistance to SPC Ardmona, Napthine stepped in decisively with State Government funding, saving the cannery at a time when having it fold would have been devastating for Shepparton. This is because Liberals instinctively understand the fact that good governance isn't all about balancing the books and involves showing a degree of empathy with the struggles of your constituents. Neo-Conservatives on the other hand think empathy is for pussies.

 

It will be very interesting to see how the dynamics of the Federal and State Budget play out. As of the time of writing, Napthine was trailing but no post-budget poll was available and I would be surprised if he doesn't get a kick out of what he has produced. On the other hand, the Federal Coalition was also trailing, although this trend probably won't continue once people calm down a bit and accept their fate and Labor reverts to its normal behaviour of shooting itself in the foot (is it just me or does everyone find Bill Shorten less than impressive?)

 

Of course, what would be nice right now is if we got true Liberal governments running both Victoria and Australia, however in the latter case, that would necessarily involve Malcolm Turnbull becoming federal leader. As he is highly intelligent and independently successful however he is uniquely unqualified to lead the Federal Liberal Party, so this is unlikely to happen. That's a shame because we might instead get a government that comes clean on the true state of the finances, invests sensibly to support the economy and comes up with some more constructive ideas than just beating up on its most vulnerable citizens to save money. Until then however expect more of the same.

 

Apologies for the delay between blogs, I will be back again soon when I have identified something else that cheeses me off.