A State of Mind

Too stupid to think?

2012-03-01T15:00:00.001+11:00

Sometimes it seems like politicians spend their days doing little more than trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

"The public are uninformed and disengaged - I can spout any nonsense I like and those that notice will probably believe it."

No doubt you have your own view as to whether that is a fair comment - but some days it's hard to believe anything else.

Why? Stuff like this:

“This is a project that’s feeding into Sydney’s water supplies. And it is a contractual matter that will see the desalination plant continue operate. It’s a matter for the O’Farrell Government to deal with. Clearly, when the dam is full there are reasons the desalination plant should be given some consideration for shutdown.”

John Robertson as his finest.

The desalination plant was built by Labor. Opinions will differ as to whether it was an essential investment in Sydney's water security, or an extravagant boondoggle, but that's not what I want to write about.

Photo from here

What I want to write about is Robertson's suggestion that consideration to the plant being shut down.

The Labor government signed a contract that, amongst other things, required that the plant run at full capacity for a two year period. If the plant was not run for the full two year period, then it appears that the government essentially "voids the warrantee" and will be responsible for any problems with the plant.

I'm no engineer, so I can't give an opinion as to whether that was a good idea or not, but it was the contract that Labor signed.

The Herald wrote this on the topic:

The "90 million litres a day" is already reduced from the full capacity of the plant, which is some 90 billion litres per year, three times the present production.

It goes without saying that Robertson knew very well why the plant cannot be switched off. He wasn't in parliament when the decision was made, but his predecessors were, and to try and suggest that the Coalition should be investigating shutting the plant down is downright ridiculous.

Will the public be fooled? Probably not, because O'Farrell gave the media a handy quote about the contract that was signed by Labor being "stupid". This blogpost is delayed by a day because I couldn't track down confirmation of Robertson's quote yesterday - it may be that someone in Labor was smart enough to shut down the line of argument.

But it goes to show a certain arrogance, and maybe even a belief (misguided or not) that the media is too stupid or lazy to point this kind of lazy argument out.

In the event, it doesn't appear that the media picked up on the comment - so the people listening to 2SM would have heard the comment entirely unchallenged.

Hopefully most of them were too smart to believe it.

Rolling the dice

2012-02-28T00:18:00.000+11:00

There is a good reason that Sydney is called Sin City.

The Mardi Gras (on this weekend, for those of you not in the know) still takes place every year despite Fred Nile's fervent prayers. High-flautin' professionals swan about the city every weekday, and most evenings revellers spill out of clubs and hotels with little regard for other people.

And, gazing over Darling Harbour, we have The Star.

Photo from here

The Star is Sydney's only (legal) casino. What that means is that whilst you can barely turn left or right in Sydney without seeing a venue bulging at the seams with pokies, The Star is the only place you can play table games.

Today this report appeared in the Herald.

I don't know whether journos and editors are intentionally picking unflattering photos of James Packer, or if he just does not photograph well, but I have not seen him look good in a photo for a long time. As you can see, the trend continues here.

Anyway, it was O'Farrell's reaction that interested me, and enraged a number of people on Twitter today.

Those of you who read this blog regularly and follow me on Twitter will be familiar with my views on pokies. Suffice to say I would very happily see them outlawed tomorrow, and if two out of every clubs went bankrupt I'd still call it a win.

But table games (I mean true table games - not those electronic table games that clubs and hotels have) are somewhat different, at least in terms of perception. For one, they are legal only in The Star - given I seldom if ever go there, I seldom see them. Further rightly or wrongly, there is a perception that table games are far more likely to attract the high-flyer - the player who can afford to lose the money.

Having said that, I'd encourage you to read this excellent post by Greg Jericho which portrays table games in quite a different light.

Let's have a look at some actual stats though, taken from the Productivity Commission's most recent report into Gambling in Australia.

Page 7 of the report

The following paragraph is taken from a paper entitled "Responsible Gambling: Legal and Policy Issues", and whilst it is a little old is provides a particular statistic that I thought was interesting:

That stat was drawn from the Productivity Commissions 1999 report into Gambling in Australia.

The following table is from that same report:

From section 3.16

So, if approximately 10% of people have played a table game, and approximately 3.5% of them have experienced problems, we're talking 0.35% of the population. That sits in comparison with pokie numbers: 38.6% had played and 9.2% had experienced problems, or 3.5% of the population.

That's a very quick and probably quite unreliable calculation - but it gives you an idea of the comparison. What it amounts to, for the purpose of this piece, is that table games are a far smaller problem than pokies.

Having said all that, I still think O'Farrell's position is cause for significant concern. Why?

First of all, I think it is inevitable that a new casino will result in more money being lost, and more problem gamblers pouring their saving away. The gambling industry is not a zero-sum game. The exact numbers will of course be a matter of much conjecture if this proposal goes anywhere, but they must move in that one direction.

Weighed up against that harm, what are the benefits? Let's look at what O'Farrell nominates.

- "Extra life". This is a nothing statement - any new business, attraction or facility will add "extra life". There is no need for it to be a casino.

- "World class hotel, generate jobs". It is not clear why the casino would be a an essential part of any new hotel. There must be dozens of hotels in Sydney that do just FINE without any gambling profit. As for jobs, I have am not really interested in providing more jobs funding by taking money off problem gamblers. Heck, I'm barely interested in protecting those that already exist and depend on problem gamblers.

- "Boost tourism". This is an odd statement. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I find it hard to perceive how a second casino can boost tourism.

I certainly understand that a first casino can have that effect. No doubt there are travellers in this world who will choose to travel to Sydney over another destination because it has a casino. Of course, putting a value on that tourism and inflow of money and weighing it against the damage caused by the presence of a casino is almost impossible, but I appreciate that the benefit exists.

A second casino, however, is more difficult to justify. Are there really people who will say "What? They have TWO casinos? This I have to see."

Like I said, if someone can point me to research that suggests otherwise, happy to be proved wrong. But it seems ridiculous.

Above all that though, it is the eagerness with which O'Farrell has responded to the idea that concerns me. Why is he so keen to make this second casino happen? Does he have any intention of weighing up the potential for damage? Is the relationship with Packer cause for concern?

Writing's on the Wall

2012-02-23T22:57:00.000+11:00

I try not be too rude about politicians on this blog.

If you want to read about the ideological failings of any party, there are plenty places for you to go. If you enjoy a writer who just spews hatred at anyone in particular, there are probably dozens of blogs and more twitter accounts than you could count.

But sometimes a politician is willfully stupid. Sometimes a politician chooses to set aside any pretence of governing for the good of the people but rather makes a shamelessly populist, attention grabbing move that could wreck people's lives for no good reason whatsoever.

Take a bow David Elliott.

Photo from Hills Shire Times

Earlier today David published his grand theory of dealing with graffiti.

Now, let's be clear about something. Vandalism is a serious issue. Businesses, private individuals, and the taxpayer spend millions every year cleaning it up. I don't think tagging is art, and I'm as annoyed as the next person by graffiti on the train.

As it happens, from where I sit as I type this on a CityRail train, I can see that some wag has scrawled something incomprehensible on the wall. Moreover, some particularly industrious individuals have "etched" words onto every single window of the carriage.

The thing is, though, whilst the perpetrators' work usually simple to the point of being incomprehensible, the solutions are anything but.

Society will always have a lowest rung - a dissaffected, angry youth engages in graffiti because it provides him with self-expression, because he is bored, because he is angry and doesn't know why, or just because, to him, it gives him a sense of power in a society where he has none.

There are any number of reasons why people do this. The causes are not simple, no matter how much you want them to be, and neither are the solutions.

So, let's have a look at Mr Elliott has to say on the issue.

So, he is a victim of crime. That's unfortunate, and not something to be laughed at. What it is not is a good reason to start using the power you have to try and force an increase in penalties for the offence you were the victim of.

That's why we have things like the Law Reform Commission - sober minded people who can weigh and assess all the factors before recommending what, if any, changes need to be made.

Below is a photo of the damage, and it is awful.

Moving on:

Let's be clear. The entire basis for his call for change is the fact that he has seen graffiti around his local area? And the fact that there is graffiti means that only "strong and aggressive" laws can combat vandalism?

Has he done any research into present penalties? Does he even know what the penalties are? Does he direct the reader to a report calling for harsher penalties? Can he perhaps indicate a foreign jurisdiction where "strong and aggressive" laws resulted in a sudden end to graffiti?

Of course he doesn't. He's pulling this all from a certain area not mentioned on polite blogs.

Reading on:

Hang on. He hasn't even discussed this with the AG OR the Police Minister? He is calling for these simply extraordinary penalties without having discussed it with ANYONE other than the poor sod who he got to write this piece?

And let's have a look at what his suggestion is.

Mandatory Gaol? For GRAFFITI? Is he actually crazy?

We all saw how well mandatory detention went in the Northern Territory. We all know how much it costs to keep someone in gaol. We all know that gaols are called Universities of Crime for a reason.

What else? Lifelong bans on Driving? I've written previously about how dumb it is to take licences away from graffiti vandals, so I won't repeat myself. But seriously - for life?

Oh good, naming and shaming. First of all, if you think the prospect of having your name read out in parliament as being a graffiti vandal is going to stop them, then you really don't understand teenagers AT ALL. If they are smart enough to work Hansard (and that's not a given) I guarantee the extract will be on Facebook within the hour.

When people tag something, they use their "tag". It's not usually their name, but it is an identifier. As I ride this train, I have no idea who NUEKS is, but I sure as heck know he was here, because his tag is scrawled all over the windows. That's the point!

Of course, had Elliott done five minutes of research he would know this. I suppose, however, that is less fun than grand-standing for attention by promoting a brainless new scheme that won't fix the problem, but will make a few Baby Boomers in their McMansions nod furiously.

Vandalism does cost everyone. And ridiculous politicking like this costs us even more.

Shooting from the Hip

2012-02-20T20:31:00.000+11:00

Nothing is more likely to create bad law than a political crisis.

The media focus on the shootings in Sydney has clearly reached the stage where O'Farrell and Greg Smith felt they had to act. And act they have.

No one seems to have considered whether there was actually any problem with the law. Do the present laws provide police with the charges they need to do their job?

Are there gaping holes in the law where police are powerless to act? Is there evidence that the shooters would be stopped by tougher penalties or new laws?

I think you know the answers to those questions.

What I wanted to do was have a look at the changes at the law and try to analyse what (if anything) will be achieved through their introduction.

The relevant bill is the Crimes Amendment (Consorting and Organised Crime) Bill 2012. It can be found here.

It introduces some new offences and increases penalties for some others. I'll cover the changes one at a time, in the order they were discussed in Smith's speech.

Firing at a Dwelling House

At present section 93GA of the Crimes Act) reads as follows:

The change is the insertion of (1B):

In other words, the maximum penalty is increased by 2 years where the shooting was part of "organised criminal activity". Does change accomplish a great deal?

Probably not a lot, but there is no inherent difficulty with the change. It makes sense that such an offence should carry a heavier penalty where it was performed as part of orgnaised criminal activity.

The next definition is small change to law on criminal groups. Presently section 93T reads, in part, as follows:

The change will replace subsection (1) with this:

Essentially the change softens the prosecution's burden, in that the police no longer need to prove that the offender knew or was "reckless as to whether the conduct contributes to the occurence of any criminal activity", they now need only prove that the offender knew or ought reasonably to have known.

This offence is notorious for being difficult to prove - how can the police prove what a person knew, or ought reasonably to have known? It requires the prosecution to provide enough evidence about the all the circumstances of the offender's involvement in the "group".

It's not even easy to prove what a criminal group is - have a look at the definition:

Moreover, this is an offence that is most commonly "tacked on" when a person is charged with a far more serious offence, such as drug supply. This means that the number of criminals who police are now able to prosecute that they couldn't otherwise prosecute will be small indeed.

The bill also adds a new offence of directing a criminal group, and directing a criminal group whose activities are ongoing:

Essentially, all the same issues arise. Criminals not being in the habit of taking minutes when meeting mean that it will be pretty difficult to prove that a person was "directing" the activities of a group.

Any time police are able to charge a person with directing a criminal group, they will almost certainly be able to charge the person with all the offences committed by that criminal group. How is this new law supposed to assist police in prosecuting anyone they wouldn't otherwise be able to prosecute?

The next change is the introduction of section 93TA, which reads as follows:

As Smith puts it:

That's true. What he doesn't mention is that we already have section 193B, which reads as follows:

It is difficult to imagine who could be guilty under the new section 93TA who is not also guilty of s193B, meaning that this change accomplishes precisely squat.

The final change, and by far the most troubling one, is this:

There is also a defence:

There is presently section 546A, which reads as follows:

It should also be noted that, as best I am able to tell, no one has ever been prosecuted in s546A. Ever.

It is a deeply troubling section, for a number of reasons. First of all, it is the very definition of "guilty by association". If you spend time with people who have convictions, you are committing an offence.

Moreover, police have to warn you first. That's fair enough, given that you may not know that they are convicted persons.

What that means, however, is that police will be able to approach you and tell you that someone is a "convicted person", and to hell with their privacy. There is otherwise no entitlement or reason for you to have that information.

A convicted person is someone who has been convicted of an indictable offence. Without getting stuck into the detail, that casts an incredibly broad net. I don't have the resourses to determine how many people in NSW fit that category, but it must be an enormous number.

There is also the fact that the law will be applied pursuant to a police discretion (ie only people they have warned first) means that it is open to police to pursue whoever they want in relation to this offence. Groups or people can be targeted maliciously or without good reason.

That is a power that worries me.

It gets worse. The defences to the offence are so broad that they can be easily manipulated by people committing the offence.

If you are given an official warning for consorting with someone, get them to hire you, or enrol you in some bogus "training".

It seems unlikely that police will be able to prosecute many people at all for the offence, despite the repugnance of the provision.

But we should come back to the original intention of the changes. As Smith put it:

You can read that as "Do SOMETHING legislatively to get Labor off our backs."

The result? Four minor changes at the margins that will interest criminal lawyers and no one else. One change that is entirely redundant. And one change that gives police truly incredible powers but then includes defences that will make the offence easy to circumvent, meaning that it is unlikely that anyone will be prosecuted for it.

How is it that these changes are meant to help police stop the shootings? No one's really sure. I'm not even sure whether anyone has asked what the hold-up is. I doubt it is the lack of useful laws, and if it is then it is difficult to see how these changes will help.

The end result - Labor are now reduced to whining about the efficacy of the changes in a way that will not resonate with most people.

Mission accomplished, I'd say. Good governance be damned.

A Day in the Sun?

2012-02-08T19:16:00.000+11:00

Being in opposition for the first time in a while brings with it a fairly unique set of challenges.

On one hand, a new government is likely to over-reach, and over-estimate the public's enthusiasm for change. It is all to easy to ignore the fact that, as often as not, the voters weren't so much endorsing you as repudiating the other lot.

Either way, new governments usually unfurl an ambitious agenda. They roll out a lot of the unpopular stuff early, which makes easy (if not always effective) fodder for a new opposition.

On the other hand, some ideas from a new government are harder for a new opposition to combat.

Sometimes a government will extend or expand an unpopular program championed by the old government. Even when the program is massively unpopular, there is often not much that can be done, as any comment criticising the move can easily be seen to be petty and opportunistic.

However, when the original program was generally popular and the new government extends it, there is even less that an opposition can say. They can't oppose the changes because the program was their idea in the first place, and they can't very well complain that the new program doesn't go far enough, given that the original program did even less.

Any opposition that made such a comment would be pretty stupid, yes?

Well:

Full release available here

This is what the Coalition has announced:

Full release available here

Putting aside the rights or wrongs of banning solariums - where does Labor get off pretending that it is imperative that solaria are banned immediately? The situation is pretty much exactly the same as it was when they proposed that people under 30 or with fair skin be banned from using the solaria.

Moreover, hundreds if not thousands of people are employed in the business. Those people deserve the chance to start finding new jobs or new products for their businesses

Best of all, as I understand it, the quite timid restrictions on who could use solaria Labor proposed in November 2010 were cancelled just before leaving government.

Maybe Labor had their tails in the air after their success in the early parts of last week, and figured that it was time to start hitting the Coalition with everything they've got.

What Labor forgot, much like the "100 Broken Promises" document, is that a weak attack distracts from all your stronger once.

I think most voters are smart enough to see straight through this kind of politics.

TGIF (tomorrow)

2012-02-02T19:53:00.000+11:00

This has not been a good week for the Coalition.

The new government has had more than its fair share of politically tricky issues in its first year (many of them of their own making).

In many cases these problems have been single large issues - often a large structural change or the implementation of a (at least, in their eyes) necessary but inevitably unpopular change.

In many ways these larger issues can be handled as they are easily anticipated. This is why many of them have been introduced in the government's first year - they hope that memories will fade by the next election, and they're probably right.

This week has been different though. Put simply, there has been a sudden spate of pretty obvious stuff-ups of various sorts, and Labor is making a lot of hay with it.

The NSW Labor website has a very handy collection of "News", and their items posted there really do tell the story of the Coalition's week.

Monday was about planning. Before the election O'Farrell made a big song and dance about returning planning control to councils, and immediately on being sworn in the hated Part 3A was repealed.

The thing is, there are some developments that should be controlled by the state - major developments that are too big for councils. Almost everyone acknowleges this - the issue is where that bar is set.

At this stage it seems unclear exactly what the Coalition has done or is intending to do - but whatever the precise change is, there will be a political cost to be paid.

It is hard to say whether O'Farrell was foolish to over-promise on this issue. He knew that ALL control could not be returned to councils - if he had qualified his statements before the election, isn't it more likely that the qualification would have been lost in the media reporting, and therefore would not have lost him any votes?

Having said that, no amount of qualification before the election would have spared O'Farrell a slap from Labor when the issue arose, so perhaps he was better placed to simply do it early and take his lumps when it came up.

In any event, the headline generate by the Labor website was this:

The bigger issue on Monday, however, was about disabled kids. And it's hard to comprehend just how such an easily anticipated problem was not avoided, especially when it presented such a easy opportunity for Labor.

The Labor press release is here. In short, bus contracts were not orgnised and signed in time, meaning that disabled kids could not get to and from school on the first day.

When it was revealed on Tuesday that a quick thinking Labor MLA wrote to the Minister a week earlier to alert him to the issue, the Coalition really had no excuse.

Without sounding crass, this story really had everything. It's about transport (always a sensitive issue). It's about not just kids, but disabled kids. It made the Coalition look disorganised and incompetent.

This is the kind of screw-up that starts to taint a government. Put simply, this is the kind of thing the public expected from Labor, and the Coalition will not like being tarred with that same brush.

The drama continued through the week as it was revealed how long the Coalition had known about the issue and then will calls from Labor for Minister to resign.

Wednesday was mostly about the carers allowance.

Carers are a horribly undervalued sector of society. Most people have a great deal of respect for the work they do, not least of all because it is an incredibly difficult and challenging job that no one else will do.

Foster carers get an allowance from the government to cover the cost of caring for the kids. The suggested change was that, once a child is over 16 and in receipt of youth allowance, the carer's allowance would be reduced by the same amount.

One a purely accounting basis, it makes sense. On a political basis, it is stupid.

Labor called it an attack on carers, and whilst that may be hyperbole, one has to wonder what the government thought would happen.

Most incredibly, according to this SMH article, that there are only 1000 or so families affected. This means that the government let itself get tarred with "doesn't care about foster carers" for what, in the scheme of things, is a pretty small sum.

Moreover, after the week the Coalition has had, Labor has every excuse to lead off with this:

When you include the cutting of funding to vision impaired and the Fair Work Australia decision, the week was thoroughly Labor's.

As I said earlier, this kind of politics is all to easy for an even vaguely competent opposition. And the more stories like this there are, the more the idea of a mean, selfish and uncaring government sets in.

The Coalition is already going to struggle to dispel that idea, being a centre-right party. They don't need to make it easy for the opposition.

But that's exactly what they did this week. They'll want to stop.

Lies, Damned Lies and Press Releases

2012-01-27T23:53:00.000+11:00

Are the Coalition REALLY understaffing stations in South West Sydney?

On one set of figures, sure. In this Daily Terror story, we see the following:

(blogger isn't letting me upload photos, so I'll copy and paste)

WESTERN Sydney police were understaffed while dealing with a frightening spate of drive-by shootings, while in the Premier's north shore electorate there were more than enough officers.
As of December 31, the southwest metropolitan region had just 2305 police officers - 44 less than it should have.
In Bankstown, there were 260 officers on duty even though the authorised strength of the command was 272, and there was also fewer officers in shooting hotspots Cabramatta and Fairfield.
The shortfall came despite a police class graduating in mid-December and the fact the force was overstaffed state-wide, with 16,092 officers compared to 15,806 budgeted for by the state government. In Barry O'Farrell's Ku-ring-gai electorate, there were 174 officers - four more than the authorised strength of 170.

Assuming those numbers are correct, it is clear that the Ku Ring Gai numbers are higher (as a percentage of the "authorised strength") than the numbers in some SouthWest Sydney Local Area Commands.

What interested me was how fair those numbers are. As the old saying goes, "lies, damned lies and statistics".

We are told the numbers in Ku Ring Gai - 174 officers (102.3%). We are told the total for South West Metro Region - 2305 officers (98.1%). Interesting, the only LAC we are given numbers for is Bankstown - 260 officers (95.6%).

I think it's fair to assume that those Bankstown numbers are the very worst the writer of the press release could find.

Labor also had a news item on their website that explained that Rockdale LAC is presently "three officers short" but does not tell us what their budgeted figure is.

What interested me in all this was a population comparison. How do the population figures between the areas compare? Does that explain the difference?

The only LAC's that we have figures for Bankstown (260/272) and Ku Ring Gai (174/170), so we'll compare those.

Unfortunately, it's a little hard to work out what the population of the LAC's are. What I've done is refer to the NSW police website to work out what postcodes are included in each of those 2 LAC's, and then used the 2006 census figures to work out the approximate population of those LAC's.

Imperfect, but I don't think NSW Police will respond to a media enquiry from me, so you're stuck with it. First is the postcode, second is the population in 2006.

KU RING GAI (174/170)

Arcadia, Berrilee, Fiddletown, Galston 5103
Asquith, Hornsby, Hornsby Heights, Waitara 32 280
Berowra, Cowan 4 867
Berowra Heights, Berowra Waters 5 180
Brooklyn 1 699
Canoelands, Forest Glen, Glenorie 3 161
Dural, Middle Dural 7 907
East Killara, Killara 11 824
Gordon 5 993
Mount Colah 6 975
Mount Kuring-Gai 1 550
Normanhurst, North Wahroonga, Wahroonga 21 715
North Turramurra, South Turramurra, Turramurra, Warrawee 19 808
Pymble, West Pymble 14 096
St Ives, St Ives Chase 17 334
Thornleigh, Westleigh 19 028
TOTAL 178 520

BANKSTOWN (260/272)

Bankstown, Bankstown Aerodrome, Condell Park 37 958
Bass Hill 7 224
Birrong, Potts Hill 6 755
Chester Hill, Sefton 14 877
Chullora, Greenacre, Mount Lewis 22 462
East Hills, Panania, Picnic Point 19 511
Georges Hall 8 049
Lansdowne, Villawood 11 716
Milperra 3 887
Padstow, Padstow Heights 14 484
Revesby,Revesby Heights 13 853
Yagoona 14 876
TOTAL 175 652

So, Ku Ring Gai, with its 174 officers, and 178 520 residents, has 1 officer for every 1026 residents, whilst Bankstown, with 260 officers and 175 652 residents, has 1 officer for every 676 residents. In fairness, those numbers are based on the 2006 census but on the 2011 police numbers, and the LAC may not fit precisely with the suburb demarcation, but I think I've made my point.

That's not even considering the fact that, as I look at a map, Ku Ring Gai has a far bigger area than Bankstown, which all things being equal should mean it would need more officers to cover it.

My point? I think it's fair to assume that the Terror's story is based on a Labor Press Release. I don't have a copy of that release, but the above analysis took me about an hour of poking around (admittedly as I tried to watch the Australian Open Semi Final), and how many journalists have that long to spend on research?

And, if it is in fact all taken from a Labor press release, it just goes to show how you can use statistics to prove almost anything.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics indeed.

Money Money Money (Part II)

2012-01-26T01:10:00.000+11:00

I've thought a little more about political donations since my last post on the topic.

Ideally, this is the system I would prefer:

Only individuals on the electoral roll can make donations.
Each person has an applicable "donation limit" per year.
If a non-political party wants to run an issue campaign, they can do so, but only using funds donated for that purpose.
Funds donates to non-political parties would be included in a person's donation limit.

I think it's fair. I also think it has buckley's chance of being introduced, but there you go.

If you've had a look at the changes proposed by O'Farrell - well, they are heading in the right direction, but they are a long way short of where I would like us to be. That said, small steps are (in this case) better than no steps at all.

Consequently, I was more than a little frustrated to read the transcript of the first day of the Inquiry into the Coalition's changes. The conga-line of people attending to rubbish the changes smacked of vested interest and partisan (rather than honest) analysis.

As I settled down to peruse O'Farrell's comments to the committee, I expected that he would be hammered by a panel that seemed more than a little slanted against him. I was not disappointed.

You may be interested to first have a look at the submission made by the Office of the Premier. If you're interested, the full list of published submissions can be seen here.

The full transcript of the second day of the hearing can be found here.

O'Farrell came straight out of the gate with his justification for the changes:

Steve Whan (ALP) persisted with Labor's attack on O'Farrell for continuing to attend fundraisers whilst pressing the case to, if not outlaw, certainly minimise the utility of them.

O'Farrell response is entirely reasonable. It is unfair and frankly more than a little ridiculous for Labor to expect O'Farrell to stop attending fundraisers whilst the ALP delay the introduction of these changes by running an inquiry.

There followed some discussion about the exact operation of the new laws. John Kaye (GRN), chair of the committee, had this exchange with O'Farrell, which is worth repeating just for the nasty (but not unfair) comments about lawyers:

If you have the chance, the full 13 pages of his evidence are worth reading just for the amusing sniping between Whan and O'Farrell.

Anne Twomey gave evidence principally directed at the constitutionality of the changes.

Tony O'Grady, Brett Holmes and John Moran of the NSW Nurses Association were the next to appear. Their biggest concern was expressed as follows:

Christopher Maltby of the Greens appeared next. At the start he clarified that the Greens do support the legislation generally, saying the following:

It was also interesting to note the following comments about the Greens funding arrangements:

How many donations from corporations and other non-individual bodies would the Greens get if they did accept those donations? Impossible to say - but their policy does somewhat allow them to claim the moral high-ground in this discussion.

Mr Smith and Mr Thew were next to appear. A problem with the transcript as it presently appears on the Hansard website means I'm not sure exactly what their positions are, but it appears that they are in some way affiliated with the Christian Democrats.

That transcript problem meant that I'm not able to peruse his opening statement, which makes it a little hard to know their overarching views on the legislation. Mr Smith did make a good point about the fact that many of their supporters are in the older demographic, meaning that complying with potentially complex reporting requirements may become onerous for them.

The final witnesses for the day were Lenore Hankinson and Jennifer Diamond from the NSW Teachers Federation. It was interesting to see Diamond state the following right at the outset:

The impressiveness of that independence is somewhat lessened only a few paragraphs down:

He went on to express concerns about the ability of the Federation to push their agenda if these changes are made.

One final comment - an incredibly large amount of time in committee was taken up by members asking witnesses whether they thought this action or that campaign would be permissible under the legislation. That seems to me to be a monstrous waste of time.

No doubt the committee have all read legal advice on the topic. Excepting the constitutional experts, I fail to see what the witnesses personal view as to the legality or otherwise of this or that is of benefit to anyone. It certainly wasn't worth spending large portions of the day on.

The documentation I have been able to find is unclear as to whether further hearings will be held. I certainly appears, judging from the questioning, that the inquiry is far more about the media and perception then they are about any legitimate attempt to discuss the legislation.

It appears certain that the ALP will oppose the changes and likely that the Greens will support them, possibly after some fiddling around the edges.

What I hope is that there will continue to be pressure placed on O'Farrell to make further changes and to do even more to clean up this most unsavoury aspect of politics in NSW.

A Nudge in the Right Direction

2012-01-23T16:14:00.001+11:00

This is unfortunately going to be an abridged blogpost, because I'm on holiday and was planning on leaving this blog alone for a few days. But this is an issue I simply cannot let slide past without comment.

Look at what the Terror served up for us today:

Now I've had plenty to say, both here and on Twitter, about our old friend Laura Norda. To be expected I suppose, given my job as a criminal lawyer.

On one hand, I agree that harsh sentences are often not just appropriate but also required. In many cases, gaol is the only appropriate response, and the community is right to be demand it.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who are in gaol for no good reason, forced there by vicious laws created only to keep TalkBack Radio and the Tabloid Media off politicians' backs.

There needs to be balance in the debate, and Greg Smith has been one of the first politicians to suggest that the issue is far more nuanced than "tough sentences equals less crime".

The problem for him, however, is that certain media outlets are always going to hammer him for any change that softens sentencing. This article, which shamelessly labels him "soft on crime", is a textbook example.

Again, this post isn't meant to be another complant about the media (although God knows that is what I would like to write). What it is about is an observation that this is the kind of rubbish that is going to be printed (and no doubt believed by many) if Mr Smith wants to actually achieve something good and worthwhile whilst the Coalition is in power.

Labor had this little nuggett of wisdom for the AG:
That's nice. Let's make it about the fact he lives on the North Shore and therefore cannot possibly comprehend the "gang war raging" on the streets of South-West Sydney.

I mean for heaven's sake - a "gang war"? Spare me.

Smith going to cop it in the neck for this. But what better time to do it?

We've already seen that this government appears to have a licence, at least for the moment, to do what they want and not get penalised for it. I've written about that here and here.

That window of opportunity won't last forever. Smith should take the chance to push these reforms through now before the populist rubbish has a chance to really penetrate.

I've never met Smith, and I have no idea what he is like as a person. The fact that he is pushing these reforms that (surely) won't win him many votes is a good sign that he was sincere when he said, before the election, that he was determined to make the right changes, not the popular ones.

It bodes well for our state.

Money Money Money (Part I)

2012-01-19T20:17:00.002+11:00

Money makes the world go round, and politics proves it.

I have long found party funding distasteful. Companies who donate tens of thousands to both sides, proving that it is not an ideology or a person they support, but rather influence they seek to buy. The constant confluence of donation and patronage. The sympathetic ear offered to the "generous" rather than the needy or the worthy.

It disgusts me, but I accept that to some extent it is inevitable. Political parties do serve a purpose, and like ideology will always attract like.

Having said that, we can have a system that entrenches advantage or we can have a system that seeks to level the playing field.

If I had may way, only individuals would be able to donate, and their donations would be limited to a modest amount. Any companies or organisations that want to have their say to the electorate can do so directly, or not at all. Why is don't we have that system?

Because the amount donated would fall, dramatically. Because the two major parties depend on donations from non individuals (overwhelmingly business for the Coalition and unions for Labor). Because it would make non-major parties more competitive. Because it takes political will for good to make these changes, and who has that these days?

In any event. There is presently an inquiry into the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011, which has the following memorandum

If you'd like more detail on the changes, have a look at these previous posts: 1 2 3.

The transcripts from yesterdays hearings are available here. Time permitting, I'm going to post a few blogposts on this issue as the inquiry progresses, not least of all because this is one of the most important inquiries this government will conduct this sitting.

The first witness was the Secretary of Unions NSW, Mark Lennon. The heart of his argument appears to be the extract below:

This is thinly veiled BS. There would be nothing stopping Unions NSW running an ad on their own dime. There is nothing stopping them dropping leaflets on whatever issue has upset them. What it does stop them doing is funnelling vast amounts of cash into the Labor Party.

The unions have enormous influence in the Labor Party, and if they stopped from providing cash directly, I suspect that they are concerned that the influence might evapourate.

The next witnesses were Paul McNabb and Diana Melham, both from the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW).

I want to extract the very start of their testimony.

I mean for heaven's sake. It's about time we created our own Godwin's Law for the first person to use the word UnAustralian. This stuff sends me spare.

His argument comes down to this:

He seems to fail to understand that this legislation doesn't stop him expressing anything. It stops him donating. What he really means is that this legislation stops his group buying influence, which I suppose to him might be the same thing.

You'll also notice he used my favourite word again too.

What, again? Surely that's the last time.

Nope.

I mean, if you're not going to take the process seriously then what's the point of appearing?

The next witness was Geoff Derrick, Secretary of the Finance Sector Union Australia (NSW).

Whilst his views do somewhat mirror the views of Lennon, he did make a good point about the restrictions regarding affiliated and non-affiliated unions:

This is why I am sceptical about the complexity of the bill proffered by the Coalition. Why not stop all donations by anyone besides individuals, and then let any union buy as many ads as they want? No doubt the Coalition will mobilise business in the same way, and at least then there will be some transparency to the whole thing.

Lannon's views on this are probably about right, but I suspect he and I differ on the solution to the issue.

Next was John Tingle, former MLC and Vice Chairman of the SHooters and Fishers Party.

He makes an interesting point that bears repeating:

Well, yes, precisely. People aren't going to donate as much.

What he doesn't mention is that if the changes are made parties will need to actually make a case to the public as to why they are worth donating to. If you can't convince the public of that, then I would suggest that you don't deserve of the public's hard earned.

David Avery, Honourary Secretary of the Hunter District Hunting Club Inc gave evidence broadly in line with Tingle.

Graeme Orr of the Democratic Audit of Australia (an organisation I must admit that I had never heard of) was the final witness. His evidence is a little opaque, but in short it focusses on the constitutionality of the bill, which is a complex legal issue beyond the ambit of what I want to look at here.

It will be interesting to see if many submissions are made in favour of the bill. It may well be that given that this bill hurts the otherwise powerful and emancipates the otherwise weak that we won't see much "institutional" support for the changes.

Which kinda proves the point, really.

A Shot in the Dark

2012-01-13T17:20:00.001+11:00

Shootings are scary things, and they are all the scarier when they appear to be at random.

Sydney journos have whipped themselves into a frenzy over the recent spate of shootings in Sydney, mostly confined to the city's West and South-West.

We have had front pages, large colour spreads and the usual proliferation of online articles.

From this ABC report

From this Daily Terror report

These stories are scary - there can be no denying that.

What's all the more unnerving are suggestions that innocent parties are being targeted.

Having said that, any suggestion that the residents of a home shot are entirely innocent should be taken with a grain of salt.

The residents are hardly likely to say to the police "Well, yeah, there is that guy I owe $100 000 for that bulk purchase of ecstasy I made, so yeah, maybe that was who it was."

Same goes for speculation that the shooters got the wrong house. Some crims are stupid, no doubt, but few are as bumbling as we've seen in many movies, and crims aren't generally in the business of shooting up homes for fun.

That's not to say I'm certain that every victim is actually a drug dealer - there is no way I could know that. It's also not to say the public's fears are entirely unfounded. I'm just suggesting that if you're not involved in crime, the chance of having your house shot up is pretty miniscule.

The fact that the people being shot at are not so pure is reflected in the unwillingness of many victims to give statements to police.

From this 9News story

Which bring us to this fairly idiotic tweet from Labor:

What, exactly, does Labor suggest that O'Farrell has done to bring about this rise in shootings? Has he relaxed gun laws? Has he released bikies from prison?

Of course not. If ever there was a case of an opposition trying to blame a government for something that is beyond their control, this is it.

Labor knows that they can't say "You should have X or Y before now" because whatever it is that they want to allege the Coalition should have done, Labor didn't do it either. So better to just criticise and try to make a fuss.

Having said that, the government is in fact doing something, or at least thinking about it.

From this 9News story

Whilst I can't criticise the government for considering such a change, I certainly hope that they don't start moving down this path.

People who have been arrested have a right to silence. Except in very particular circumstances, that right is pretty universal. You don't have to talk to police if you don't want to.

The fact that these victims don't want to talk to police is almost certainly because they have something to hide. They shouldn't be forced to give a statement to police about it.

If police want to investigate the victims on the assumption that "If bikies are shooting up their place, they must have something to hide" then they are free to do so. But to force people to give a statement would seem to be a step too far.

In any event - if your husband is a drug dealer, your place is shot up and police then force you to give a statement, are you going to tell police all you know? Of course not - you'll lie, which means the police will at best get nothing useful,. but at worst will get set off on wild goose chases.

The last thing I want to write about is this press release from Nathan Rees, Shadow Police Minister.

So, Rees knows that that the High Court struck down the bikie laws brought in by Labor, but thinks that O'Farrell should "replace" them? How? With what? And how will that help?

He also wants O'Farrell to "outlaw bikie gangs." How, exactly, does he propose that be done? What kind of law would permit that? If Rees offering a serious alternative, or is he just criticising with no reasonable alternative?

There's no doubt that it is an opposition's just to criticise, highlight flaws and (in a perfect world) try and push a government towards better solutions.

But Labor's approach here is to simply try and blame the Coalition for something outside their control, and then suggest that Something Must Be Done without offering any sensible basis for doing so.

I'll leave the final word to @PrestonTowers.

Paying the Price

2012-01-11T00:18:00.001+11:00

I make it a policy to not call someone a liar unless I'm 100% certain.

That might be the lawyer in me, but regardless it's probably a good policy for life.

In any event, this post is as close as I've come to just coming out and saying it. The motivation was this piece from Andrew Clennell, the Terror's State Political Editor.

Just as an aside, and I can't just let this go by, this is the first paragraph:

See how O'Farrell's name is hyperlinked? Do you want to know where it links to?

I'll leave you to make of that what you will.

In any event, the article is part of a "campaign" the Terror is running about salaries for senior Public Servants. Yesterday we had this piece, by Geoff Chambers:

There are a lot of things to say about these articles. The first is that they are an awful example of shoddy, lazy, and potentially deceptive reporting.

I've never wanted this blog to be a blog about the media. There are a few reasons, not the least of which are that there are already plenty blogs about the media and its failings. If that's your interest, I commend to you News With Nipples and Politically Homeless.

I'm interested in the media, but only insofar as it plays a major role in politics - the perception of the parties, what the media does and doesn't pick up on, and even the bias in play.

The reason I am breaking my "Don't Write About the Media" rule today is because these two pieces are a perfect example of how the media can misconstrue and obfuscate in an attempt to push an agenda. And it's an agenda that I fancy we'll be hearing a great deal more about.

The first thing the pieces do is confuse the executives at State Owned Corporations with those working for Departments.

Today's piece fails to explain that State Owned Corporations are just that - companies owned by the state. Like any company, their directors are appointed by the shareholders (Treasurer Mike Baird and Finance Minister Greg Pearce).

These companies are competing against all the regular private companies for executive talent, and therefore have to pay the "going rate".

By way of comparison, let's look at some of the salaries paid to executives at privately owned companies.

The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors has put together a quite excellent report on CEO pay that can be found here. It looks at incomes for the CEOs of the top 100 companies in Australia and helpfully breaks the income into fixed salary and short term incentives, and then a total including long term incentives.

These are the numbers for fixed salary:

Short term incentives:

Total including long term incentives:

It's a fairly simplistic analysis, but you can see that the average CEO of a top 100 company gets a touch under $5 million.

By contrast, the Tele tells us this about the state owned company executives in yesterday's piece:

And, further down:

We're told that they earned $3.5 million in bonus and increases, but not told how much their base pay was, which makes it a fairly pointless statistic. We're also told that the top earning state owned company executive earned less than ONE FIFTH of the average.

The story is a whole lot less shocking in that context. But I'll come back to that later.

Let's look at what today's story had to say about the Department heads.

In this story the Tele pretends to "hold O'Farrell to account" in relation to the salaries paid to these department heads. Fair enough.

A few points that are glossed over though. Firstly, these pay rates are all determined (for the most part) by the NSW Remuneration Tribunal. Each job has a set Remuneration Level, and the pay applicable to that Remuneration Level is set by the Tribunal. You can see their determination for this year here.

It is interesting to note that the pay increases for this year were capped at 2.5%, as they were for the rest of the NSW public service

The report explains that there are a few different forms of remuneration. The first is the base pay, as per the following table:

As well as that, an executive can be paid either a recruitment allowance or a retention allowance. This gives the government a little flexibility, to try and hold onto those executives that they feel they need. Depending on the executives remuneration level, the recruitment allowance can range up to $43 000.

In justifying the pay rates, the O'Farrell government was quoted as follows:

The range of between $402 000 and $464 600 is the prescribed range for those on Band 8. The contrast is being drawn to the salaries detailed in the first paragraph:

What this contrast does not make clear is the discretion provided by the Remuneration Tribunal to pay a recruitment or retention bonus. If the government chooses to pay the full $43 000, that brings the maximum up to $507 000, which is above everyone's figure except for Chris Eccles, head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet and Rob Mason, head of RailCorp.

How is it possible that these two are paid more? The Tele doesn't tell you.

As far as Eccles goes, it's very easy to find out. I had never been to the Remuneration Tribunal's website before, and it took me less than a minute to find this report.

And, further on:

In short, an Independent Authority fixed Mr Eccles wage. An independent authority!

Now, maybe Andrew Clenell didn't know about this report. Maybe the 2 minutes it took me to find it was all a little too much effort.

On the other hand, maybe he knew about this special determination and understands perfectly how recruitment and retention bonuses work, and decided to conceal that fact to write a more shocking story.

It's not for me to say, and no doubt you'll reach your own conclusion.

As for Rob Mason, the answer is I don't know. I've had a detailed look through the Remuneration Tribunal's website, and I've reviewed the legislation and the RailCorp Annual Review, and I can't work it out.

Either Clenell knows and isn't telling, or he didn't bother to ask when he sought comment from the government, or he had it explained to him and has decided not to share it.

Either way, a pretty shabby effort.

The point I'm trying to make in a roundabout way is that these stories are all about the Telegraph seeking to drum up outrage about the pay packets these executives are taking home.

I've written on many occasions about the anger various groups felt (and no doubt continue to feel) about O'Farrell limiting their pay increases to 2.5%. Most people will not be aware that these executives salaries were limited to the same increases. They're not aware because Clenell has chosen not to mention it.

By the same token, the salaries paid to the state owned company executives do seem large, until they are stacked up against those paid to the Top 100 companies. But that kind of analysis would have distracted from the main thrust of the story: these people are getting rich and you're getting screwed to the wall. Cue outrage and (at least, according to the plan) more sales of the Tele.

Of course, the problem for O'Farrell is that almost no one will go to the Remuneration Tribunal website and read these reports. And it may be that this battle is one that a sitting government will always lose, because the government's argument will always be about context, and an argument about context seldom triumphs over an argument designed to breed outrage.

And at a time when the public is being whipped into a frenzy about cost of living, outrage come cheap. Just read the comments on those articles.

How's That?

2012-01-05T19:38:00.001+11:00

Today was a big day at the SCG - and not just because of Michael Clark's amazing innings and Jane McGrath Day.

The crowd included three special people - Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Premier Barry O'Farrell and even former Prime Minister John Howard.

It appears from the various reports I saw that Gillard busied herself supporting the foundation, whilst O'Farrell soaked up the atmosphere and, I expect, posed for photos all day.

Photo from here

It set me off wondering about the effect of politicians appearing at sporting events - why do they do it, and does anyone care?

I should start by acknowledging one thing - politicians may just like doing it. Despite all indications to the contrary, politicians are still human beings who have likes and dislikes. It should be no surprise that, from time to time, they do things they like.

I distinctly remember years ago seeing Kerry Chikarovski at a movie theatre. She was still opposition leader at the time, and had to endure her fair share of head-turning and pointing.

But that is the price you pay for having a public persona, just like sports and movie stars.

O'Farrell regularly tweets about cultural events he has attended. It doesn't seem like an attempt to garner votes or attention - it seems to me like something he does for no reason other than that he enjoys it.

I think it safe to assume that Howard was at the game today because he loves it - he is a well known cricket tragic, and made more than his fair share of visits to commentary box over the years. Moreover, I understand that an enormous Boo echoed around the ground when he was shown on the big screen, although I suppose he is used to copping his fair share of derision these days.

I understand that Gillard paid a visit to the Channel 9 box today as well.

The below photo, taken by my friend @KateHislop shows some of the "indignities" that O'Farrell was subject to.

My view is that these appearances help politicians. It reminds us that they are, after all, ordinary people (despite their extraordinary roles). People are a little warmer towards someone who they know enjoys a day at the cricket, and having a beer with his mates.

Of course O'Farrell isn't campaigning for anything at the moment, but he is building his brand as a leader. People remember this stuff.

The problem for politicians is when their attempts to ingratiate themselves backfire. One sporting event that backfired horribly for a politician was this photo:

Click here for YouTubey goodness

If memory serves, it was meant to be Howard watching soccer on TV. You can watch the video and judge for yourself, but to me it seems incredibly staged. It bombed, because people saw it for what it was - a transparent attempt to seem part of the crowd, when (at least in that case) he was staging the whole thing for the cameras.

I don't know how much idea about or interest in cricket O'Farrell has, but if he doesn't know then he was wise to stay away from the commentary box today. Gillard made an appearance - I don't know what she said, but if she pretended to be there for any reason other than to spruik the Jane McGrath Foundation then she would have made a mistake.

Should we cynical about politicians "acting like normal people"? Sure. Everyone knows that Tony Abbott getting a truck licence is a transparent political stunt. That said, Coalition voters don't seem very bothered about those kinds of transparent stunts at the moment, but that's another issue.

But when it sincerely seems like something that the politician wants to do, I think most voters love that kind of thing.

So expect to see more of it.

UPDATE: Barry O'Farrell responded to this post on twitter, so in fairness here is what he had to say:

A Cheque Poll

2012-01-02T23:14:00.001+11:00

Polls this far out from an election really don't mean a great deal.

The problem is that there really isn't any other way to know, as a party, whether the message you are putting out there is gaining any traction at all. I suppose you can monitor the press (as any politician does) and you can keep track of what is discussed on talkback radio, but that can only gets you so far.

Even once you know the numbers, it's hard to know whether there is any effect on the election that is still over three years away.

My view is that there is practically nothing that any party can do that is going to sink them next election. It's no coincidence that O'Farrell has made a lot of very unpopular changes recently - capping salary growth for public sector workers and making changes to the police disability scheme being the most traumatic.

Police marching on Parliament. Photo from here

But the voters aren't going to remember that in three years. It is material for a Labor ad, but realistically no one is going to care a great deal.

So, I don't think that yesterday's Newspoll numbers say anything important about O'Farrell's changes:

Leaked with the usual efficiency by @ghostwhovotes

Now, I don't really want to get stuck into the details of the numbers, for those reasons. What I do want to do is note that they have barely moved an inch since the election date.

In circumstances where O'Farrell has done plenty to give the public reason to shift their allegiance, that is something that will give him comfort.

I've had a look through the old Newspoll first preference figures, and interestingly this has not been the rule previously. After coming to power in 1995, the Labor numbers went up over 4% in the first poll 4 months later, but then plummeted 8% in the next poll 2 months later.

This government was plagued by problems in it's first year relating to the delivery on some promises. The contrast to O'Farrell is worth noting - whilst he has annoyed a lot of people, the hand he was dealt in the lead-up to the election meant that he didn't in fact have to break any promises - so people are annoyed only because of what he is doing, not because he is doing something he promised not to do.

In 1999, after retaining power, the first poll 4 months later had Labor 4 points up, but then back down 2 in the following poll.

Following the 2003 election (also won by Labor), they dropped 3 points in the first poll and then remained steady, whilst in 2007 they dropped 5 points and then pulled 1 back.

From Anthony Green's blog. Obviously doesn't include 2011 result

So, why has the Coalition managed to retain this huge lead over Labor? Is it because they haven't actually broken any promises? Could it be that the public are happy to give you a free hit once in power as long as you don't break any promises?

I think so - although I'm not certain that we have the precise cause right.

It could be the fact that no promises were broken. On the other hand, it could be the fact that Labor were so reviled that only the most heinous conduct by O'Farrell would be punished. Whilst his changes have annoyed a lot of people, I fancy Joe Citizen is pretty content with how things are going at the moment, which would accord with a +21 satisfaction rating.

Either way, it bodes well for the remainder of the Coalition's term. O'Farrell may well now be encouraged to make as many unpopular changes as he wants as long as he does it soon - this will mean that he can save all the popular stuff for the 2 years leading up to the 2015 election when he will want to limit the amount of ground Labor is able to claw back.

Labor made a lot of noise in the lead-up to the election about the "blank cheque" that O'Farrell was being given. It seems that he is hard at work cashing that cheque right now.

A New Start?

2012-01-01T22:02:00.000+11:00

I hate "Year in Review" articles.

This time of year, it's just about all that journos seem to write. That said, it's hard to blame them - they need to produce copy, but there isn't much going on - so I suppose the obvious thing to do is to write about things you've already written about before.

The problem for me is that whilst I don't have deadlines, I do have a hard an fast "once a week rule", and there is nothing happening.

Well, Peter Phelps is still around:

But the thing that has intrigued me most this year is the perception of NSW Labor, and in particular the contrast between performance at the Federal and State levels.

I've written before about how reviled Labor are in NSW. Their defeat was not only resounding but also record breaking.

Federally, Labor are not doing so well either. The interesting part is that the reasons are so fundamentally different.

In NSW, Labor are still paying the price for their atrocious final term. They are not only seen as being incapable of delivering on promises, but also corrupt. The number of Labor members being investigated or prosecuted for corrupt conduct continues to grow, and it seems likely that this will persist for some time.

The fact that John Robertson has been practically hiding out has not helped their cause. When something happens he occasionally rolls the arm over and issues a press release, but over 6 months after he took charge I'd wager that most of NSW couldn't pick him out of a line-up.

That may all be deliberate. Since Labor's numbers are likely to be abysmal no matter what he does, why put himself out there and risk damaging his brand for no gain? His policy may be to lay low and ride out the storm.

Federally, Labor have a very different set of problems. The Carbon Tax remains unpopular, the pokie lobby is still hammering away, and the Kevin Rudd issue won't rest.

Tony Abbott is proving incredibly effective, and Labor are under siege, and will be til (at the very earliest) the Carbon Tax commences.

In many ways, all that NSW Labor and Federal Labor have in common is bad numbers. But what I wonder is whether Federal Labor's problems are pushing the NSW numbers even further down.

NSW Labor's problems are structural. People hate them because of what they have done. Once the public start to forget that and focus more of the Coalition's failings, the disaffected voters will start to come back. Certainly there are already reasons for the public to be angry with O'Farrell and his government.

Federally, the problems are very different. The Pokie and Climate Tax issue will go away when the changes are made and no one really notices. The Kevin Rudd issue a different one, but suffice to say Labor can fix it easily, if so motivated.

Really, the two have nothing to do with each other - but I suspect that the poor Federal numbers are still having a negative effect.

We won't be able to get much of an idea until some more polls are taken in NSW, and we are unlikely to see much of that for some time yet.

Luckily for Robertson it seems that his party is willing to give him time, and there no suggestion that he is in danger if the next poll is not an improvement. But it remains to be seen how long Labor will let it ride - when the last election was this bad, the numbers won't shoot up overnight.

It's a Coal Wind...

2011-12-26T14:53:00.000+11:00

The winds of change, they are a-blowin'.

Federal Politics this year has been dominated by the spectre Climate Change. What should we do we do about it? Will the Carbon Tax have any effect? Somewhat inexplicably, we're even arguing over whether Climate Change is really happening.

I don't know who made this awesome .gif, but I took this copy from here

In NSW we've also had a long-running conversation about Coal Seam Gas. For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, wikipedia has the following to say:

In NSW, Coal Seam Gas has been a hot issue. The Greens have, not unexpectedly, had a great deal to say on the topic.

The Department of Primary Industries explains the position as follows:

The has been an Coal Seam Gas Inquiry touring the state for some time, and a final report is due in April 2012. Copies of some of the submissions and transcripts can be found here.

This website has a great deal to say about the dangers fracking poses to the environment.

Earlier this month the government extended the moratorium on fracking, the process by which coal seam gas is extracted, to April this year. Whilst O'Farrell made some promising commitments in the lead up to the elections, some prevarication in the months since has caused concern.

The anti-fracking brigade has even found unexpected support from Alan Jones, not a man known for his environmental concerns.

Wind Farms are another issue altogether.

On one hand, there is a view that wind farms are an essential source of renewable energy, a vital part of the process of freeing us from the tyranny of coal power.

To others, they are a woefully inefficient, expensive and unreliable. But that's not been the complaints that have lead to the most recent proposal.

There are all sorts of conspiracy theories about wind farms.

Those theories are almost entirely bunkum. But this hasn't stopped O'Farrell taking action.

A proposal was released earlier this week that would make give NSW the strictest rules on wind farms in the country.

I don't propose to address those in detail today, because it's Boxing Day and the cricket is on. But suffice today that the move is a little striking.

Why is the government so tough on wind farms, where the fears are based on little more than junk science, and yet so non-committal on CSG which poses such unambiguous risks?

Could it be that the coal seam industry is run by big mining interests, which the wind industry is in its infancy, and clearly carries far less clout in NSW? Could it be that rather than basing decisions on good policy and ideology, the government is basing decisions on political expediency?

Could it be that O'Farrell cares more about convenient headlines than doing the right thing?

Who am I to say?

A Wider View

2011-12-22T22:01:00.000+11:00

Public Transport has to be among the highest priorities for a state government. For a government in a state where public transport has been neglected and designed on the back of an envelope for so long, the need is even more pressing.

It is appropriate that the O'Farrell be pressured to keep its public transport promises.

But that doesn't mean that no new roads should be built under any circumstances.

Certainly when it comes to chosing between a road project and public transport project, it would be tough to convince me that the road project is a better option.

Photo from here

Road projects typically begat more traffic, and frequently result in no net reduction in travelling times. NSW's long history of road project shows how often that is the case.

Having said that, there is a place for the Public Private Partnerships that the Labor government was so enamoured with. Many of the roads we now have were built at little or no cost to the public purse, meaning that the government had funds available to spend on public transport.

The fact that, for the most part, they failed to do so is a separate issue. PPP's are, in principle, a good idea. User pays to drive, which seems like an eminently sensible way to give commuters the option they often need, but also encourage public transport for those who are able.

Cross-City Tunnel - an adject (financial) failure. Map from here

The problem in NSW was the repeated failure of companies who engaged in these PPP's. Why they failed is a bit beyond the ambit of this post, but suffice to say it must be difficult to convince a company to engage in a new partnership when the last few infrastructure partnerships with this government have been such abject failures for the private sectors.

Map from the RMS website

The M5 is operated by Interlink. Interlink has a contract allowing it to collect tolls until 2023, upon which ownership will revert to the state.

The road is 2 lanes for most of its length. Labor negotiated at length with Interlink to widen the road to 3 lanes, but it appears that agreement was never reached.

As part of the election campaign, O'Farrell promised that the road would be widened, and he has now signed a contract the deliver on that promise.

The original plan had been that the toll collection period be extended by 4 years.

Labor had, during the campaign, criticised that option, saying that it was $680 million (tolls of $170 million per year times 4 years) in exchange for a project that would cost $350 million. Of course, that ignored the obvious fact that it was $680 million 13 years from now in exchange for $350 million worth now, which any first year actuarial student will tell you is a very different proposition.

In any event, agreement has now been reached on the following terms:
- tolls collection period extended for 3 years
- truck toll to increase from 2.5 times to car toll to 3 times
- the government to contribute $50 million in noise abatement

Usually, widenings like this only achieve something if they occur at the bottle neck. I almost never drive on the M5, and don't think I have ever done so in peak hour, but I understand that the main bottle-neck is at the M5 tunnel.

This article suggests that a duplication of the tunnel would be enormously expensive - some $4 billion. With the other promises that O'Farrell has to fund, that would seem to be thoroughly beyond the government's means.

The tunnel entrance. Photo from here

However, O'Farrell claims that 60% of the road users get off before the tunnel, meaning that these users will get considerable relief once the work is done.

That would seem to be consistent with a traffic study that suggests that the widening will decrease the rate at which traffic levels build up on the road.

At the end of the day, this deal appears to cost the government very little, and may actually result in a significant benefit to many drivers. True, in the fullness of time traffic will expand to fill this new space - but user pays means that this new traffic will provide significant income to the government once the tolls are removed in 2026.

There is one final thing to be said - the Cashback scheme. This is amongst the dumbest ideas a NSW government has ever had. Private vehicles who use the M5 are entitled to claim back their tolls. Why? It's hard to say.

Now that Cashback is in operation there is no way that O'Farrell could "sell" a proposal to remove it. That's roughly $100 million per year that could be far, far better spent.

But I suppose that's the kind of thing we've come to expect.

Recalling the Debate

2011-12-16T14:16:00.003+11:00

Labor's defeat at the last election was one of the most comprehensive in NSW's history.

The anger and resentment had built up to such a degree that various people spoke of Labor being all but "wiped out" at the election,

It is at times like that, when a government has clearly been roundly condemned by a population well before an election, that fixed terms really grate. Of course, had there not been fixed terms, there is no way that a Labor Premier would have called an election, so the fixed term question was moot.

The only way a population can successfully demand an election is through recall. And, Barry O'Farrell was quick, in Labor's final years, to promise to investigate the possibility of NSW constitutional change to allow recall elections.

I've written about that promise here.

Three constitutional experts were gathered and tasked with putting together a report on the feasibility of recall elections in NSW, and their report was publically released earlier this week. It can be found here.

The report is some 150 pages long, and is quite detailed. That said, it is very readable, and worth spending some time looking through if you are interested.

You'll notice the date. It is clear that the report was completed some time ago, but was not released to the public until an enquiry by the Herald. That may give you some clue as to what the Coalition government intends doing with it.

The report spends some time looking at NSW's history as a democracy, and then has a detailed look at the history of recall elections in other jurisdictions. It also provides a fascinating account of the recent Wisconsin and California recall experience.

It also spends some time looking at the way that MLC's and MLA's can be dismissed from service.

The report's conclusions are the most interesting part of the report, and it is here that I was to focus my attention for the moment.

The first conlusion reached by the panel is there is little point in recall elections for specific MLA's or MLC's. It is rare that an electorate's dissatisfaction with a local member could be sufficient to justify the recalling on that member excepting in circumstances where ICAC or the parliament's disciplinary bodies could adequately deal with the issue.

Given the nature of our party representation, it is also difficult to envisage how such a move could have any practical effect except in a knife-edge hung parliament.

At the upper house, additionally, there is substantial risk of any such provision being misused by a ruling party to "whittle down" minor party representation.

This is not an unusual position - many of the recall election provisions in other jurisdictions relate to democratic systems with a powerful executive, and the recall is usually for the Governor or President him or herself.

In the Westminster system, where the Premier is simply the member of the lower house who can command the house's confidence, any such provision would not really make a lot of sense.

On the other hand, the panel favoured the introduction of recall elections for the entire Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. The model proposed is as follows:

- A recall election petition can be commenced through the lodging, by 500 person eligible to vote, of a petition.
- The petition cannot be lodged less than 18 months after the last election. If a recall election is to be called, all procedural steps must have been taken place no less than 6 months before the next election.
- There is no need for there to be any particular reason for the petition.
- "Signtures" can then be collected online (with telephone and mail options) for a period of 60 days.
- For the petition to be successful, 35% of eligible voters will need to sign it, as well as 5% from every electorate.
- If sufficient signatures are collected then a recall election will be held in conjunction with a new election. In other words, the electors will cast one vote for whether the government should be recalled, another vote for who should be their local representative, and another upper house vote in the usual fasion. Of course the second and third votes only come into play if the first vote is successful.
- Only those MLC's whose term was due to expire at the next election are forced to re-contest.

On the whole, the proposal seems like a sensible one. For me, the only concern as far as the model goes is the 35% figure.

It is an extraordinarily large number.As of the 2011 election, there were 4 635 810 people on the electoral roll in NSW. This means that the petition would need 1 622 533 signatures. By way of comparison, in 2011 a total of over just 1 900 000 chose the LNP as their first preference in the upper house.

Taken from the NSW Electroal Commission Website

Given the scale of the blowout in the last election, that must give anyone planning any such petition concern. The number is even more daunting when you consider that a significant proportion of that 1 900 000 would have chosen the LNP as a default, because they were told to or because it was the only party the knew. How many of those people would go to the trouble to sign a petition?

When one considers how difficult it can be to get Australians interested enough in politics to actually do something, I have serious doubts as to whetherthe 35% mark could ever be reached.

In any event, reading the report has only strengthened my view that George Williams' reticence about recall elections is entirely justified

At the end of the report, each of the 3 panel members wrote a few pages explaining why they have come to the view they have. Mr William's view is that the cons (specifically, the effect on long-term decision making, the insurmountable practical difficulties, the susceptability of recall elections to overtly strategic purposes and the fall-off in public demand) mean that the change should not be made.

The other concern I would add to that is that of a perpetual campaign. It is good and proper that an opposition hold a government to account by enthusiastically and forcefully seeking to demonstrate the government's failings.

What is undesireable is what he have seen Federally over the last year. Federal Labor's tenuous hold on power has encouraged the Coalition to not cease campaigning after the last election. If there was the real prospect of a recall election, one shudders to think of way that an opposition could contantly seek to stoke the fires of dissatisfaction.

I think that it is better that a party be able to rule "in peace" for a period of time and implement their agenda without worrying that the rug might get pulled out for under them at 60 days notice.

If anything, I would far prefer that the 4 year term be reduced to 3 years. That would, in my view, make it far more likely that a "bad" government would be turfed out before things got too bad.

It remains to be seen whether the O'Farrell government will take the steps needed to introduce a referendum on recall elections. It may well be that his failute to release the report before now suggests that he has no intention of doing so.

Accessing the Anger?

2011-12-14T19:58:00.002+11:00

Some people will say we shouldn't be surprised. They are a Liberal government, after all.

Could O'Farrell really be planning to fund the North West Rail Link through an "access fee"?

Earlier today the Hills Transport Group put out a press release that quoted RailCorp CEO Rob Mason as saying in a memo that "a private sector entity will design, construct, commission, operate and maintain the North West Rail link... for a period of 20 to 30 years." The press release goes on to explain that this will operate under an "access model".

In plain English, that means that there will be a special station surcharge for travel on the line, similar to the hated Airport Link surcharge.

As a caveat, I should say that there has been no formal announcement or acknowledgment from the government. O'Farrell may deny any such plans, and it will be anyone's guess whether he has had a quick change of heart or whether Mason was speaking out of turn.

But the plan really does seem crazy. Ridiculous, unbelievable, hubris-fueled crazy.

The North West is Sydney's biggest growth area. These people need access to public transport, as the constantly worsening traffic chaos on the major feeder roads attests.

This is why the North West Rail Link is essential if Sydney is to manage its growth. A government cannot simply keep releasing more and more land to developers and not build heavy rail to get these people around. It should have been built by now, but we can't blame the Coalition for that.

Map of the proposed route. Taken from the line's website

To be fair, it is true that a privatised line would be cheaper for the government (and, therefore, the people). The government should spend our money carefully, and if there is a cheaper and equally effective way to move people around then it should be investigated.

Equally, I'm a believer in user pays, to a point. Tolls on roads are appropriate if the tolls are used to fund said roads. There is no particular reason to encourage people to drive, and anyone who lives in the North West and drives to the city for work knows what they are signing on for.

Rail, however, should be encouraged (and yes, subsidised) by government. Rail is cheaper, it is better for the environment, it takes up less space, it is clean and it is far more expandable. We cannot just keep jamming more roads and tunnels into our city - we need a good network that grows as the city grows.

While a private model would cost less money up front, under an access model the people who use the line would simply make up the difference. In other words, the private model would shift the cost away from the rest of the state and towards those people who will actually use the line.

On the surface, that makes sense. They're getting the benefit, right? No.

Those people who get the train stay off the roads. Their polluting cars stay in the garage. The fuel they would buy stays in the bowser. More bridges, tunnels and parking lots stay on the drawing board. The CBD is that little bit nicer, less crowded, and easier to get in and out of.

Moreover, people suddenly have good reason to live in the North West, knowing that they will have a way to get to work. The rest of Sydney will have a little less pressure to grow and shoe-horn in even more people.

The rest of Sydney has access to heavily subsidised public transport. Why do those in the North West deserve any less?

This revelation is particularly surprising in light of the Infrastructure funding models that I wrote about less than a week ago. In that interview O'Farrell explained quite clearly the value of doing things the "hard way". He was right. The North West Rail Link needs to be built, and he needs to find some other way of paying for it.

Public transport (and particularly heavy rail) is the skeleton on which a city is built. And, like an animal without a good skeleton, a city without a good skeleton is liable to collapse.

Putting a massive surcharge onto the line to fund it will simply mean far, far less people will use the line. They will keep driving and paying those tolls because, suddenly, the train trip isn't as economical as it was.

The North West Rail Link has the potential to be O'Farrell's greatest achievement in government. It was one of the key promises that got him elected.

If he blows it by making it horrendously expensive to use, I have no doubt he'll not be allowed to forget it.

UPDATE. The Herald and the Telegraph both have stories about this today.

Additionally, O'Farrell responded on twitter late last night:

A Phelps of an Afternoon

2011-12-13T18:07:00.001+11:00

So. My blog last Friday caused a bit of a stir.

Some people were supportive. Some were abusive (towards me and @Nyx2701) and were promptly unfollowed and/or blocked.

@PeterPhelpsMLC certainly hasn't been turned off twitter. He also hasn't been banned by O'Farrell, it would seem.

In any event, Phelps and I ended up sparring for a part of this afternoon. You can make what you like of the conversation - I'm just going to post it below as best I can. It did shoot off in a few different directions (as conversations on twitter are wont to do) but hopefully it makes sense.

I think my view is clear, as is his.

The conversation started out this story on the Sydney Morning Herald Website.

The story explained that Conroy had been answering questions at the National Press Club on investment in Australia. It was being broadcast on the ABC at the time. He apparently said the following:

The story wasn't particularly interesting, to me at least. He accidentally swore, he immediately realised it was inappropriate, apologised and moved on.

The fuss the Herald made about was a little ridiculous, but par for the course in a media culture where it's "all about the clicks".

In any event, @LatikaMBourke tweeted this:

Phelps replied soon after:

My response was this:

From there the conversation kinda just flowed:

For those of you not in the know, my twitter avatar is of Jules Winnfield, a character in the brilliant Tarantino movie Pulp Fiction. Jules has, to say the least, a potty mouth.

A few people chimed in along the way:

Coming back to Peter and me:

Look, no doubt you have your own opinion about this conversation. Maybe you think I'm being a bit precious. I don't know.

I guess my point is this. I'm not "offended" by anything he has said. What I am is disappointed that someone who has been elected as my representative in this State's Upper House thinks that this is an appropriate way to behave.

Yes, I can unfollow him. But that's not the point. Politicians have a responsibility to act like adults and treat voters with respect.

I don't care what Peter is like in private. I've certainly heard comments about that, but it's not the point. If you want to get out there and engage with the community (which is a fantastic thing for a politician to do, in my opinion) then you'd better bring your courtesy with you.

If being polite is a little too hard, then we'd all rather you didn't bother.

A True Reflection?

2011-12-09T15:32:00.001+11:00

Some politicians really shouldn't get involved in social media.

There are those that use networks like twitter just to broadcast things that are going on, rather than actually interacting with the community. I suppose that is better than nothing, but only just.

Then there are those politicians who don't seem to realise that when you behave on twitter like you behave in private, people notice. And it matters.

I give you @PeterPhelpsMLC.

Photo from his twitter page

Peter's only been on twitter for a few weeks, but already some of his tweets recently have struck me as a little odd.

We've had comment on the "Libertarian support for unrestricted drug use":

I don't even understand this one:

We've had an intelligent contribution to the Global Warming debate:

There's been a little dating advice for protesters, which was generous of him:

In any event, this morning I saw this tweet and decided to say something:

More than a little disturbed by such juvenile behaviour a Member of the Legislative Council, I tweeted the following:

Subsequently, several people including Penny Sharpe (Labor MLC) have claimed that it is a real account.

A good friend of mine then tweeted the following:

This is what Peter had to say:

I still can't believe someone who has been elected to sit in our Upper House could be stupid enough to send that kind of tweet.

I'll leave the final word to Peter himself. This was the first tweet he sent:

Peter, clearly it would be better for all of us if you handed your BlackBerry into someone responsible. You're a disgrace.

UPDATE: I've attempted to bring this blogpost to both Peter and his staff's attention, as well as Barry O'Farrell. If I receive any comment, I'll be sure to post it here.

UPDATE 2: Jo Tovey just published this piece on SMH

UPDATE 3: Barry O'Farrell just tweeted the following. It wasn't a response to me as such, but it is pretty clear what it is about.

UPDATE 4: So now this is a thing:

From the SMH front page

Also, this made me laugh...

It appears that this has caused a stir....

An Expensive Ambition

2011-12-08T19:43:00.001+11:00

I understand the need to illustrate news stories with photos. We are visual people, and almost everyone prefers their writing to have some pretty pictures.

There is quite an art to these pictures - the photo needs to go with the story so there is some synergy. It would jar to have a picture of a happy politician next to a story about how his or her stocks have fallen recently.

Having said all that, the below picture is a fairly ridiculous accompaniment to the story on O'Farrell's repudiation of "commentators" assessment of the value of the "poles and wires":

Photo from the Tele

If this photo was posed, then someone in O'Farrell's office deserves a smack about the head. He looks ridiculous.

Moving on, the Telegraph has this week continued its campaign for the sale, as is evident from this paragraph:

As it happens, he is right about their being no "magic pudding". Why he has chosen to describe it as a "magic pudding" rather than a "magic bullet" like any sensible English speaker would is beyond me, but we'll put that aside for the moment.

O'Farrell went on to nominate 4 ways in which the government can raise the money to get stuck into the "infrastructure backlog" left by Labor.

Each of these suggestions merits some further attention.

Realising assets is, politically, an extremely sensitive issue. I've previously discussed the practical effect, and the unavoidable consequence of union outrage.

Of course the obvious problem is that once assets are sold, they are gone. If the asset is producing an income, then it is fair to ask whether the state is actually getting value for money. This is naturally a question that can only be answered by looking at the specific facts and figures for that particular sale.

Federal funding is a vexed issue. On one hand, O'Farrell's federal counterparts have campaigned heavily against Federal Labor's perceived overspending, so NSW can't complain too much if the belt is pulled a little tighter. GST flows regardless, but the breakup of the funds is always a difficult issue.

The last time NSW applied for Federal funding the entire matter was botched by Labor's average efforts, so hopefully the Coalition Government will put up a better show. But it remains a source of funding that cannot be relied on.

Of course, sometimes the Federal government steps in for flagrantly political reasons, such as when NSW Labor promised to build the North-West Rail Link in the lead-up this year's election

Photo from SMH

Growing the state's economy is by far the best option, but also the most difficult. There are a thousand variables that affect how likely any such effort is to succeed, and those efforts can be derailed by factors far outside the government's control. Additionally, economic growth and the additional tax income it brings also bring with it cost - new residents need public amenities and expenditure on teachers, nurses and the like.

On the other hand, the cash inflow is semi-permanent, it is recurring, and it can be very substantial.

Finally, borrowing within AAA. The issue of our credit rating has been a recurring issue of late, and the Labor government was roundly criticised not so long ago for its slavish adherence to AAA.

It does make sense to maintain a good credit rating. The cost saving is significant and it attracts investment.

Like anything else though, someone needs to look at the cost/benefit. I don't believe that we need to protect the AAA at all costs, and it is entirely conceivable that it may be worth sacrificing AAA to build a particular piece of infrastructure.

At the end of the day, as I have said many times before, O'Farrell said that he wants to be the Infrastructure Premier. That is a noble goal, and a goal worth pursuing. But the corollary is that being the Infrastructure Premier is going to take money. Many, many billions.

It is a very, very difficult promise to keep.

O'Farrell also promised to deliver open government, and multiple departments' now infamous failings in this area have received a great deal of coverage.

That was a promise that cost very little, and merely required a little political will - and yet that has slipped away.

NSW will not allow such laziness when it comes to infrastructure. It is right and proper that a sensible, measured approach is taken to the projects - we certainly want to avoid another Sydney Metro debacle.

But if a significant number of the promised projects are not moving by the next election (I'm thinking here partcularly of the North West Rail link) then there will be hell to pay at the ballot box.

A two-roled Clover

2011-12-04T15:17:00.001+11:00

Clover Moore's dual-role as mayor of Sydney and local member for Sydney in State Parliament has always made me feel a little uneasy.

From what I understand, even the humble back-bencher's job is a gruelling role. There are local constituents to keep happy, mountains of legislation to keep on top of, and long hours in parliament itself. When you attempt all that as an independent - that is to say, someone who (at least in theory) considers each new bill on its individual merits rather than just following the party line - well, it's no wonder that politicians complain about never seeing their families.

It seems inconceivable that any member of parliament could maintain a 2nd job as well - but that is exactly what Clover Moore has done, and for a long time at that. She has been the local member for Sydney (previously named Bligh) since 1987 and Lord Mayor of Sydney since 2004 (see her Wikipedia for some interesting background).

Electoral Division of Sydney. Map from the AEC

It's clear that she is not doing it for the money. As mayor she is paid over $110 000 to go with her salary as a Lower House member of just under $140 000, but has consistently donated her entire mayoral salary to inner-city charities.

It seems more likely that she is just a workaholic who has a passion for Sydney and wants to do whatever she can to advance her agenda. Certainly during her tenure as mayor of Sydney she has done a great deal to make Sydney a better place (or, at least, what she thinks would make it a better place).

She is famously skeptical of some new developments but has eagerly championed others, has introduced kilometres of new bike paths, fought for the rights of homosexuals and fought against the sale of dogs and cats in pet shops.

She may soon, however, have to give up one of her roles if legislation mooted by the NSW Government is passed. A discussion paper on the topic can be found here.

The interesting part about the paper is this. There are a surprisingly large number of members of the legislative assembly who serve on councils:

According to Jo Tovey's article on the discussion paper:

So, whilst the law will apply to everyone equally, Moore is likely to be the only person to have their hand forced by the change.

However, as Tovey correctly notes, the Coalition is very unlikely to win the mayoral race if Moore does step down, so there would not seem to be any direct political advantage in having her step down. That said, a few Liberal donors may well believe that anyone but Moore would be preferable.

The discussion paper is surprisingly readable and easy to understand - it covers in detail the pros and cons of allowing councillors to serve in parliament. I don't propose to summarise them here, but they bear reading.

For me though, the most important question is this one: is there a conflict of interest?

What that paragraph says, in short, is that the dual roles are not a conflict of interest - rather it is just that it can be perceived as such. Whilst perceptions are important, and if people are going to perceive a conflict of interest then it is a matter of concern, my personal view is that the risk is low enough to be of fairly minor concern.

The most important pro this this one:

Clover Moore (and every other dual-role member) was elected through a popular election. She broke no laws, and her opponents no doubt had plenty to say about the fact that she was going to be serving two roles.

Clearly the voting public is very unconcerned by any perceived conflict of interest or the workload. This wasn't something that was secret like a bribe or a promise of quid pro quo - everyone knew, and, presumably, almost no one cared.

In those circumstances, where there is no actual conflict of interest, what business does the government have stepping in and making laws about who should be able to serve in these dual-roles?

Hopefully the discussion paper will receive a wide range of responses. I'll certainly put in a response and post is here if I remember.

A Position of Power

2011-12-01T19:18:00.001+11:00

Privitisation is, in many ways, one of the defining differences between the left and the right.

The right believes that governments are bad at running businesses, and wherever possible business should be left up to business.

The left believe that business are pretty good at screwing everyone possible if it means an extra dollar or two.

To some extent at least, both are right.

That's not meant to be a shameless attempt at fence sitting - my view that governments are pretty bad at running businesses. Almost invariably a business run by government will be less efficient, often because of higher wage costs.

Privitisation almost always leads to lower wage bills, usually through a reduction in pay and conditions but often also because of redundancies. A service provided a business will therefore often be a lower quality service. It's little wonder that unions oppose privitisation almost as a reflex.

There is a middle ground somewhere - privitisation is not always right any more than it is always wrong.

The best known example of privitisation in Australia is Telstra. The Howard government made a packet out of the sale (although not as much as they should have) that was spent on (mostly) tax cuts. It's not really fair to compare service in telecommunications over different decades, but the prevailing view is that the service provided by Telstra today is of a far lower quality than when it was a government asset.

Photo from the ABC

That actually provides a pretty neat seque to the discussion about electricity privitisation debate in NSW, for this reason: the Howard government sold not only the retailer but also the infrastructure - the phone lines themselves.

These days Telstra rents that same network to the other telecommunication companies, and is undoubtedly a more valuable company than it would be without that asset. But the kerfuffle about the NBN shows, in part, the dangers of selling off infrastructure like a telephone network.

Before the last election Labor practically tore itself apart deciding what to do with the electricity network. In the end, thanks to the Coalition opposing the deal, Labor was not able to secure the sale. Iemma's quote summed up the situation quite neatly: "The leader of the Opposition [O'Farrell] knows that the Government's approach is right. Yet for five minutes of political advantage he has displayed all the principles of an economic vandal."

Following from Iemma's demise, the Labor Party's position seemed firmly anti-privitisation. In fact, O'Farrell's refusal to rule out privitisation was the reason for a particularly unpleasant ad leading up to the election:

O'Farrell repeatedly said that they would wait for the Tamberlin report, which I have written about here.

The GenTrader deal never really made any sense, and in my view it is sensible in principle for the retailers to be sold. Of course the price that can be obtained is a different story entirely, and that will be a question of fact at the appropriate time.

No doubt, however, we'll be plagued by a thousand different calculations of the "true value" of the asset and the actual realised amount, such that it will be almost impossible to perceive, through the fog of partisanship, whether the government has actually secured a good deal.

The controversial and interesting aspect of the Coalition cabinet's decision, however, is the fact that the decision has been made to keep the "poles and wires" in public hands.

This has important implications because the value of the sale is drastically reduced as a result. The poles and wires are far and away most the valuable part of the network, and selling the full network would result in a massive windfall for the government.

Nick Greiner has come out and said that the government has "absolutely, totally no alternative" to flogging the poles and wires if it wants to "move the needle" on infrastructure.

In fact, the Daily Terror had this on its front page earlier this week:

From this story

The Terror has also published this editorial that calls O'Farrell a "fencesitter".

The graphic abour really explains the Terror's point of view quite neatly - the assets should be sold so that the money can be spent. O'Farrell has made a lot of expensive promises, and we all know that the money has to come from somewhere.

The current political landscape makes it difficult for O'Farrell to borrow large amounts (although it would be interesting to see if the Terror pursued him for borrowing in the same way it has pursued the Federal Government). Further, no one needs to think hard to remember what a sparkling success public-private partnershipshave been in this state.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that the poles and wires should be sold so that the money can be spent elsewhere. The discussion then becomes opportunity cost - what is the better use of the government's money?

That is the nub of the discussion - by not selling the poles and wires the government is retaining its $20 billion odd investment in the power network. If sold, the retailers would need to pay for access. They will of course need to pay no matter who owns the wires, but at present the cash flows straight to the government.

John Robertson is claiming that power prices will rise as a result, and he is probably right. Services provided by government usually increase in price and decrease in quality once sold.

But the Terror has hit on O'Farrell's problem - he has to find the money to pay for his promises. If he wants to avoid borrowing (and presumably he does) then he needs to start selling things. Presumably this is why Mike Baird, Gladys Berejiklian, Greg Pearce, Pru Goward and Andrew Constance all argued for the full sale.

I hope for his sake that at that cabinet meeting he explained where he is going to find this money. If he is going to be the Infrastructure Premier we all know he wants to be, he will need cash.

The Thin Blue Picket Line

2011-11-25T16:04:00.001+11:00

Compensation for police officers injured in the line of duty is an inevitably difficult issue for a government.

Police work is physically dangerous. It always has been - you can do all the OH&S assessments you like, but criminals will still shoot at police and police will still need drive at 200+km/h to catch drivers who don't stop.

Of course, physical injuries are just part of the danger. There can be no doubt that policing can and does cause not mental distress and mental injury.

For those reasons, it is unsurprising that police have high numbers of officers on stress leave, sick leave and disability leave. And yes, it costs an absolute fortune to pay all these officers who are on leave for work related injuries.

That's part of the price we pay to have a police force. They will suffer mental and physical injuries. They need to know that if they are injured they will be (financially) protected - or else they simply won't do the job.

Having said all of that, the government needs to find the funds to pay for this. And when budgets are tight (not that I couldn't suggest a few places to find the cash) the government may find it difficult to justify the cost.

Moreover, the government's arguments about getting officers back to work do make sense. As I understand it, there is presently a tendency for officers to receive a large lump sum payout once they are assessed as being permanently incapacitated. This article claims that these payouts are collequially known as "mortgage busters" - and having worked in public service myself I don't find that hard to believe.

Police Minister Mike Gallagher looking upset about something. From here

It may well be that there should be a shift in attitudes so that officers who are injured (mentally and physically) are encouraged to get back to work once they are able, rather than been sent out to pasture. That said, this fact sheet put together by the police union suggests that there are also significant changes to not only the timing but also the quantum of compensation, meaning that officers may be financial devastated if they are injured.

What's the solution? Well, for once, I'm not going to smug and tell the government what it's doing wrong. They are either going to upset the police, who have a tremendous amount of bargaining power given the nature of police strike action, or they are going to create a budget headache.

Rightly or wrongly, the role of police in the community gives the force a disproportionate ability to cause chaos with their strikes. This means that if you want to take something away from police, you need to be certain that you will win the public relations argument.

Striking police earlier this week. Photo from here

I can't see how the O'Farrell government can do that. Of course, given the recent poll results they may take a "devil may care" approach, but if they want to avoid a protracted and ugly campaign they will have to give something away.

Of course, the inevitable problem for a Liberal government is that once they start giving into strike action, they can essentially make a rod for their own backs. If unions know that the O'Farrell is willing to give in if pushed hard enough, they may be all the more likely to take action.

The solution may well be for the Liberals to cave on some apects of the plan and find a middle ground. If a middle can be charted (perhaps where officers forced onto payments rather than a payout are not financially penalised) then the Liberals may achieve their goal of giving police a motivation to go back to work.

But if the government digs its feet in - let's just say that this could be one strike that really does do some damage.

A Win for Everyone

2011-11-19T22:10:00.001+11:00

Is it possible for everyone to be a winner? In a by-election, yes.

I've written previously about the way that even if the Nationals won the Clarence by-election (as they inevitably would) Labor would be claiming the result as a win, and living off it for some time. There was never any doubt that there would be a swing back to Labor, given that the National's member had resigned in disgrace just 6 months after an election.

Disgraced National Steve Cansdell.

Electorates always take out their anger at returning to the polls so soon after an election, no matter what the reason. The circumstances of Cansdell's departure meant that their anger would be heightened, and the size of the swing increased.

The equation was further muddied by the absence of a high-profile independent. While this may affect primary votes, the NAT/ALP 2PP should in theory be unaffected - but of course these things are not always as simple or straight forward as that.

In the event, the results look like this (thanks to Antony Green, whose analysis has been brilliant, as always):

From here

A few salient points.

First of all, the vast majority of Richie Williamson's votes (the majority of the OTH row) flowed across to the ALP. That was to be expected.

But the 2PP for the National's was well down, although in fairness it was more or less what had been predicted.

What really interested me tonight was both sides trying to count the result as a win.

For the Nationals it was easy, given that they had actually won. Andrew Stoner had this to say:

He followed that up with an interesting response to a comment from ABC reporter Mark Tobin:

His point is a fair one, and it picks up quite neatly on just one of the reasons that the swings that we will no doubt be hearing about for some time are essentially meaningless.

Another point he might have made was that there was clearly a large "anyone but Labor" vote in March. Some of that bitterness would be expected to have evaporated by now.

Funnily enough, the swing was what John Robertson chose to focus on:

Whilst the numbers he has quoted are more or less correct, he is perhaps misusing them slightly to fit the narrative I predicted Labor would try to run. His spin of the reason for the swing is little more than wishful thinking, in my view.

Nonetheless, the ALP will be hoping that this will continue the growing disquiet about the O'Farrell government. Nothing reinforces an uneasiness felt by a swinging voter than the impression that lots of other people feel the same way.

As journos start (inevitably) picking up on that narrative, Robertson will have at his disposal a powerful tool to starting chipping away that those awful polling numbers that were released earlier this week.

As for the Greens, however, they've really had very little to say. I'm not aware of any Greens MLC or MLA who has made any comment on twitter (or elsewhere) at this stage regarding the result.

The Greens have been campaigning hard on the Coal Seam Gas issue, and may have been expecting a bump from farmers concerned about the effect on their land and particularly their water supply. Especially given the lack of a high-profile IND candidate, a swing of 0.3% is really a loss of the Greens,

John Kaye tweeted this photo earlier today, so clearly he is involved, but hasn't been heard from since:

In any event, the Greens' numbers will really only interest Greens members and wonks like myself. The interesting part will be following the media over the next few days as the Nationals try to talk about how they won and as Labor tell anyone who can hold a pen about the massive swings they achieved.

It's going to be a fascinating week.

Killing off Debate

2011-11-17T15:16:00.001+11:00

Is there a more emotive question than whether voluntary euthanasia should be a legal?

Whilst I have of course experienced the death of a relative, I have never had to deal with the horror of seeing loved one, terminally ill, dying in pain.

I can't even comprehend how I would deal with that. It would be utterly awful.

Miscellaneous photo to illustrate grief. From here

The pain would only be magnified by that person asking you to help them die. Whilst many terminally ill people are unable to communicate, most are, and no doubt many would prefer to end their life "on their own terms".

Such a preference is often (maybe even usually?) totally rational. When one has lived a long, rich life, it is not hard to imagine why someone would rather end at it at the time of their chosing, rather than lingering for an indeterminate period, often in horrednous pain.

In a world where those statements could be trusted, and where we could trust relatives to care for their elderly relatives, there would in my view be little reason to oppose the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia.

We already allow persons to indicate that they do not wish to receive treatment or be resuscitated. We allow doctors to withdraw treatment from persons who cannot be revived. Why the distinction?

In part, the reason is that we cannot always rely on requests to die.

It does not take much imagination to foresee an elderly relative, perhaps a bit doddery or just old and frail, being pressured by a family member to end it - not for the elderly person's benefit, but rather for the relatives.

It may be intentional. It may be a subtle hint. It may be just a resignation or frustration hinted by deed or word.

Miscellaneous photo to illustrate elderly. From here

An even more difficult question is working out whether any euthanasia scheme should be limited to those who are terminally ill. The old expression is that, over a long enough time line, everyone is terminal - how sick should you have to be? Should pain be a prerequisite?

Moreover, who is going to decide whether the criteria are met? Bear in mind that persons wishing to end their life are often under significant financial stress, and may not be able to afford the cost of doctor reports, legal representation and psychiatric assessments.

In the alternative, should we allow anyone, in any circumstance, for any reason, to ask to be killed? Should there be a cooling off period? A mental health assessment? Are we comfortable people walking in off the street and asking to die?

My person view is that if a sane, rational person wants to die, then I can't see what right I have to stop them. What gives me trouble is how we build a system of laws around that - what sort of regulation or set of rules will achieve the aim of seperating those with a rational, sane desire to die from those in the grips of depression, or a relative wanting a hassle off their hands?

These are difficult questions. No doubt they are questions we will have cause to mull over once Cate Faeurhmann (GRN) introduces her bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia next year. Hopefully there will be a public consultation period, and if time permits I'll be making a submission.

The lady herself. From here

Voluntary euthanasia is a topic that fits very neatly with the Greens progressive agenda, and we can expect the usual suspects to come out in force for and against the bill.

Most likely with the intention of kicking off this debate, a Dying with Dignity Forum was held at Parliament house on Tuesday. Speakers included Nicholas Cowdery (ex NSW DPP who has long spoken in favour of voluntary euthanasia) and former Northern terrritory Chief Minister Marshall Perron (who was at the helm when the NT briefly had a law allowing voluntary euthanasia).

If Liberal MP's are allowed a conscience vote (as the article suggests) then all bets really are off as to whether the bill will pass. On one hand, this is a Green bill, and strongly progressive one at that. Conversely, elderly people tend to support euthanasia is far greater numbers than younger people who have perhaps never seen a loved one die in pain.

If we're lucky, we may even see the kind of vigorous debate we saw when RU486 was debated in the Federal Parliament in 2006.

I don't know what the result will be, and I daren't predict the outcome. But I'm ready for an enthusiastic flurry of lobbying as those with a vested interest launch a campaign.

Now THAT will be a Hansard worth reading.

A First Impression

2011-11-10T20:59:00.001+11:00

The first NSW Newspoll since the election. It ain't pretty reading for Labor.

Labor primary is at 22%. Twenty-two percent!

That is 3.5% less than what they polled at the election. Looking at the numbers before the election makes it even more striking.

Shamelessly nicked from Newspoll and The Australian

From the 2007 election the number slowly trended downwards from 39% to 23% shortly before the election. It may be that the 23% just before the election and the 22% now are both an underestimate, and the true figure is 25% they polled at the election, but either way, the numbers are still subterranean.

The TPP has deteriorated too: down marginally from 36% to 34%.

There are a few things I should say at this point, in fairness. First of all, the next election is 42 months away. Whilst the Clarence election is next weekend, the polling numbers are not actually going to "matter" for some time yet.

Further, voting intentions at a time well outside the lead-up to an election are not worth much because people aren't in a place where who they might vote for enters their mind, not to mention that the parties are not in anything resembling campaign mode.

That said, polls do give politicians an idea of how they are tracking. I firmly believe that any politician who claims that they don't read polls is a liar - polls matter, and for better or worse they motivate a great deal of what our politicians do.

Labor will be disappointed with these numbers. They have to be.

In saying that, I note what The Poll Bludger has had to say today:

Respectfully, I disagree. Regular readers (yes! Both of you!) will know that I have had a great deal to say about how Barry O'Farrell has, to be frank, pissed a lot of people off since his election: solar panel owners, public service unions and Green voters. We've had a minister resign in disgrace, another minister (as yet unnamed, publically at least) accused of a public sex act, and an administration whose gloss (it has seemed to me, at least) has started to wear off.

And yet the Coalition's numbers are BETTER than at the election?

It seems that the voters must still be hanging onto their revulsion at the thought of a Labor government. It is the only reason I can think of why there has not been a leakage of "Close you eyes and think of England" Coalition voters back to Labor.

Additionally, John Robertson has remained fairly anonymous outside of the BearPit, to the extent that Kristina Keneally, just about the only non-freshman Labor member without a shadow ministry, has a bigger profile than him.

That explains, I think, his incredibly low approval rating.

People don't know him and can't think of something positive he has done, and are therefore unlikely to approve of his performance.

It's early. And this poll doesn't actually make any difference to anything other than the Clarence by-election, which is already in the bag for the Nationals. But if you think there are no Labor members concerned about this, you're kidding yourself.

Sean Nichols article in the Herald today took a very different tack. Besides a brief opening about Robertson's very low approval, the article focussed on the halving of the National's support, and questioned whether the Coal Seam Gas issue is to blame.

On this issue, I think that the Poll Bludger is most likely right.

The Liberals' primary is up 6%, and I fancy that the vast majority of those that have left the Nationals' column have ended up in the Liberals'. If not, what other explanation is there for the Liberals' numbers going up at the same time as the Nationals' numbers go down? At the very least you would expect the Liberals' numbers to stay steady.

These numbers are unlikely to have any real world implications. No one will be suggesting that Robertson's time is up - he will be given years (not months) to get Labor into a position where 2015 is winnable. Even if he doesn't manage that, most people expect that the Coalition will have 8 years (at least) and the expectation may merely be that he gets them close enough to have decent shot (with a more viable candidate) in 2019.

But that doesn't mean they are going to like being where they are at. Not one bit.

By the by

2011-11-06T16:01:00.000+11:00

Some things mean so little and yet so much at the same time.

The Nationals will win the by election in Clarence, and they will do so at a canter. Anthony Green, Australia's greatest election savant has declared it to be so, calling the seat a "Certain National Party retain".

Not that he needed to be a savant to make that call - the Nationals dominated this seat in March. Steve Cansdell's TPP vote v Labor of 81.8% made was the 5th highest in the state, trailing only Davidson, Ku-Ring Gai (both lodged deep in Sydney's North Shore), Pittwater (Sydney's Northern Beaches) and Hawkesbury (a seat the Libs have held since 1950).

In fact, the ALP didn't even manage to grab 2nd place. An Independent by the name of Richie Williamson nabbed second spot with 17% of the first preference votes.

Table from NSW Electoral Commission

From Anthony Green's blog

In this article on SMH, Williamson indicated that was willing to discuss running for preselection as the Nationals candidate. I've done some searching and I've been unable to ascertain if Williamson was at any time a Nationals member In any case, this Northern Star article explained that Williamson ran for preselection for the Nationals this October as a part of a crowded field, as is common when a by-election is contested.

The first candidate discussed in that article was business owner Stuart George.

From Anthony Green's blog

In the event, pre-selection was won by Chris Gulaptis.

From Anthony Green's blog

Whilst a number of stories suggested that Williamson was planning on running as an independent, he is not listed on the NSW Electoral Commission's site:

The absence of Williamson is not the only difference. Labor also have a new candidate by the name of Peter Ellem. He is a newspaper editor and advisor to a federal member Janelle Saffin.

So - Labor is not going to win the seat, but will there be a swing to Labor? And, if so, how much?

It's important first to consider just how different by-elections are to general elections. Sometimes, as in this case, the sitting member has been forced to resign in disgrace. In others, the member has received a better (usually Canberra based) offer. Obviously that can create more than a little resentment from the electors.

Further, in a by-election the opportunity to "send the government a message" is often difficult to resist. The by elections between the 2007 and 2011 general elections are good examples - the voters vented their bile towards the Labor party, with catastrophic results for that government.

Finally, by-elections tend to bring out a larger than usual number of unelectable independents, which often muddy the water.

The biggest problem for the Nationals, however, will ironically enough be the simply massive margin Cansdell won with earlier this year.

Put simply, that kind of margin is out of the question in this by-election, given the massive anti-Labor vote in March that will have dissipated somewhat. The Labor vote will be further assisted by the absence of a Williamson, who may well have been a convenient home for Labor voters who couldn't in good conscience vote for Labor again, but could not bring themselves to mark the Nationals box with a "1".

It is also worth noting that Cansdell's TPP margin in 2007 was a far more modest 26%.

Taken from Anthony Green's blog

The Labor vote will increase. Whilst the Nationals will most likely also benefit from Williamson's absence, the margin will cut - possibly dramatically.

Which brings me back to how I kicked off this posting. The Nationals will, as I have said, win at a canter. There is absolutely no "story" in the result.

That said, there is no doubt that "Big swing against Coalition" is a tempting story, especially when run in the context of the number of groups that O'Farrell has been pissing off since he got into office.

The real problem for O'Farrell will not so much be the result but the possibility that another piece of bad news could start to build a narrative of NSW being very unhappy with the new Coalition government. It doesn't matter right now, but we have seen federally just how quickly a pattern where a government are seen as undesirable can become gospel truth, almost before anyone notices.

Neither O'Farrell nor the Nationals candidate for Clarence will be able to stop the stories about the reduced margin being written. But O'Farrell will need to start looking for ways to change the story, or else he could find himself in charge of a government that has lost the trust of the electorate. And that trust is not won back easily.

The by-election will mean nothing, but it has the real potential to mean a lot. Should be interesting viewing.

Power to the People

2011-10-31T22:41:00.000+11:00

The Tamberlin Report has been released, and, suffice to say, it is a doozy.

It is long - some 264 pages, plus an executive summary, plus appendices. I'm certainly not going to purport to summarise the whole thing.

What I do want to do is talking about a few of the issues that are or have been politically interesting:

The value for money of the sale
The resignation of the directors
The proroguing of parliament and
What happens next.

Value for money

It is incredibly hard to calculate the value for money that the state may or may not have received . Any conclusion rests on so many assumptions and caveats that there is no way there can be a definitive answer.

Do we include the cost of losing a AAA rating? Do we factor in the future cost of upgrading the network? And what exactly we comparing?

It's therefore unsurprising that we have seen parties with vested interests trying to push their perspective on a confused public.

The goal of assessing the value for money was expressly listed in the terms of reference:

Indeed, an entire topic of the report is devoted to the issue:

The conclusion is that, broadly speaking, the deal was in the state's interests:

It is necessary to clarify a few of the issues above.

As you may recall, in 2008 the Iemma government decided to lease the power stations and sell the retailers. This came after NSW Labor just about tore itself apart over the issue - so much so that it was one of the major causes of Morris Iemma's demise.

O'Farrell had tipped him over the edge by cannily/cynically (depending on your perspective) opposing the privatisation, despite the fact that most believed that it was what the Coalition actually wanted to do.

A privatisation as sought by Iemma would have required, as I understand it, legislative change. This is why O'Farrell was able to stymie the move - Labor needed the Coalition's votes to get it through. Without them, the sale as envisioned could not happen.

In those circumstances, if there was to be some privatisation then Labor needed another solution. For various complicated reasons, what has been called the "GenTrader" option was this solution.

It wasn't the ideal solution, but given the Coalition's position Labor's options were limited. The report has found that, in those circumstances, the price obtained was a fair one.

Resignations

The resignation of a number of the directors of the electricity generation companies was a major scandal. It served to tar the transactions - it was seen as being proof that the deal was bad for NSW.

Having now read Tamberlin's report, I certainly did not, until tonight, understand the actual reasons why the directors had resigned. It certainly puts a different spin on exactly what occurred.

There are 3 major electricity generation companies in NSW - all wholly owned by the state. They are Macquarie Generation, Delta Electricity and Eraring Energy. Those corporations sit under the State Owned Corporations Act 1989.

The report explains how the Act characterises the role of a State Owned Corporation:

Section 20N of the Act is important:

Without getting too bogged down in the detail, the directors were compelled by the Minister (Eric Roozendaal) to approve the sale. Given that the Minister is (for present purposes) speaking for the shareholders of the company, the Directors were obliged to comply.

The problem, as I read the statements of the directors of Delta and Eraring who resigned, as quoted in the report, they were all of the opinion that the deal was not a good deal. Many used the word "moral" rather than "legal" in describing their decision to resign.

Their individual reasons bear reading, if you are interested, and can be found on pages 135-166 of the report.

In any event, history shows that those directors were very promptly replaced the transaction proceeded as intended by the government.

Proroguing of Parliament

The report does not have a great deal to say about this, which is unsurprising given that it lies outside the general ambit of the inquiry.

Given what the directors who resigned have subsequently said about the sale, the fact that parliament was prorogued is entirely unsurprising.

The report helpfully summarises events leading up to the proroguing:

What the report is clear about is that the directors who resigned were within their rights in not attending the Committee's hearing, given that Parliament had been prorogued. There can be little doubt that the fact that they did not attend and give evidence spared the Labor government significant embarrassment in the lead-up to the election.

What Happens Next

The report cavasses a number of different options.

In a discussion of the adoption of the GenTrader model (page 213), the report makes it clear that the best option would have been the original scheme as proposed by the Iemma government. In those circumstances, it unsurprising that the report dismisses the status quo as being undesirable.

However, the report also does not approve of unravelling the GenTrader arrangement, not least of all because of the damage that would do to the State's reputation.

The report favours the sale or lease the generators of electricity to "encourage private investment in baseload electricity generation in NSW."

The report also examines whether the transmission network and distribution networks should be sold. Those two terms are defined in the executive summary:

The report reaches the following conclusion:

Conclusions

The final recommendations of the report are as follows:

Unsurprisingly, the report doesn't particularly assist either Labor or the Coalition. It (at least partially) vindicates Labor actions and the GenTrader option by indicating that the only better option was blocked by the Coalition.

It suggests that privitisation of further elements of the electricity network would be a good thing. This is good for the Coalition because I think most people believe that this is what the Coalition wants to do. It is an awkward position for the Coalition because there will be a massive campaign against it - perhaps even a campaign to match the NSWinconsin protests earlier this year.

It would reinforce the perception that the Coalition is the party of big business, not the party of the individual. I'm not sure how many times the Coalition can reinforce that view without doing serious damage to their chances at the next election.

Having said that, the Coalition needs the cash from this sale. They made a lot of infrastructure promises, and they need to fund them somehow. This would seem like the most sensible source for those funds.

O'Farrell repeatedly (some might say famously) refused to rule out privatisation before the election. It looks like this report might be the excuse he has been hoping for, and the route to the cash injection his promises desperately need.

Solaring into Trouble

2011-10-26T23:32:00.001+11:00

The Andrew Stoner Solar Panel "scandal" has been resurrected once again. This displeased me greatly, and not just because I needed to come up with a new solar panel based pun for the title of this blogpost.

Full story on SMH

These attacks on Stoner shows an odd desperation on the part of Labor - an unbecoming fervour to splash the mud around in the hope that it sticks.

That worked for the NSW Coalition when Labor were in power. To be fair, there were so many corrupt Labor members and ministers that the public didn't need any help from the Coalition to reach that conclusion.

Things have been different since March. Steve Cansdell's descent was as rapid as it was unexpected, but he was sacked before the issue could really do much damage to the Coalition's brand.

We then had the mystery unnamed senior Liberal minister who was alleged to have been involved in what I'll call some "fairly graphic situations." I should say, in fairness, that his identity has not yet been revealed, despite my view in this post that it was inevitable. It remains to be seen whether that remains the case.

The consequence is that the old "stink of corruption" that hung over the Labor government has, to date, eluded the Coalition. This makes Robertson's fervour over Andrew Stoner look disingenuous rather than compelling.

In any event, in August it was alleged that Stoner had raced to take advantage of the Solar Panel scheme at the last possible minute. In fact, there was even the (superficially) damaging allegation that he had skipped out on parliament that final afternoon to sign up.

As if that wasn't enough, Labor then took the frankly incredible step of having the matter referred to ICAC. It appeared that the installer was a National's member. Further, it was alleged that Stoner's deposit arrived after the deadline for people to sign up for the deal and receive the 60c tariff, meaning that he had potentially received some sort of favourable treatment.

From there, the issue thankfully faded from sight for a period, until I saw this tweet from Sean Nicholls:

It appeared that during estimates this week there was an exchange involving Andrew Stoner where the issue of the solar panels was raised. It was revealed that a report had been prepared by Keith Mason AC QC and provided to the Coalition. The report was duly provided to the committee.

The relevant document was produced and is available here (part 1) and here (part 2).

It bears a careful reading.

As a starting point, I thought it was pretty funny, in light of the topic, that the date on the document is clearly incorrect.

The report helpfully sets out 4 requirements for Stoner to have complied with law. They are as follows:

The report goes on to detail the times at which the relevant arrangements were made, which was assisted by the fact that Stoner had made many of the arrangements on email.

The important part (for present purposes) is here:

What those emails unambiguously show is that Stoner had entered an agreement to purchase the system well before the date at which he was alleged to have snuck out of parliament to sign up. That allegation was plain incorrect, and Labor owes him an apology for an allegation that is clearly wrong.

In any event, when the changes were announced the provider sent what I have no doubt was a quickly composed and semi-panicked email out to a large number of people - most likely anyone who has shown an interest but not yet had their system installed. Stoner received that bulk email asking for a deposit of $100.

In accordance with their email, Stoner transferred the funds to the provider.

One point is emphasized:

Additionally, confusion was created by the fact that the provider provided the invoices to everyone dated the same day as the email, as opposed to the date they received the funds. It remains unclear why that was done, but, as far as Andrew Stoner is concerned, nothing turns on it.

The report is more than a little refreshing, because it is a report that looks beyond the stupidity of politics to the actual issue: has Andrew Stoner done anything wrong?

Unambiguously, the answer is no. I don't suppose he is holding his breath for an apology.

An Eggcellent Bill

2011-10-22T18:39:00.000+11:00

Today I want to write about eggs.

That's not some sort of metaphor about the hatching of a new policy, or the neat encapsulating of an idea - I mean those things that come out chickens that are just so yummy.

Eggs

The reason you're hearing about eggs on a politics blog is this story:s

Original story on SMH

As the person in our house who does the shopping, I think the number of egg options is pretty bewildering. There are cage eggs, free range eggs, barn eggs and then of course there are the eggs with the smiley face stamped on them.

I always buy the smiley face ones because the missus likes free range eggs, and because I like to talk to eggs when I crack them and say things like "This oughta wipe the smile off your face!"

Getting back on point, there is little understanding amongst the public as to what exactly the different descriptions mean.

I don't intend to get stuck into the precise legal framework for this area - there are national standards, state standards, cross-border issues, and heaven knows what else.

It was interesting, however, to come across this PDF that purports to define the present labelling rules:

Full size version here

Suffice to say, the Greens introduced a bill to standardise the labelling for Free Range. The full text can be seen here.

The overview explains things quite nicely, and the requirements are very detailed. On that, one that is worth picking out is the following:

Have a look at a square metre next chance you get, and imagine 10 chickens per square metre. It's not exactly spacious, but there you go.

The debate ran over two days in the Legislative Council, and luckily for us the speakers (and interjectors) took the chance to have a bit of fun:

There was some disagreement as the bill progressed through. Labor amended the bill and, as I mentioned earlier, the government initially opposed the bill.

Interestingly, the Shooters and Fishers agreed to support the Green's bill, despite the Government's opposition. As much was noted by their leader Robert Brown:

In those circumstances, the Government would in fact have lost the vote had they maintained their opposition, so it is likely that their vote in support was merely a tactical retreat, or, as I like to call these things, an advance in a different direction.

The fact that the Shooters supported the Greens bill is not the only surprising part. A minor party lead the charge on a bill and got it passed, which is no small triumph. Not just any bill as well, but a bill that will no doubt piss off a lot of people.

Additionally, there is something to be said for the way this brands the Greens in NSW.

Federally, the Greens are perceived (at least in some quarters) as being the party really running the country. Moreover, the Greens campaign for action on Climate Change is probably the only reason that Labor has stuck with the Carbon Tax.

At the State level their brand is not as well defined. People seem to know what the Greens stand for generally, but aren't necessarily as clear on what that means in practice. This bill seem to be right in their wheelhouse - it will appear to the younger, environmentally conscious voters and annoy many rural voters who will see it as hurting an already struggling industry.

Wins are often hard to come by for a minor party, and no doubt the Greens are feeling pretty good about themselves this weekend.

Tax is not a four letter word

2011-10-17T22:01:00.000+11:00

I recall a tweet from a friend a while ago complaining about the Tax Office being credited with a special 20c coin celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the Australian Tax Office.

Photo from here

The reason for her complaint (if I can be so bold as to put words in her mouth) was that tax is at best a necessary evil, and at worst a horrifying example of governmental encroachment upon our lives.

This was a girl that would find a very happy home with the Republican Party in the US (especially their Tea Party colleagues) - governments should be small, spending should always be the absolute minimum (except of course for defence) and taxes should be cut, cut and then cut again.

This view is far less common in Australia. Whilst the Federal Coalition has shown a new-found enthusiasm for small government of late (no doubt in part due to the happy synergy this has with opposing the Carbon Tax) their efforts on this front are positively lacklustre in comparison.

With that in mind, it is surprising (at least to me) how strident opposition can be to new taxes. I've already mentioned the Carbon Tax, but we need only think back to the GST for an example of how easy it can be to oppose a tax.

As I said on twitter today, it is just too easy for a lazy journalist to find someone worse off under the tax, and publish a double page spread of the family in front of their McMansion weeping over $15 a week.

Every business failure is blamed on the new tax - even those businesses that haven't turned a profit since walkmans were the next big thing.

This is the reason why O'Farrell's suggestion that the GST be increased is probably never going to see the light of day.

The story was brought to my attention by O'Farrell's exchange today with ABC journalist Latika Bourke:

I had a look at Oakeshotte's piece. His Private Member's Bill seems pretty outlandish, and I imagine I'll return to it another time.

I'm more interested in the NSW Government's submission to the Tax Forum, a document I'm ashamed to say I had not read before today. It can be found here, and it worth a gander - it is shortish and written in fairly plain English.

There is a bit of commentary about the imbalance between Federal and State governments when it comes to Revenue and Expenses - in short, the Federal government holds the purse-strings for the states. There is a lot of talk about the Spirit of the Constitution (which, for me, is a short step from discussing "the vibe").

There is also an interesting proposal regarding the treatment of fuel excise - essentially NSW wants her share of the fuel excise sent straight over to be spent on road infrastructure.

It is the proposal on GST that has got people talking today though.

What the paper calls for is this:

Why are they more efficient? These two tables explain why:

To understand those tables, it is essential to grasp the concept of "Excess Burden". Wikipedia says the following:

The average burden is the average at the present rate. The marginal burden is the additional burden for the next $1 - a marginal burden of 10% means that $1 extra of tax will mean $0.1 of burden.

Looking closely at the numbers, it can be seen that some taxes actually have negative burdens. Presumably Tobacco excise is negative because of the saved health costs, meaning that for every $1 we tax cigarettes there is a positive effect elsewhere.

The numbers that we are interested in are the numbers for GST compared to some of the State taxes. The differences are stark, and clearly show the benefit of eliminating these State taxes in favour of more GST.

There are other benefits as well. Eliminating one of those taxes in favour of a higher GST-rate would save huge amounts of money on administration (for government and business).

If the Federal government was really smart what they would do is remove GST's food exemption. With some carefully targeted income tax cuts and/or welfare increases the lowest earners would not be worse off, and we would have a tax system that is simpler, cheaper to administer, less prone to fluctuations and, above all fairer.

Will it happen? Of course not.

Even for a popular government, an increase in the GST-rate is politically disastrous. We all remember how hard it was for Howard to convince us the GST was a good idea (and even then it probably hurt him at the 1998 election). For the present Federal government? Fuggeddaboudit.

Moreover, where is the benefit for a Federal Government? The State Governments will score big as some hugely unpopular taxes are eliminated (I'm thinking especially of land tax or payroll tax) but the Federal government will be the big bad guy.

How do I know? Read this awful piece on the NSW Labor website.

The writing in this piece (especially the quotes) is so awful I want to poke my eyes out, but I can also acknowledge that it is effective. The image of Barry's hand in your pocket - it's awful, horrible writing, but even this piece would do the job. Imagine a slick, well crafted, intelligent campaign. It could actually make the next NSW election competitive.

O'Farrell's proposal isn't going to happen. What is more likely is that the GST issue is a feint to win a share of income somewhere else so that the Coalition has the funding room to reduce payroll tax a little more.

Another good idea that will never see daylight. A shame - but certainly not a surprise.

Fishing for Votes

2011-10-13T21:12:00.003+11:00

*apologies for the lack of visuals. Once again, Blogger is not co-operating*

The events surrounding the closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre are a odd and rather disconcerting example of the inner workings of the NSW Government today. It was politics, pure and simple - the ugly underbelly that they would rather you not see.

By way of background - the Coalition recently announced that the centre would be closed.

I don't want to discuss the decision itself - what I am more interested in is the actions of Mark Speakman, Lee Evans, Graham Annesley and Mark Coure.

The above are all Liberal members, and as such you would ordinarily expect them to be prompty falling into line behind their leader's decision.

Not so.

These four Liberal MP's have "broken ranks" in the full knowledge that their actions would attract media attention.

Why have they done this, and who was it that said it would be OK? That is a difficult question to answer.

On one hand, the powers that be know that these four votes are hardly going to swing any decision. The majority commanded by the Coalition is such that they could suffer three times as many deserters and still not be in any danger of a loss.

Moreover, this may be one of the few issues where the deserters don't do any real damage.

The Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre is aomething that 99% of the state did not even know existed. Certainly unless you lived in the Cronulla area or were directly engaged in the work the centre was doing, it is unlikely that you would have any clue about the Centre's existence, let along care enough to take notice of this decision.

The four MP's who have been opposing the decision are, as you might expect, four MP's whose electorates are in close prosimity to the Centre.

Now, it goes without saying that I have no idea what discussions may have taken place between these MP's and O'Farrell's office. Suffice to say, we can assume that these MP's have expressed concern abou their job security if the closure was to proceed.

This is the kind of "local issue" that can sink a local member - communities have a habit of remembering this kind of betrayal for years, and executing revenge that the next election.

Further, it seems likely that these members were given permission to oppose the reforms publically. It would seem odd that they were acting off their own bat, in defiance of their leader.

Thing is, with the enormous majority that the Coalition has, they can afford to lose a few votes each time round. Obviously it is not advisable that it occur too often, and the Coalition would want to ensure that it does not become endemic. But in circumstances such as these where the decision is such that severe consequences could flow for the local member, it may well be in the best interests of the party as a whole to allow the affected local members to "defy" the party.

Obviously there is no danger of the Coalition losing the vote. The local member gets to make a big show of standing up for their local area, and will be picked up in the local press (such as the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader). And only politics nerds like myself actually notice the way the vote actually goes in parliament.

Now, at the time of writing I don't know whether a vote on the substantive issues has been moved. I also don't know how these 4 members voted.

But the odd situation is that almost no one would notice how they voted. At best there might be a story or two about how they defied their party - which is just fine for the Coalition given that they will not lose any votes, but may well give those members something to defend themselves with next time they visit their electorate.

No journalist is likely to write a story about how these members voted in actuality, because if one was to follow the media reports you could be forgiven for thinking that i am the only person in the state who ever reads the Hansard reports.

Apparently it is possible to have your cake and eat it too.

Teach our Children Well

2011-10-06T22:55:00.001+11:00

Teachers have a bloody tough job. I don't envy them, and I think most people in the community celebrate and even venerate the work they do.

Being a teacher has, however, become far more difficult in recent years. Part of the reason is the incredible sensitivity to allegations of child abuse, meaning that teachers have all sorts of restrictions on what is appropriate in their interactions with children to shield them from accusation.

One of the biggest burdens that teachers bear is the fact that they are "mandatory reporters" - if a teacher has reason to believe that a child is being abused or neglected then they are required to report it.

I have no doubt that this obligation rests heavily on the shoulders of teachers.

It is in this environment that I saw this story this afternoon on the Daily Telegraph website:

In order to make sense of any of this, it is important to get our head around the details. To do this, it's essential to carefully read the judge's reasons for the decision. They are available online here. Having read the media's commentary on the decision today, it is worth speculating how many of the reporters actually took the 10 minutes it took me to track down the decision and read it.

It's also interesting to wonder why it is NOW that the story has broken. The judgment has been available for 4 months - I assume that either the jury came back with their verdict this week, or perhaps someone issued a press release - perhaps the NSW Teacher's Federation who was quoted in the Daily Telegraph article.

The 14 year old was accused of Armed Robbery in Company. Sometime after being charged, he started at a new school.

The Year Advisor at the new school approached the boy not long after he started and spoke to him. The conversation was detailed in the judgment ("The accused" is the 14 year old boy):

The issue at trial was whether this evidence was admissable to prove (in part) that the boy had committed he offence.

The judge ruled that the evidence was not admissable. In due course, the trial proceeded and the boy was found not guilty. Not having access to the full transcript of the trial we can have no real idea as to why, but of course even the lawyers who sat through the trial can only guess the reasons that the jury had to finding him not guilty.

The ONLY issue that the judge looked at in the above decision was whether the evidence was admissible; that is to say, whether the jury should be able to consider it.

Questions of admissability are considered in just about every contested legal hearing. Evidence is excluded for all sorted of reasons - it might be because it was irrelevant, because it was hearsay, because it was illegally obtained, or because it was prejudicial.

There are all manner of tests that have been established in the law as to whether evidence is admissable.

In this case, the relevant test is in section 90 of the NSW Evidence Act, It reads as follows:

The discretion this gives the court is broad. An obvious example would be where the admission is extracted through torture, or where a person was offered some sort of reward for confessing. In those cases, it would be unfair to allow the admission into evidence because, plainly, it would be an unreliable admission.

This case was different. Was it unfair to allow a court to rely on this admission?

The court firstly observed that there was no useful precedent for this kind of decision. The court also noted 4 reasons that could convince the court that the admission of the evidence was unfair:

For those reasons, the court found that it was unfair to allow the Crown to rely upon the evidence, and excluded the evidence.

It is a difficult decision - the fact that there is no precedent is perhaps not surprising given that the unusual circumstances.

I don't propose to engage in a detailed discussion as to whether the decision was correct, excepting to say that I do have some reservations. I do agree with this statement from the Judge:

I do not imagine that this scenario is one that any teacher would expect, let alone have received training for.

The important issue I want to clear up initially is this: no one here is criticising the teacher. The teacher is not "in trouble" - he/she is not been counselled and has not been stood down. No one is suing him/her/the department, and no one is suggesting that he/she has done the wrong thing.

The ONLY issue is whether the teacher's statement detailing the conversation is admissable evidence against the boy.

That point appears to have been lost in the discussions I've followed today.

No one is suggesting that teachers now have to warn every child before they speak to them - the court is merely saying that if the Crown wants to rely on these admissions, then it is appropriate that before discussing such issues with a child then a teacher should follow what this teacher said was his/her usual practice of "cautioning students in relation to the disclosure of criminal offences."

That's it. If a teacher doesn't want to ensure that he/she can report any disclosures to police, then he/she can chat to a student in whatever fashion he/she likes. It is only if the teacher plans on reporting any admissions to police that he/she needs to warn the student.

Now, as I have said, I'm not myself certain that the decision was correct. Given the outcry today, the DPP may well appeal the decision to clarify the law. It is curious that the DPP did not appeal the decision before the conclusion of the trial so that the decision could have been (potentially) overturned before this boy was acquitted. Now that the jury has reached a decision, the ship has sailed on this prosecution.

Greg Smith's reaction, as quoted in the Herald was fair and measured.

Barry O'Farrell's reaction was not:

Further on in the article:

His reaction also betrays a misunderstanding of the decision. Nothing stopped the teacher reporting anything, and no one is criticising him/her for what was done. The only issue is whether the evidence is admissable.

O'Farrell's comment reveals the danger of making comments about legal decisions when you don't actually understand the issue being discussed.

O'Farrell in jumped into a twitter conversation I had this afternoon with two teachers who I have a great deal of respect for. We were in the middle of discussing the decision and the media reports when O'Farrell said the following:

It is exactly these kinds of statements that fan the flames of community outrage. The comments are based upon an incorrect understanding of what has actually happened. O'Farrell has either not read the decision or doesn't care, because it is politically convenient to make an argument based on "common sense".

Greg Smith has done exactly what an Attorney General should do - respectfully suggested that he disagreed with the decision, set out an appropriate path to dispute the decision and left it there.

In preparing this BlogPost I did what I normally refuse to do, and subjected myself to some comments on the Daily Telegraph article. Suffice to say that almost without exception the comments were a cascade of the most aggressive and unpleasant criticism of the judge, the court system and lawyers generally.

Climbing on board that bandwagon is easy politics for O'Farrell - it is simple to agree with an angry, poorly informed mob.

Greg Smith has done the right thing and respectfully disagreed with the judge. It's a shame that our Premier could not take the same approach.

Broken Promise, Broken Heart

2011-09-28T23:36:00.000+10:00

I came across a very interesting document today.

Full document here

Interestingly, the document does not appear to have any attribution on it. There is no party logo and no mention of someone taking responsibility for the political comment.

The website itself suggests that the document was uploaded by NSW Labor, which may be enough to satisfy the lawyers.

A press release from Labor announces the document, so it is fair to assume that Labor has put it together.

In any event.

The list makes for very interesting reading. Some of it is a little stupid and more than a little unfair, but a lot of what is said is damaging for the coaltion.

Starting first with the stupid.

You can't count the promise to keep promises as a broken promise in a pretty average attempt to get the total into 3 figures.

While we're on desperate attempts to get the total to 100, there are a number of "promises" where the content is reused. For example,

A large number of "promises" were in fact nothing of the sort. The pamphlet quotes a number of "motherhood" statements and claims that the standard reached does not comply with the guarantee given. For example:

A number of the promises are alleged to be broken when nothing of the sort has happened, and the writer has either twisted the words of the promise or simply drawn an impossibly long bow.

Some of the promises were made with a longer term view or in a general sense, meaning that any allegation that they had been "broken" is pretty unfair.

Several of the alleged promises were statements that the Coalition "had no plans" to do something. It may well have been a lie, but it isn't a broken promise.

There are still other cases where no promise was made at all, or where the alleged "breaking" in fact had nothing to do with the promise that was made.

Other allegations of broken promises are in fact plain distortions of the truth.

I think those are fair criticisms of the pamphlet. The writer(s) of the document have made that far too common mistake of over-reaching - rather than having 50 perfectly valid, defensible criticisms, they go for 100 criticisms where half are confusing, deceptive, tricky, or just outright lies.

This is important because there are actually a lot of places O'Farrell can and should be criticised when it comes to broken promises.

The first category is infrastructure promised but not yet budgeted for, or where no progress has been made in the promised timeframe. The list is long:

There are also a number of other areas where O'Farrell has gone back on his word that deserve further attention:

Why Labor had to overreach and make a whole bunch of allegations that were not reasonable when there were so many perfectly good options available remains a mystery to me.

As I was mulling this piece earlier today, I sent a tween O'Farrell's way asking his view. He responded (read bottom to top):

He's probably right in terms of forcing good governance, but when it comes to showing up a government for its weaknesses, Labor are probably on the ball here. O'Farrell has broken a lot of promises, and no doubt there is a small but growing discontent.

This may well end up being the issue that makes the next election more competitive than it really should be. If Labor can continue hammering the "Promise-breaker" line then people may start to switch off from the Coalition.

WIll it be enough to win back government? On its own, probably not. But by reneging, delaying and obfuscating the O'Farrell government is giving Labor an "in" they don't really deserve.

A final point - I don't know what the purpose of this document is, or how it is planned to be distributed. I came across because of a tweet I randomly happened to notice (and now can't find).

As I have said above, I am not sure if the document is "legal" in its present form.

I found this press release on the NSW Labor website which draws attention to the broken promises and provides a link to the pamphlet, but it is hard to imagine that many people other than Labor loyalists and political wonks would ever visit their site at this point in an election cycle.

Exactly why a journalist would write about this is also a little unclear to me.

In any event, there it will sit and probably not be read by many people. An example of a government not keeping a promises and an opposition overreaching in trying to criticise the government.

Not a great pamphlet for either side, really.

The Head of the Nile

2011-09-27T21:15:00.000+10:00

Ethics classes. It looks like the battle may finally have been won.

As I have written about previously, the Labor government introduced Ethics Classes to run in parallel with formal religious education. The Coalition initially said that they opposed the classes and would get rid of them if elected, and then backflipped to support the changes.

When I last wrote on this issue, Fred Nile (head of the Christian Democrats) was making thinly veiled threats to the O'Farrell government. These threats appear to have been hollow.

No surprises there.

Also unsurprisingly, Fred Nile's campaign against Ethics Classes has not abated. His vehement opposition was pretty obvious during the speech he gave on the second reading of the bill. It can be found here and is too long to extract here in full. Here, however, are a few highlights:

Since then, Nile has continued his campaign against the classes. Whether his opposition is out of a firmly held personal belief or simply pandering to his base is impossible to know for sure, but his enthusiasm cannot be doubted.

He has also persisted with the pretty offensive suggestion that the Ethics Classes preached Secular Humanism, which he insists on linking to the Nazi's. Clearly he has never heard of Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Previously, Nile has had in his corner most of the major Christian denominations.

In recent months, however, this support has slowly evaporated. This is no doubt in part due to the churches seeing that this particular battle was lost, but may also be because the churches have realised that the "catastrophic" effects on scripture that were predicted have not really eventuated.

What may prove to the final nail in the debate was hammered in today by the Inter-Church Commission on Religious Education in Schools. Jo Tovey wrote this piece in the Herald.

The Commission apparently "represents 80 per cent of groups that provide special religious education (SRE)." Their website can be found here. Their website defines their membership as follows:

In August 2010 the Commission released this report:

The important part of the report is below:

It appears that in the interim their view has changed, because the deputy commissioner was today quoted as follows:

I'm going to look past the rather bizarre assertion that "No government repeals legislation" and rather focus on the comment that the fight has been fought and lost.

There is little to no chance that the O'Farrell government will agree to repeal the legislation. Certainly Labor and the Greens are not going to be interested. Nile needs to keep his base happy (assuming, of course, that this is what his base wants) but he risks isolating himself on this issue.

It's good and well to make a stand on things you believe in, but there is also a time to concede defeat and focus on things that you are able to achieve, This is what the Commission has done, and Nile may just do well to consider that start seeking realistic outcomes.

The CDP is a minor party, and people do expect them to fight for their core issues. But Nile risks becoming a sort of parody of a party if he keeps flogging a dead horse

Sex in the Inner-City

2011-09-22T23:33:00.000+10:00

I was going to write about Steve Cansdell tonight.

There were stories published in the last few days that indicated that the person who had forced his hand was the ex-staffer who had signed the stat-dec which helped him to escape the speeding fine.

This surprised me. The person who signed the stat dec was always the one in the most legal trouble - signing a false stat dec is a very serious criminal offence.

But, it appears, this person revealed all because he was 'jolted into action by the MPs appointment as the Parliamentary Secretary for Police."

In any event, those plans were cast aside when I read this tweet:

Thanks to the fact that I was still at work at 6, I didn't see Channel 9 news, but as best I can tell there were no shocking revelations. Experience tells us that this was probably the result of threats from the relevant parties as to what would occur if the story was broadcast.

I've just run a few carefully worded Google News searches, and came up with an SMH story that says the following:

The interesting part is that the SMH story goes on to provide the following detail:

Having read innumerable police statements over the years, I can tell you that the information about the alleged perpetrator's age is par for the course. Police will usually reveal the perpetrator's name and often even their suburb of residence.

I don't know how it was that it came to light that the alleged offender was a NSW minister, but one way or another, it did. And, of course, when you are dealing with as small a group as Coalition ministry, how many 62 year old men could there be?

Just one.

Now, the Herald has declined to name the minister, despite giving anyone with access to Wikipedia everything they need to find out who it is. Presumably they have done so on the advice of lawyers.

I'm not going to name the minister - if it's good enough for the Herald then it's good enough for me.

That said, at least one twitter account has already named the alleged perpetrator, tweeting:

I've blocked out the name they happily provided because I don't want to get sued. It appears that @vexnews is happy to prioritise a cheap laugh over a little prudence. Time will tell if they end up paying for that (literally!).

In any event, without saying who it is and without knowing any details it is difficult to say very much about what is happening.

What is clear is that this not only comes at an awful time for O'Farrell and his government, but seems to be the start of a worrying trend.

The Cansdell matter was dealt with (to the Coalition's credit) promptly. Cansdell was out the door before the story broke, meaning that O'Farrell and Stoner could stay in front of the story.

It wasn't good, and no doubt as the story continues to develop there will be further pain for the Coalition, but at least every story is headed with words to the effect of "Ex-NSW MP Steve Cansdell".

The seniority of the person involved in this new matter is going to cause more problems - it is easy to tip out a lowly backbencher, but a "senior minister" (to use the Herald's term) can not be disposed of without fuss.

There can be no doubt that O'Farrell knows who the perpetrator is. I don't doubt that by mid-morning tomorrow pretty much everyone else will know too.

He's in this picture...

If the 62 year old minister does not throw in the towel immediately (and I mean, before lunch) then every single story will be about how the O'Farrell government is starting to look very much like the Labor governments that preceded it.

Winning a 2nd term really should not be hard for the Coalition. They are competing against a Labor party that is still reeling from the demolition job the electorate did on them in March.

Labor are low on numbers, have a leader renowned as a head-kicker who has barely said "Boo" since his elevation, and an ex-leader actively raising her profile without revealing what her goal is.

Stuff like this is going to move people away from deriding Labor towards deriding NSW politicians generally. It may mean that O'Farrell will lose his best campaign theme come 2015 - "Better than the last lot!"

The 62 year old needs to turfed out, and it needs to be done before the evening news tomorrow (Friday). This story is going to be big no matter what O'Farrell does, and he needs to decide whether he wants the headline to be "O'Farrell stands by minister accused of public sex act" or "Minister accused of public sex act quits in disgrace".

The ball's in O'Farrell's court. He better do something or else the media is going to do it for him.