Success St

Sometimes politicians seem to have a strange perspective on the world.

We saw that recently with the US election. For your viewing pleasure, a collection of pundits talking about how Romney was going to win, and win BIG:


You would never see that in Australia, where for some reason it seems that you want to be the underdog. In the US, people want to back a winner.

It may be that those pundits were talking up the Republican's chances - I suppose another 4 years out of the White House was a little scarier than being made fun of by the LameStream Media in the weeks following the election.

In Australia, we seem to have been plagued recently by politicians talking about what "the man on the street" is telling them.

Joe Hockey has been especially guilty of this - suggesting that because 10 people in the street came up to him yesterday and complained about Gillard that the "people have had enough".

This may be because people who approach politicians in the street for a chat have vehement, poorly thought out views - easy to accept the crazies who agree with you, and easy to dismiss as crazy those who don't,

Maybe it's just a lazy argument that politicians make up when it's just to much effort to try and talk "facts".

In my view, it is symptomatic of politicians who don't seem to have any idea what the voters actually want.

This would explain the slavish devotion to short-term movements in polling numbers rather than a commitment to smart policy and good communication

The unpredictability of the media is partly to blame for that. One can just imagine politicians announcing a new policy quivering in their boots at the thought that a negative story on the front page of the Daily Terror could bury it in an instant.

But none of that is any excuse for this stupid announcement from Sam Dastyari, NSW Labor's General Secretary:

Full Story on SMH

True is it that "Sussex St" has come in for plenty of stick over the last decade. With the cloud cast by the Obeid ICAC inquiry hanging over NSW Labor, one can understand a willingness to look elsewhere for lodgings.

The problem that Dastyarti plainly fails to recognize is that no one could care less where NSW Labor has its headquarters.

As Heath Aston, another Herald journo, said not long after Nicolls tweeted his piece:

If you actually know where Sussex St is and who is holed up there, I think it is safe to assume that moving the headquarters is exactly the kind of BS that you are going to see right through.

Now, maybe Dastyari is trying to spin a positive story out the media's fascination with the Obeid Inquiry, much like we saw with the nauseating "Real Julia".

What I think is more likely is that people in Sussex St have heard so many barbs about the location of their headquarters that someone had the brilliant idea to move.

As Robin Williams said in Mrs Doubtfire:

Opal of a Good Result

I've been spending some time recently thinking about how the Coalition is going to try and portray itself at the next state election in 2015.

I'm sure they would have loved to have shown a clean record of ethical conduct, to be weighed up against Obeid, Tripodi et al - but given the trouble the government had already had on that front it may be too much to ask for.

Photo from the SMH

That said, old perceptions die deep.

The one comparison that is likely to still be available, however, is that of building things.

True it is that Labor did build infrastructure while in power. The problem for them is that just about all the significant projects actually built were toll-roads that didn't require any investment from the government.

Those roads are important, and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have been built. I'm also not suggesting that toll-roads should not be tolerated.

What I am saying is that Labor's expensive toll-roads that seem perpetually choked with traffic will not compare well to the Coalition is investing cold hard cash in the rail network - something that Labor constantly promised to do but never did.

One of the ads I have in mind is a collection of cuts from news conferences of the (various) Labor Premiers announcing the North-West Rail Link.

In case you've forgotten:

1998 - Bob Carr announces a link between Epping and Castle Hill. Completed by 2010

2001 - Plans to build the line shelved indefinitely.

2002 - Transport Minister Carl Scully releases report detailing possible route

2005 - Metropolitan Rail Expansion Plan announced. Projected completion date 2017

2008 - Plans for North West Metro announced by Nathan Rees. Plan would run line all the way to the CBD

2008 - Plan revised to CBD Metro, running between Rozelle and Centrol

2008 - Plans announced to extend the CBD Metro to the original North West Metro stations once built

2008 - Metro plans indefinitely deferred.

2010 - Kristina Keneally cancels North West Metro and announced North West Rail Link. Construction to commence in 2017.

Labor left government in 2011, 13 years after having first announced the line, having not turned a single sod  on a train line to the fastest growing area in Sydney.

The last clip in the ad would be a bunch of construction workers actually making things happen on the line, probably with O'Farrell standing in front of it is his hi-vis gear looking pleased with himself.

The other major transport project that the Coalition has the chance to get right is the Opal Card - probably the only project that Labor spent just about its entire time in power getting wrong.

To get a ticketing project so wrong that you can spend 16 years in power and leave with absolutely nothing of value done is a real achievement - but that is exactly what Labor did.

The Coalition - well, on the weekend this happened:

Full story in the Tele

I'll be taking another look at the Opal Card in more detail later this week, which is when I understand the ticket prices and some other information will be released.

But let's be clear - people have long memories for governments that promise and don't deliver. The Opal Card and the North West Rail Link are the two most obvious ways in which the Coalition can sow up a long, long time in office.

Training to Fly

I'm back from foreign parts!

As coincidence would have it, just 3 days after I caught a train home from the airport, I saw this story pop up on twitter:

Full story at SMH

My wife and I both paid the utterly exorbitant fare to get from the Airport to Central because, frankly, it's cheaper and easier than the alternative.

Parking at Sydney Airport costs so much you feel a compulsion to check that they got the decimal point in the right spot. A cab to our place (or, realistically, even to central station) was still far more expensive, and likely would involve far longer queues.

At the end of the day, the Airport Line is the obvious option, And, on the rare occasion I get to fly anywhere, it's the option I almost invariably use.

The high fares date back to the opening of the Airport Line. The Labor government's enthusiasm for building infrastructure without having to pay for it gave us toll-roads all over the city - but how were they going to get a rail-line built in the same way?

Simple - charge an eye-wateringly high fee to use only those new stations. It creates an absurd situation and further complicates an already convoluted fare system, but I suppose that's hardly a priority.

From a purely commercial point of view, it makes sense. Millions of commuters (including myself) still find the airport line to be "good value" in the sense that it is cheaper and easier than the alternative - so why not?

Well, the answer should be obvious - governments have, as part of their role, the provision of public infrastructure. Building lines like the Airport Line are why we pay taxes.

Sydney is lucky enough (or unlucky enough, if you live under a flight path) to have an airport within a short train trip of the city. That it took as long as it did to build a train line is more than a little ridiculous.

Many people complain what an awful greeting the enormous fees are to an international traveller - what the complainers don't realise is that the typical traveller would happily drop $30 to get to their hotel from the airport. That's a pretty small number compared to many cities in Australia and internationally.

My gripe, however, is that "People will pay it" is not a good argument to charge people for something that falls well with the ambit of governmental responsibility.

Last weekend, as I left London to catch a Virgin Atlantic flight home, I caught the tube to Heathrow Airport. It cost me a little over 3 quid.

Of course, I also got to use the outstanding Oyster Card system, but that's another discussion.

People will pay more to use the Airport Line. But that doesn't mean that they should have to pay it.

Australian governments need to move away from the idea that public transport should be priced such that "user pays". When I use public transport everyone benefits - the car I don't use doesn't clog up the already over-crowded roads.

Of course, the only way this problem will get fixed is if the government buys the airport line, and given the (real or imagined) budgetary constraints, that hardly seems likely.

So, on we go, no doubt to the relief of the owners of the airport and taxi plates across the city.

A holiday

This blog is taking a holiday.

There are a number of reasons, but the biggest is that I am going to be out of the country for the next 5 weeks, which would make keeping in touch with NSW politics difficult to say the least.

Rest assured that once I am back in town in late November the posts will resume.

Play nice...

[use your imagination to insert cheesy holiday pic]

A Strike Without Notice

Has the puff gone out of the protests against the cuts to the public service?

You may or may not be aware, but there was a Public Service Association strike today. No, really:

From here

I didn't hear a peep. Today I caught a train, walked through the city, and spent most of the day before a court staffed exclusively by public servants - and if one of the other lawyers hadn't said "I thought you lot were striking?" I wouldn't have known anything was going on.

Apparently, there was a march or something?

From the SMH

I certainly heard and saw nothing. And "hundreds" of workers converging on Town Hall is hardly noteworthy.

It seems like the TV coverage was no different:

This was particularly surprising given that, after a little poking around, it became apparent that the IRC had formally ordered that the strike not proceed:

From the SMH

I'm not sure how the success or otherwise of strikes is measured with the PSA. But when this is the best you can do:

Full story here

...perhaps it is time to admit that the battle isn't really getting the masses outraged.

It's pretty clear that the Coalition government (like the Labor government before it) is happy (or resigned) to take the Public Service Association on.

Given that, at the end of the day, the government really does hold the pursestrings, it would seem that the PSA is on a hiding to nothing.

Are these strikes a desperate grab for relevance in a world where people are increasingly skeptical about the benefit of the enormous dues that the PSA demand?

Perhaps. What is clear is that the strike today didn't really excite anyone. And it certainly will not have worried the government.

A Parroted Condemnation

I'm going to do my best to not add unnecessarily to the explosion of writing on Alan Jones in the last few days.

As for the comments themselves, @bernietb said it in a way few of us could:

Obviously, he (Jones, not Bernie) is just an awful person.

What I was more interested in discussing was the unrelenting demand for our politicians to condemn what he said.

I can understand journalists pursuing politicians demanding a condemnation. It gives them the chance to stretch a few more stories about the issue.

First there is the reporting of the comments, then we have the attempts to contact the maker, then the people who condemn the comments, then those that have still "refused" to condemn the comments, then the apology - and by then someone has said something new and we can all move on and be outraged about something else.

It's a bit pathetic - but if I was journalist working on unrealistic deadlines and impossible demands for content then perhaps I'd do the same thing.

Of course the people who perceive that they profit from the outrage will happily buy into the stupidity, so over the weekend we were treated to this:

And, of course, inevitably, this:

Of course, the timing of this whole thing was interesting, given that earlier last week Jones had torn into Barry O'Farrell on his show:

Have a listen here

The punters loved it

Of course, in due course O'Farrell eventually did have something to say. Well, sort of:

This was an odd little comment, for a number of reasons.

First of all, everyone assumed that O'Farrell was talking about Jones. He certainly did and said nothing to suggest otherwise - so why not say his name?

Moreover, as condemnations go, it was a pretty weak one. It's a vague comment that suggests a certain disapproval - but that's all.

Some people suggested that the vagueness was intentional:

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. What was dumb was the constant demand on O'Farrell to condemn Jones' statement.

It is entirely irrelevant to O'Farrell's job what Alan Jones says. If people want to petition O'Farrell to ban his ministers from appearing on the show, or to stop the NSW Government advertising on his show (assuming they do) then so be it.

But to relentlessly demand that he condemn something that someone said is just petty, and even childish.

And the fact that the comment was made at a Sydney University Liberal Club dinner does not change that. By all means criticise the Liberal Party and suggest that the leaders of the club should be spoken to/stood down/sent to bed without dinner - but to demand that O'Farrell condemn the comments seems like a shameless attempt to profit politically from what Jones said.

Really, it is little different from demanding that Jones apologise. Does anyone really think he meant a word of the "apology" he delivered yesterday?

 

Of course he didn't. 

O'Farrell may have meant what he tweeted yesterday, or he may not. We'll never know, because he relented to enormous pressure from some groups to say the right thing.

He certainly got the right coverage for it:

Full story on SMH

And no doubt before the week is out the press (and twitter) will have moved on to rage about something else.

Indeed.

Stay Directly In Gaol

Sometimes standing up for an individual's rights can put you in a difficult position.

As many of you would know, my day job is a criminal defence lawyer. Some of my clients have been accused of pretty awful criminal offences. Others who I have represented on sentence have admitted committing awful offences.

That's ok. I'm proud to stand up for someone and make sure they receive the just penalty, rather than the penalty that an ill-informed public baying for blood might deem appropriate.

Having said that, I'm sensitive to society's views on criminal punishment. By way of example - at present the maximum penalty for a person who sexually assaults a person under the age of 16 is 20 years imprisonment.

At present, there are a select group of offences that are deemed worthy of imprisonment for life (including, for example, murder and some examples of gang-rape.

If someone wanted to make the argument that sexual abuse of a child should be added to that list, then that is a discussion we should have. I'm not backing any such change - but it's a reasonable argument for someone to make.

What I will almost always oppose are changes that remove a court's discretion. I wrote earlier this year about the new law mandating life-imprisonment for murder of a police officer earlier this year.

But if there is a particular maximum penalty that needs to be increased, then so be it.

This is why I was so interested to watch this documentary from the always excellent Louis Theroux:

Screenshot from here

The doco is fascinating, and thoroughly worth a viewing. In short, Theroux spends a few days in a mental hospital in the US that was built for paedophiles who are still deemed to be too great a risk for a release, but who had finished their court-imposed sentence.

The offenders were kept in good conditions (at least when compared to a prison). They had all sorts of luxuries and benefits that are not afforded to regular prisoners.

And so it should be. These men had all completed the sentence that was imposed by the court, and there was no longer any basis for "punishing" them. They had rec-rooms, DVD players, sports competitions - they just weren't allowed to leave and re-enter the community.

The problem was that an idea that is perhaps good in theory was perhaps always destined to fail - the "inmates" were almost never approved for release. Even those that completed all the necessary rehabilitative programs found that accommodation difficulties, judicial review or plain bureaucratic SNAFU's meant that they tended to remain there indefinitely - even once approved for release.

But in theory, I think the idea has merit. A person who had completed his or her sentence should not be punished further - but surely there is merit in keeping those people separate from potential victims.

The problem in NSW is that there is not even an attempt to ensure that punishment is not any part of the preventative detention.

Full Act available here

This act, in short, allows the state to apply to the Supreme Court of NSW to keep a person in custody after the completion of his or her sentence if the person is service a sentence for a "serious sex offence".

This isn't simply keeping the person away from potential victims - a person who is subject to such an order is kept in gaol, as if their sentence was not yet finished.

It is abhorrent, but no one really seems that fussed. They're just sex-offenders, after all.

Today Greg Smith announced that the scope of the act was to be widened:

If it was simply a matter of preventing these offenders from re-integrating into the community, and if they were housed and cared for in such a way that made that clear, then I would have some sympathy for the position.

But that is clearly not the case. These people will simply be kept in gaol as if they were still serving their sentences.

And that's the problem. An idea that would be a necessary evil if carefully thought through and sufficiently funded becomes an arbitrary, capricious law that unnecessarily and grossly breaches human rights.

Why? A few cheap headlines in the Terrorgraph.

Worth it?