The Rudd Government has released its CPRS White Paper which will form the basis of its emissions trading policy until 2020. The headline figure is the setting of an emissions reduction target of 5% (on 2000 levels) rising to an 'absolute maximum' of 15% if an international agreement is put in place.
Given the previous policy platform outlined on matters such as renewable energy, it is not surprising that the target ceiling has been set at 15%. The Garnaut Report stressed the significance of per capita emissions in setting targets and with Australia's population projected to grow considerably due to higher immigration and birth rates than European nations; it is not surprising that the Australian approach has been to adopt a markedly lower target range than Europe.
The revised CPRS design is reminiscent of the 'action target' approach that had previously been advocated by Argentina. The action target theory sets a target range which is varied based on economic activity, thus ensuring any cost burdens do not place an excessive lag on industry in vulnerable times. As the global economy has tracked downwards dramatically since the initial mooting of the CPRS, the ambition of the scheme has been scaled back to reflect the difficult economic position.
The difficulty in setting a target is demonstrated by the need to balance an existential threat of future damage from climate change against the immediate threat of the global economic downturn, particularly as the most trade-exposed industries that are in the vanguard of carbon emissions are the ones whose immediate prospects have been severely affected by reduced demand in places such as China. The need to maintain consensus is vital in this situation and keep the majority on board. This has led to the increased insulation of both businesses and households from price rises.
The unfortunate byproduct of this is a reduced emphasis on energy efficiency programs. Ideally, using energy efficiency as a means to both lower individual costs and streamline the economic structure to encourage more efficient use of energy would have both short-term cost saving and economic stimulus benefits and long-term restructuring advantages. It is important to note that during the Asian economic crisis, energy efficiency procedures actually broke down as lower demand reduced costs. The result was a Chinese industrial sector beset with out-of-control emissions growth. The introduction of the CPRS will not take place until 2010, so it is imperative that energy efficiency is promoted strongly for the next tweleve to eighteen months to prevent a massive shock when the carbon price signal takes effect.
Showing posts with label international politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international politics. Show all posts
Monday, December 15, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Another global warming challenge
In the spirit of that fabled freedom of speech, Tim Dunlop has issued an invitation for any unpublished scientist whose (scientific) views are contrary to the global warming orthodoxy to send him a thousand word dissertation. Tree of Knowledge ups the ante to include explanations of why they differ from their fellow contrarians.
Global warming denial is both an inherently frustrating and fascinating phenomenon. Fascinating because of the psychological history, the experiences and influences that shape the views of the individuals that hold them. Frustrating for the standard political reasons. A level of intransigence by scientists and commentators either genuinely convinces politicians and the public the problem lacks urgency or provides a convenient excuse for inaction. It is not helpful in the modern massaged world of mass politics to be presented with the need to instigate a revolution across the economy and stimulate a domino-like consensus of opinion across both the developed and developing world.
It is understandable that conservatives in all walks of life, be they businessmen, unionists, politicians or commentators do not want to see the certainties of the modernity turned on their heads. Some see global warming belief as a triumph of faith over reason, others see it as an admission that the technologies of modernity cannot overcome the trials of nature. Both of these impulses have been criticial to the development of modern capitalism. Dependency on oil and baseload power are ciphers for an ideological conviction of humanity's inevitable progress. A narrative that despite the occasional conflagration has moved on apace since the medieval era.
The problem with this view is it ignores the inescapable facts that the oil reserves we rely on are finite and that it is simply unsustainable for the entire world's population to have the ecological footprint demanded by the modern western lifestyle. By definition, there are limits that constrain our access to resources. Hence in order to grow our way economically out of trouble, either we will have to find more arable and exploitable land or make our resource usage (across the whole gamut from food to metal production to energy itself) progressively more renewable. In short, while dealing with an exponential culture of achievement we will have to rediscover the cyclical resource use culture of our forebears.
As interesting in a 'angels dancing on a head of a pin' way as the global warming denial debate is, it does nothing to explain how proving the non-existence of anthropogenic global warming will solve humanity's forthcoming problems. It offers no solutions towards sustainable development and appears to buttress an ethic of land use and interaction which may be out of date and is certainly counterproductive.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for those poring over statistics, dissecting graphs and drawing conspiratorial conclusions is how are those intellectual endeavours going to secure the health, wealth and happiness of your grandchildren and their grandchildren. When the oil runs out and every nation from Guyana to Nepal demands a McDonalds on every street corner.
Global warming denial is both an inherently frustrating and fascinating phenomenon. Fascinating because of the psychological history, the experiences and influences that shape the views of the individuals that hold them. Frustrating for the standard political reasons. A level of intransigence by scientists and commentators either genuinely convinces politicians and the public the problem lacks urgency or provides a convenient excuse for inaction. It is not helpful in the modern massaged world of mass politics to be presented with the need to instigate a revolution across the economy and stimulate a domino-like consensus of opinion across both the developed and developing world.
It is understandable that conservatives in all walks of life, be they businessmen, unionists, politicians or commentators do not want to see the certainties of the modernity turned on their heads. Some see global warming belief as a triumph of faith over reason, others see it as an admission that the technologies of modernity cannot overcome the trials of nature. Both of these impulses have been criticial to the development of modern capitalism. Dependency on oil and baseload power are ciphers for an ideological conviction of humanity's inevitable progress. A narrative that despite the occasional conflagration has moved on apace since the medieval era.
The problem with this view is it ignores the inescapable facts that the oil reserves we rely on are finite and that it is simply unsustainable for the entire world's population to have the ecological footprint demanded by the modern western lifestyle. By definition, there are limits that constrain our access to resources. Hence in order to grow our way economically out of trouble, either we will have to find more arable and exploitable land or make our resource usage (across the whole gamut from food to metal production to energy itself) progressively more renewable. In short, while dealing with an exponential culture of achievement we will have to rediscover the cyclical resource use culture of our forebears.
As interesting in a 'angels dancing on a head of a pin' way as the global warming denial debate is, it does nothing to explain how proving the non-existence of anthropogenic global warming will solve humanity's forthcoming problems. It offers no solutions towards sustainable development and appears to buttress an ethic of land use and interaction which may be out of date and is certainly counterproductive.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for those poring over statistics, dissecting graphs and drawing conspiratorial conclusions is how are those intellectual endeavours going to secure the health, wealth and happiness of your grandchildren and their grandchildren. When the oil runs out and every nation from Guyana to Nepal demands a McDonalds on every street corner.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Rudd's political honeytrap
The Rudd Government's Green Paper will no doubt earn the ire of some climate and environmental organisations for its gradualist approach to emission reduction.
Petrol is in the scheme but compensated by 'cent-for-cent' excise reductions until 2013. Agriculture is out until further notice (possibly starting in 2015) and coal power generators will receive government assistance. The Government appears to be easing voters into copping nanoeconomic pain, by hitting them first with upfront power bills (softened to an extent by increased government payments). This suggests that fast tracking renewable energy - as indicated by the proposed 20% national renewable energy target by 2020, is seen as a more palatable and effective option for achieving emission reductions. If stationary energy emissions make up 50% of all emissions, rising to close to 60% by 2020, a 20% rise in renewable market share would achieve between 10-12% emission reductions. That would suggest that Rudd's interim emissions target cannot be much higher than about 15% by 2020 from the current nominated suite of abatement options. Even to achieve these savings will require a considerable improvement in fuel efficiency and or energy efficiency at the current target levels. Such a target looks low by world standards and will barely be in the pack once developed nations crunch the carbon numbers.
This may well be the genius of Rudd's plan. The bar is so low that it reflects a pragmatic Liberal policy wish list. So low that in one sentence Nelson chastisted Rudd for lifting their excise-permit neutral idea and in the next called it a petrol tax. The end result of Labor's policy is that it puts the onus on the people to push it to take more action. It is almost the minimal possible response without jeopardising the integrity of action altogether. Rudd has effectively offered an election year handout with the electricity rebates and absolved the government of responsibility for excessive petrol hikes.
Nelson is left in nanoeconomic limbo. He has to either junk the scheme entirely or have a technical debate over the merits of 2012 action. Nelson has flirted with a faux policy debate about the hybrid model but if anything has smacked of 'The Hollowmen' in national politics, that search for an alternative was it. Possibly locking Turnbull, Hunt and Bishop into his Central Coast caravan for a weekend and designing a proper policy alternative would be more beneficial both to the debate and the long-term coherency of his party.
At the minute his argument boils down to 'there's a right way to do it (mine) and a wrong way (Rudd's)'. If the excise cut is my idea it's good policy and if it's his policy it is bad. The fact that all this operates in the future - i.e. after the battle has been won at the polls, makes Nelson's 'Rudd's 2013 review is Rudd-speak for ending the excise cut' ring hollow. If Rudd is to pay for injudicious action it will be in 2010. If he is to pay for inaction it will be 2013.
The scheme offers so much to the vulnerable polluters and the kind of targeted compensation scheme now becoming the Rudd trademark that it is highly unlikely the final draft will be any weaker. If anything, the challenge is being thrown down to voters to tell the government they want action and are prepared to pay for it.
Watching Penny Wong at the Press Club demonstrated a player in control of her material, confident in the merits of the argument and open to being pushed to further action. Watching Greg Hunt on Lateline demonstrated a puppet forced to parrot a line he did not believe in, wishing he had something coherent if not constructive to say. Only when Hunt got onto his pet subject of solar panel rebates did he seem to have conviction. Perhaps he should show some boldness and adopt the German bipartisan solar feed-in tariff where homeowners get four times the price for their surplus solar energy fed into the grid.
The danger with Rudd's policy is that in forcing the Liberals over the climate cliff, it will force a very swift acceleration of targets in the medium term. But by then Greg Hunt might be PM.
Petrol is in the scheme but compensated by 'cent-for-cent' excise reductions until 2013. Agriculture is out until further notice (possibly starting in 2015) and coal power generators will receive government assistance. The Government appears to be easing voters into copping nanoeconomic pain, by hitting them first with upfront power bills (softened to an extent by increased government payments). This suggests that fast tracking renewable energy - as indicated by the proposed 20% national renewable energy target by 2020, is seen as a more palatable and effective option for achieving emission reductions. If stationary energy emissions make up 50% of all emissions, rising to close to 60% by 2020, a 20% rise in renewable market share would achieve between 10-12% emission reductions. That would suggest that Rudd's interim emissions target cannot be much higher than about 15% by 2020 from the current nominated suite of abatement options. Even to achieve these savings will require a considerable improvement in fuel efficiency and or energy efficiency at the current target levels. Such a target looks low by world standards and will barely be in the pack once developed nations crunch the carbon numbers.
This may well be the genius of Rudd's plan. The bar is so low that it reflects a pragmatic Liberal policy wish list. So low that in one sentence Nelson chastisted Rudd for lifting their excise-permit neutral idea and in the next called it a petrol tax. The end result of Labor's policy is that it puts the onus on the people to push it to take more action. It is almost the minimal possible response without jeopardising the integrity of action altogether. Rudd has effectively offered an election year handout with the electricity rebates and absolved the government of responsibility for excessive petrol hikes.
Nelson is left in nanoeconomic limbo. He has to either junk the scheme entirely or have a technical debate over the merits of 2012 action. Nelson has flirted with a faux policy debate about the hybrid model but if anything has smacked of 'The Hollowmen' in national politics, that search for an alternative was it. Possibly locking Turnbull, Hunt and Bishop into his Central Coast caravan for a weekend and designing a proper policy alternative would be more beneficial both to the debate and the long-term coherency of his party.
At the minute his argument boils down to 'there's a right way to do it (mine) and a wrong way (Rudd's)'. If the excise cut is my idea it's good policy and if it's his policy it is bad. The fact that all this operates in the future - i.e. after the battle has been won at the polls, makes Nelson's 'Rudd's 2013 review is Rudd-speak for ending the excise cut' ring hollow. If Rudd is to pay for injudicious action it will be in 2010. If he is to pay for inaction it will be 2013.
The scheme offers so much to the vulnerable polluters and the kind of targeted compensation scheme now becoming the Rudd trademark that it is highly unlikely the final draft will be any weaker. If anything, the challenge is being thrown down to voters to tell the government they want action and are prepared to pay for it.
Watching Penny Wong at the Press Club demonstrated a player in control of her material, confident in the merits of the argument and open to being pushed to further action. Watching Greg Hunt on Lateline demonstrated a puppet forced to parrot a line he did not believe in, wishing he had something coherent if not constructive to say. Only when Hunt got onto his pet subject of solar panel rebates did he seem to have conviction. Perhaps he should show some boldness and adopt the German bipartisan solar feed-in tariff where homeowners get four times the price for their surplus solar energy fed into the grid.
The danger with Rudd's policy is that in forcing the Liberals over the climate cliff, it will force a very swift acceleration of targets in the medium term. But by then Greg Hunt might be PM.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The political inversion of the climate change debate
A number of journalists ranging across the spectrum from Fairfax's Annabel Crabb to News Limited stalwarts Dennis Shanahan and Andrew Bolt have identified the apparent contradiction between Rudd's 'I feel your pain' pitch to 'battlers' (or as the Piping Shrike has put it 'The New Sensitivity') and the inherent need for energy prices to rise to combat climate change.
On paper, it looks like a recipe for a Latham-Downeresque implosion. However, it both gives the voters no credit by implying they cannot hold two ideas in their collective heads at the same time and misunderstands the reasons for Howard's demise. Firstly, it is a well-established fact that voters can differentiate between state and federal politics. For at least two terms of the Howard government, large swathes of the country voted for completely different parties at the state and federal level. In fact, where Labor has run into trouble in the past is by dismissing many voters as 'ignorant' or 'unsophisticated'. The key basis of politics is persuasion, and a failure to persuade, while open to inteference from outside forces, ultimately comes down to whether the audience sees an essential truth in your message and your capacity to deliver. Rudd seems to be aware of the dangers of underestimating the public mind.
Secondly, Howard's fall from grace came from Rudd altering the economic debate from the macroeconomic level to the nanoeconomic level. Hence he recognised the problems of petrol and grocery price vulnerability and promised government assistance around the margins. Petrol and food prices operate however as free markets without government command and control influence, so real power here is limited to a 'watching brief', keeping an eye on price fluctuations and opening up the field for more competition.
What Rudd aims to do with climate change is again redefine the economic debate, this time on the macroeconomic level. Setting a price for carbon will integrate environmental costs into the economic system. That is the first step. The second will be for environmental and economic management to be seen as covalent. The third step is to break the nexus between economic growth and environmental emissions growth thus ensuring a political, economic and environmentally sustainable future. Unlike previous reforms such as the GST, support for an emissions trading scheme is consistently over 50%, while opposition sits around 25% with around 20% of people waiting to hear more details. Thus aligning economic and environmental action is what the people want at this point in time.
Unlike petrol and food commodities, the Rudd Government will have the power to set the starting price for carbon, define the parameters of the market and redistribute revenue from carbon permits to compensate the people. This market will afford government a measure of control rather than the watching brief seen in the nanoeconomic field.
The other thing that climate change does is transform energy increases into issues of personal responsibility. It thus becomes almost a civic duty to accept and embrace higher energy prices and encourage a larger share of renewable energy usage. In this climate, the goodwill to government is not dependent on keeping prices down but ensuring there is appropriate action being taken which is manageable on both the national and personal level. So government will both have more power to act and a proportionally lower need to act to ease public concerns.
The critical factors with the climate change carbon transition process will be the quality of the Rudd Government's communication with the people and its capacity to persuade voters that action is in all our interests. On this, expect to see a lot of Garrett and Rudd, and very little of Wong, who will be behind the scenes dealing with business and other large stakeholders.
On paper, it looks like a recipe for a Latham-Downeresque implosion. However, it both gives the voters no credit by implying they cannot hold two ideas in their collective heads at the same time and misunderstands the reasons for Howard's demise. Firstly, it is a well-established fact that voters can differentiate between state and federal politics. For at least two terms of the Howard government, large swathes of the country voted for completely different parties at the state and federal level. In fact, where Labor has run into trouble in the past is by dismissing many voters as 'ignorant' or 'unsophisticated'. The key basis of politics is persuasion, and a failure to persuade, while open to inteference from outside forces, ultimately comes down to whether the audience sees an essential truth in your message and your capacity to deliver. Rudd seems to be aware of the dangers of underestimating the public mind.
Secondly, Howard's fall from grace came from Rudd altering the economic debate from the macroeconomic level to the nanoeconomic level. Hence he recognised the problems of petrol and grocery price vulnerability and promised government assistance around the margins. Petrol and food prices operate however as free markets without government command and control influence, so real power here is limited to a 'watching brief', keeping an eye on price fluctuations and opening up the field for more competition.
What Rudd aims to do with climate change is again redefine the economic debate, this time on the macroeconomic level. Setting a price for carbon will integrate environmental costs into the economic system. That is the first step. The second will be for environmental and economic management to be seen as covalent. The third step is to break the nexus between economic growth and environmental emissions growth thus ensuring a political, economic and environmentally sustainable future. Unlike previous reforms such as the GST, support for an emissions trading scheme is consistently over 50%, while opposition sits around 25% with around 20% of people waiting to hear more details. Thus aligning economic and environmental action is what the people want at this point in time.
Unlike petrol and food commodities, the Rudd Government will have the power to set the starting price for carbon, define the parameters of the market and redistribute revenue from carbon permits to compensate the people. This market will afford government a measure of control rather than the watching brief seen in the nanoeconomic field.
The other thing that climate change does is transform energy increases into issues of personal responsibility. It thus becomes almost a civic duty to accept and embrace higher energy prices and encourage a larger share of renewable energy usage. In this climate, the goodwill to government is not dependent on keeping prices down but ensuring there is appropriate action being taken which is manageable on both the national and personal level. So government will both have more power to act and a proportionally lower need to act to ease public concerns.
The critical factors with the climate change carbon transition process will be the quality of the Rudd Government's communication with the people and its capacity to persuade voters that action is in all our interests. On this, expect to see a lot of Garrett and Rudd, and very little of Wong, who will be behind the scenes dealing with business and other large stakeholders.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Breaking the economic - emissions growth nexus
The realpolitik challenge of climate change lies in its economics. Although governments and environmental movements alike have long advocated the use of market mechanisms such as emissions trading in concert with traditional regulation and conservation measures, the major stumbling block to building a universal consensus for action is the link between economic growth and emissions growth.
It is axiomatic that, while powered predominantly by fossil fuels, economic growth will result in an increase in carbon emissions. This makes economic transitions from developing to developed countries have an exponential effect on carbon levels and push the atmosphere into dangerous territory. It paradoxically makes the problem more urgent and less amiable to agreement and action. Hence overtly capitalist, free-market theorists and commentators dismiss the need for climate change and heavily critique emissions trading despite its core reliance on market principles.
It is clear that unless this nexus is broken, we will find out exactly how much effect carbon can have in the atmosphere. The key to breaking this nexus comes when our power supplies need to either be replaced or augmented with new installations. That means that renewable energy and low emissions technology such as gas have to be utilised in a way that makes them economic competitors with fossil fuels.
The key tools for this task are a thorough assessment of power station requirements, an emissions trading scheme recognising the true price of carbon, international targets for renewable energy production to stimulate development, international accounting charting a decline in emissions growth versus economic growth, adequate compensation mechanisms for people overly affected by increased prices, vigilant regulators preventing profiteering, removal of artificial barriers supporting coal and oil over gas and encouragement of technology adoption through government initiatives.
We need to attack assumptions such as the supposed inability of renewables (or anything other than nuclear or coal) to produce baseload power. We need to encourage innovative technology and find ways to exploit our geothermal, solar and wave resources rather than our oil. Gas and energy efficiency can set the ball rolling, but wave, solar and wind technology must be facilitated to become more efficient and cheaper.
In short, we need to recast, redefine and adapt our economic structures and the energy delivery systems that power them to subsume environmental and economic responsibility into the one concept. We need to set meaningful targets, design appropriate processes and coordinate action and encourage innovation.
It is axiomatic that, while powered predominantly by fossil fuels, economic growth will result in an increase in carbon emissions. This makes economic transitions from developing to developed countries have an exponential effect on carbon levels and push the atmosphere into dangerous territory. It paradoxically makes the problem more urgent and less amiable to agreement and action. Hence overtly capitalist, free-market theorists and commentators dismiss the need for climate change and heavily critique emissions trading despite its core reliance on market principles.
It is clear that unless this nexus is broken, we will find out exactly how much effect carbon can have in the atmosphere. The key to breaking this nexus comes when our power supplies need to either be replaced or augmented with new installations. That means that renewable energy and low emissions technology such as gas have to be utilised in a way that makes them economic competitors with fossil fuels.
The key tools for this task are a thorough assessment of power station requirements, an emissions trading scheme recognising the true price of carbon, international targets for renewable energy production to stimulate development, international accounting charting a decline in emissions growth versus economic growth, adequate compensation mechanisms for people overly affected by increased prices, vigilant regulators preventing profiteering, removal of artificial barriers supporting coal and oil over gas and encouragement of technology adoption through government initiatives.
We need to attack assumptions such as the supposed inability of renewables (or anything other than nuclear or coal) to produce baseload power. We need to encourage innovative technology and find ways to exploit our geothermal, solar and wave resources rather than our oil. Gas and energy efficiency can set the ball rolling, but wave, solar and wind technology must be facilitated to become more efficient and cheaper.
In short, we need to recast, redefine and adapt our economic structures and the energy delivery systems that power them to subsume environmental and economic responsibility into the one concept. We need to set meaningful targets, design appropriate processes and coordinate action and encourage innovation.
Taking a carrot and stick to Mugabe
It seems that with Mugabe's virtual declaration of war on the MDC, the global community has suddenly started mentioning the 'g' word and the 'R' word. Visions of genocide and the absymal failure of the UN in Rwanda have given a new urgency to measures to rein in the Zimbabwean dictator.
One 'r' word that is key for Mugabe is rejection. Rejected by the international community, he discredits European and American attempts to counsel his behaviour as colonial interference. Rejected by his people, he has manipulated the populace through fear. He has shaken the country like a tree until all the MDC supporters fall out. He cannot accept rejection, so the agents of that rejection must be purged.
Mugabe will continue to menace Zimbabwe unless either saner heads in the ZANU-PF roll him into retirement or his advanced age (or an assasin) catches up with him. A third option is military intervention under the emerging 'duty to protect' doctrine. However it is likely that China would veto an excessively aggressive pursuit of such intervention unless there was broad agreement with its African trading partners. China may not like a human rights mililtary incursion precedent to be set with the ongoing issues in Tibet and Nepal.
A negotiated settlement with Mugabe is not an option. However, a deal for an interim power sharing agreement might be possible under a moderated ZANU-PF. The trick to moderating the ZANU-PF is to allow Mugabe's liberation-era allies the option to give Mugabe a graceful exit and retirement. Zambia has pushed for action, yet South Africa's Mbeki demonstrates a reluctance to push too hard, given his apparent sympathy to some of Mugabe's land-distribution policies.
The international community's role is to freeze Mugabe's influence on the world stage and encourage external nations not to bankroll the regime with either cash or arms. It can also prompt Mbeki to act by offering South Africa either advantageous trade inducements or diplomatic positions on the world stage.
The 'liberation' club could appeal to Mugabe's vanity by reminding him of his advanced years and that his role as 'father of the nation' would best be preserved by not declaring a civil war on his own people. A nation such as Equatorial Guinea, which has done deals with Mugabe in the past, could provide his cronies suitable accommodation. The stick option lies in authorising military action, with a force led by a suitably neutral power such as India under UN auspices, with logistic support from Europe, US and Australia. This could encourage a new solidarity, not between leaders but between people as Africans.
One 'r' word that is key for Mugabe is rejection. Rejected by the international community, he discredits European and American attempts to counsel his behaviour as colonial interference. Rejected by his people, he has manipulated the populace through fear. He has shaken the country like a tree until all the MDC supporters fall out. He cannot accept rejection, so the agents of that rejection must be purged.
Mugabe will continue to menace Zimbabwe unless either saner heads in the ZANU-PF roll him into retirement or his advanced age (or an assasin) catches up with him. A third option is military intervention under the emerging 'duty to protect' doctrine. However it is likely that China would veto an excessively aggressive pursuit of such intervention unless there was broad agreement with its African trading partners. China may not like a human rights mililtary incursion precedent to be set with the ongoing issues in Tibet and Nepal.
A negotiated settlement with Mugabe is not an option. However, a deal for an interim power sharing agreement might be possible under a moderated ZANU-PF. The trick to moderating the ZANU-PF is to allow Mugabe's liberation-era allies the option to give Mugabe a graceful exit and retirement. Zambia has pushed for action, yet South Africa's Mbeki demonstrates a reluctance to push too hard, given his apparent sympathy to some of Mugabe's land-distribution policies.
The international community's role is to freeze Mugabe's influence on the world stage and encourage external nations not to bankroll the regime with either cash or arms. It can also prompt Mbeki to act by offering South Africa either advantageous trade inducements or diplomatic positions on the world stage.
The 'liberation' club could appeal to Mugabe's vanity by reminding him of his advanced years and that his role as 'father of the nation' would best be preserved by not declaring a civil war on his own people. A nation such as Equatorial Guinea, which has done deals with Mugabe in the past, could provide his cronies suitable accommodation. The stick option lies in authorising military action, with a force led by a suitably neutral power such as India under UN auspices, with logistic support from Europe, US and Australia. This could encourage a new solidarity, not between leaders but between people as Africans.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Wow! Some action from the ICC
Common sense has prevailed
Perhaps they can get their act together and do something about allowing Zimbabwe to play international cricket?
Perhaps they can get their act together and do something about allowing Zimbabwe to play international cricket?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Shanahan Principle
That the prominence of Tuesday's Newspoll on the Australian's website is in direct proportion to its favourability to the Coalition.
Can anyone actually find the 59-41 poll on the Australian's website?? Is this a case of not 'Where's Wally' but there are the wallies?
Can anyone actually find the 59-41 poll on the Australian's website?? Is this a case of not 'Where's Wally' but there are the wallies?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Pop goes the alcopop proxy
It is undeniable that there has been an increase in alcohol-related harm in recent years, whether this be measured by hospital admissions, police reports or sheer anecdotal evidence. It seems that the latest generation of teenagers to run the gauntlet of adolescence have taken to drinking (more) early and (more) often. In response to this, the Rudd government took the most immediate policy action at its disposal, imposing by regulation the same tax scheme to pre-mixed drinks as conventional spirits. The uncharitable have criticised Rudd's move as 'spin and symbols', yet the problems raised by alcohol are so complex that the alcopop tax served as a proxy for real action while that massive effort was weighed, planned and negotiated.
The alcopop tax loophole was created when for reasons best known to itself, the former government chose not to adjust the excise rate charged on alcopops to match conventional spirits. This created a very slippery pathway for young teenagers to move from soft drinks into spirits while not experiencing the paint-stripper style symptoms associated with higher alcohol drinks. While teenagers have always taken up drinking through the high school party scene, the government's tax policy should have assisted in them choosing something other than sugar-coated rum as their poison. The spike in the ready-mixed drink share of the alcohol market, from 3% to nearly 12%, points to a very substantial increase in alcohol consumption through this fiscal misadventure.
However the alcopop debacle is only part of the problem. Greater disposal income, more stress being felt by adolescents in a world of unstable employment prospects and the collateral effect of older siblings' own drinking habits have caused the problem to snowball. The ridiculous hours clubs are open to, coupled with the relaxation of planning provisions and the introduction of mega venues where responsible service of alcohol is not in management's interests create a cocktail of potential violence, drunken behaviour and potential major health ramifications.
Clearly, to address all these problems will require a coordinated effort between local, state and federal government, alcohol manufacturers and club management. The accessibility of alcohol, the concentration of venues and the attractiveness of excessive drinking need to be considered carefully. The idea that it is acceptable to consume twenty drinks a weekend for ten to fifteen years is unsustainable. Yet that kind of intake is more norm than exception. The assumption appears to be that consistent drinking through the week is bad, a sign of alcoholism, but the weekend binge is culturally acceptable. This assumption needs to be examined and researchers must develop responsible guidelines that speak to the long-term effects of 'the binge', rather than just the per diem intake.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon seems intent at present to cover the time lag in taking tough action with party politics against the former government's inaction. The former government's actions in allowing the pre-mixed drink preferential tax treatment and failure to develop any response beyond the obligatory alcohol campaign are worthy of censure. However Roxon would be better served not battering her audience into submission but laying the groundwork for a major social overhaul - one that may eventually see the weekend binge as unwise a social choice as the pack a day cigarette habit.
The alcopop tax loophole was created when for reasons best known to itself, the former government chose not to adjust the excise rate charged on alcopops to match conventional spirits. This created a very slippery pathway for young teenagers to move from soft drinks into spirits while not experiencing the paint-stripper style symptoms associated with higher alcohol drinks. While teenagers have always taken up drinking through the high school party scene, the government's tax policy should have assisted in them choosing something other than sugar-coated rum as their poison. The spike in the ready-mixed drink share of the alcohol market, from 3% to nearly 12%, points to a very substantial increase in alcohol consumption through this fiscal misadventure.
However the alcopop debacle is only part of the problem. Greater disposal income, more stress being felt by adolescents in a world of unstable employment prospects and the collateral effect of older siblings' own drinking habits have caused the problem to snowball. The ridiculous hours clubs are open to, coupled with the relaxation of planning provisions and the introduction of mega venues where responsible service of alcohol is not in management's interests create a cocktail of potential violence, drunken behaviour and potential major health ramifications.
Clearly, to address all these problems will require a coordinated effort between local, state and federal government, alcohol manufacturers and club management. The accessibility of alcohol, the concentration of venues and the attractiveness of excessive drinking need to be considered carefully. The idea that it is acceptable to consume twenty drinks a weekend for ten to fifteen years is unsustainable. Yet that kind of intake is more norm than exception. The assumption appears to be that consistent drinking through the week is bad, a sign of alcoholism, but the weekend binge is culturally acceptable. This assumption needs to be examined and researchers must develop responsible guidelines that speak to the long-term effects of 'the binge', rather than just the per diem intake.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon seems intent at present to cover the time lag in taking tough action with party politics against the former government's inaction. The former government's actions in allowing the pre-mixed drink preferential tax treatment and failure to develop any response beyond the obligatory alcohol campaign are worthy of censure. However Roxon would be better served not battering her audience into submission but laying the groundwork for a major social overhaul - one that may eventually see the weekend binge as unwise a social choice as the pack a day cigarette habit.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Setting liberal democratic parameters for free speech
It is interesting to note the minor blogging brushfire breaking out over the prosecution of the Canadian neo-conservative columnist, Mark Steyn, for alleged hate speech comments under British Columbia's anti-vilification laws. The problem anti-vilification laws are bound to run into is the issue of free speech - the purported essence of democratic society. The introduction of anti-vilification law - legislation specifically designed to change behaviour through language and attitude -raises questions as to how to set the boundaries of free speech.
Anti-vilification laws represent a laudable attempt to protect minorities from abuse and work towards a harmonious multicultural society. However, they have failed to address the philosophical challenge posed by an insurgency of conservative commentators. Progressive thought is constantly under attack from those who oppose it. Anti-vilification law, with its focus on behaviour change and centralised control, is tarnished with images of Maoist-Soviet re-education. The sanctions offered by the laws are weak, yet the challenge remains strong. The result is a hatred of the laws, rather than the behaviour, and the false assumption that other cultures are 'protected species'. Anti-vilification laws are seen as a dangerous fetter on free speech, rather than valid laws which should be upheld by the archetypical law abiding citizen.
The idea of anti-vilification is to set parameters for what is and what is not acceptable conduct in society in line with internationally recognised human rights principles. In other words, it goes to fundamental questions of humanity. Rather than being seen, however, as 'behaviour change', instead it should be recast as 'the law of the land'. This is particularly important in the post-terrorism era, where aggrieved persons are easy prey for fundamentalists of all persuasions, and a 'free speech incident' such as an ill-advised cartoon in one country can lead to bombings in another. Failing to bridge the divides between communities, and worse, reinforcing the prejudices as justified resistance to 'political correctness' makes all of us vulnerable to bad neoconservative foreign policy adventures in Iraq, Iran (or insert Muslim country of their choice) and increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks in all corners of the world.
There is a loud chorus of concern that moderate Muslims do not take action to rein in their extremist counterparts. Yet that chorus also sings loudest about the evils of political correctness and refuses to accept that the crude remarks of Jones and his acolytes also demand action. This lack of a causal link speaks to a deeper and perhaps wilful misunderstanding of both other cultures and the nature of terrorist outrages.
Australian speech is partially protected by the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication. That guarantee means that any law that is not appropriate and adapted to preventing obscenity, libel or incitement to violence and restricts the ability to criticise government policy or access to media during political campaigns is likely to be unconstitutional. It is arguable that in the present climate, a strong anti-vilification law which inteprets say, Jones' laissez-faire response to the Cronulla text messages as worthy of sanction may meet this test for incitement, but it is a grey area.
To play their role to best advantage in the Australian polity, anti-vilification laws need to be remodelled in consultation with those very players who are at the pivot point of the problem. Conservatives and cultural representatives should be brought together for a thorough-going summit on social inclusion, freedom of speech and incitement to acts of violence, vandalism and discrimination. This would be an act of true national leadership and may provide an environment of goodwill and understanding, where issues can be rationally debated. This summit should then lay out a nonpartisan programme for uniform anti-vilification legislation, allowing for strong sanctions such as suspension of broadcasters and ultimately broadcast licences for repeat offenders. This would give the conservatives (and their media masters) most likely to be affected by law changes a hearing in the process and mitigate their concern about the threat to free speech.
The continued attack by conservatives such as Steyn on anti-vilification and other similar laws is neither liberal or democratic. However, without consultation with such parties, the resentment and martyr mentality of the 'political correctness' mindset will continue to thrive and plague our supposedly liberal, democratic and mature society.
Anti-vilification laws represent a laudable attempt to protect minorities from abuse and work towards a harmonious multicultural society. However, they have failed to address the philosophical challenge posed by an insurgency of conservative commentators. Progressive thought is constantly under attack from those who oppose it. Anti-vilification law, with its focus on behaviour change and centralised control, is tarnished with images of Maoist-Soviet re-education. The sanctions offered by the laws are weak, yet the challenge remains strong. The result is a hatred of the laws, rather than the behaviour, and the false assumption that other cultures are 'protected species'. Anti-vilification laws are seen as a dangerous fetter on free speech, rather than valid laws which should be upheld by the archetypical law abiding citizen.
The idea of anti-vilification is to set parameters for what is and what is not acceptable conduct in society in line with internationally recognised human rights principles. In other words, it goes to fundamental questions of humanity. Rather than being seen, however, as 'behaviour change', instead it should be recast as 'the law of the land'. This is particularly important in the post-terrorism era, where aggrieved persons are easy prey for fundamentalists of all persuasions, and a 'free speech incident' such as an ill-advised cartoon in one country can lead to bombings in another. Failing to bridge the divides between communities, and worse, reinforcing the prejudices as justified resistance to 'political correctness' makes all of us vulnerable to bad neoconservative foreign policy adventures in Iraq, Iran (or insert Muslim country of their choice) and increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks in all corners of the world.
There is a loud chorus of concern that moderate Muslims do not take action to rein in their extremist counterparts. Yet that chorus also sings loudest about the evils of political correctness and refuses to accept that the crude remarks of Jones and his acolytes also demand action. This lack of a causal link speaks to a deeper and perhaps wilful misunderstanding of both other cultures and the nature of terrorist outrages.
Australian speech is partially protected by the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication. That guarantee means that any law that is not appropriate and adapted to preventing obscenity, libel or incitement to violence and restricts the ability to criticise government policy or access to media during political campaigns is likely to be unconstitutional. It is arguable that in the present climate, a strong anti-vilification law which inteprets say, Jones' laissez-faire response to the Cronulla text messages as worthy of sanction may meet this test for incitement, but it is a grey area.
To play their role to best advantage in the Australian polity, anti-vilification laws need to be remodelled in consultation with those very players who are at the pivot point of the problem. Conservatives and cultural representatives should be brought together for a thorough-going summit on social inclusion, freedom of speech and incitement to acts of violence, vandalism and discrimination. This would be an act of true national leadership and may provide an environment of goodwill and understanding, where issues can be rationally debated. This summit should then lay out a nonpartisan programme for uniform anti-vilification legislation, allowing for strong sanctions such as suspension of broadcasters and ultimately broadcast licences for repeat offenders. This would give the conservatives (and their media masters) most likely to be affected by law changes a hearing in the process and mitigate their concern about the threat to free speech.
The continued attack by conservatives such as Steyn on anti-vilification and other similar laws is neither liberal or democratic. However, without consultation with such parties, the resentment and martyr mentality of the 'political correctness' mindset will continue to thrive and plague our supposedly liberal, democratic and mature society.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Fuel poverty and the emissions trading debate
Much as I hate cheap jargon, expect to hear a lot more of the phrase 'fuel poverty'. Basically it means paying a high percentage of your income in fuel costs (whether that be electricity or even petrol). Given high interest rates, rising inflation particularly in essentials such as food and constrained wages, the usual fury over fuel prices has been exacerbated as people actually start to feel like they are impoverished, not just inconvenienced by petrol prices. The potential for political trouble with the impending emissions trading scheme is palpable. Peter Garrett getting into contortions about including petrol into the emissions trading scheme demonstrates this clearly.
A major problem with emissions trading is the impetus for power companies to pass on the permit costs to their customers, namely the 90+ percent of them who have not taken up Greenpower schemes. The obvious solution is to redistribute the permit costs back to consumers. It seems likely this will be done by a tax credit system, which will probably have to pay credits quarterly in line with utility bills. The system would then be revenue neutral, provide almost no cash-flow issues for ordinary people and achieve carbon reduction targets by the government's overall cap on tradeable permits. The ACCC would have a key role in preventing price gouging by power companies inflating their carbon abatement costs.
However energy usage does not necessarily equate with income either, so government, in conjunction with power companies, will have to even out the discrepancies by commissioning large scale insulation and energy efficient appliance roll-outs to retrofit existing homes in line with new standards. Water companies are currently using similar tactics to improve water usage habits. Another option may be to commission a buyback of inefficient appliances and vehicles, an idea that Tim Flannery has recently floated. For those still under grave threat, short term payments could be made to top up tax credits for excess bills. A further key part of the puzzle lies in switching new power plants to gas co-generation or renewable sources. Government could mandate all new vehicles be run on either LPG or hybrid technology systems.
Running some decent advertising equating energy usage (or abuse) to extra power costs would create more of a sense of personal responsibility rather than government-imposed tax grabs.
The main challenges needing action are to compensate people affected by higher prices, spread the risk from energy bills more evenly across the population and most importantly, educate the people to understand how they can help with climate change and how the government is not committing daylight robbery.
A possible related reform could be brought into business taxation. Business could sign up for an eco-charter where they pay a reduced tax rate in exchange for signing up to stricter environmental standards and responsibilities. This could be particularly useful for corporations in counteracting the 'only duty is to shareholders' mantra, which has left corporate social responsibility aspirational at best. This would eliminate the need for onerous carbon input systems or providing wholesale tax credits for business.
Emissions trading is not a panacea but a market correction mechanism that allows lower emission fuels such as gas, renewables such as solar, wind and tidal and higher emission fuels such as coal to compete on an environmentally level playing field. Designed appropriately, it could potentially restructure our economic foundations in a way that promotes sustainable growth well into the future.
A major problem with emissions trading is the impetus for power companies to pass on the permit costs to their customers, namely the 90+ percent of them who have not taken up Greenpower schemes. The obvious solution is to redistribute the permit costs back to consumers. It seems likely this will be done by a tax credit system, which will probably have to pay credits quarterly in line with utility bills. The system would then be revenue neutral, provide almost no cash-flow issues for ordinary people and achieve carbon reduction targets by the government's overall cap on tradeable permits. The ACCC would have a key role in preventing price gouging by power companies inflating their carbon abatement costs.
However energy usage does not necessarily equate with income either, so government, in conjunction with power companies, will have to even out the discrepancies by commissioning large scale insulation and energy efficient appliance roll-outs to retrofit existing homes in line with new standards. Water companies are currently using similar tactics to improve water usage habits. Another option may be to commission a buyback of inefficient appliances and vehicles, an idea that Tim Flannery has recently floated. For those still under grave threat, short term payments could be made to top up tax credits for excess bills. A further key part of the puzzle lies in switching new power plants to gas co-generation or renewable sources. Government could mandate all new vehicles be run on either LPG or hybrid technology systems.
Running some decent advertising equating energy usage (or abuse) to extra power costs would create more of a sense of personal responsibility rather than government-imposed tax grabs.
The main challenges needing action are to compensate people affected by higher prices, spread the risk from energy bills more evenly across the population and most importantly, educate the people to understand how they can help with climate change and how the government is not committing daylight robbery.
A possible related reform could be brought into business taxation. Business could sign up for an eco-charter where they pay a reduced tax rate in exchange for signing up to stricter environmental standards and responsibilities. This could be particularly useful for corporations in counteracting the 'only duty is to shareholders' mantra, which has left corporate social responsibility aspirational at best. This would eliminate the need for onerous carbon input systems or providing wholesale tax credits for business.
Emissions trading is not a panacea but a market correction mechanism that allows lower emission fuels such as gas, renewables such as solar, wind and tidal and higher emission fuels such as coal to compete on an environmentally level playing field. Designed appropriately, it could potentially restructure our economic foundations in a way that promotes sustainable growth well into the future.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Why applying the lessons of the past does not always work
Brendan Nelson made his alternative PM debut at the National Press Club yesterday. After plumbing the depths of opinion poll hell by becoming Brendan 007, he has adopted the very simple philosophy of trying to be himself. Nelson's natural personality is a blend of emotion and protection of self-interest, which may explain why he initially joined Labor but rose to be the Liberal leader. It also explains this off-the-cuff plea to define our values against terrorism.
The problem with this rhetoric, which seems to be setting the Liberals up to become lock-stepped to McCain's policy of confrontation, is that it betrays the conservative belief that communism and Islamist philosophy are similar political doctrines. The only thing communism and Islamism have in common, other than being 'isms', is a tendency towards greatly curtailing individual freedom. Communism relies on individuals subordinating themselves to the state for the greater good, while Islamism relies on individuals wholly embracing a narrow interpretation of the Koran. One sees the state as the ultimate entity, while the other sees it as a collection of true believers.
The real difficulty for conservatives schooled in Cold War politics is that Islamism is a totally different beast. Whereas communism evolved into a struggle between two global superpowers, each offering an alternative view on government and political organisation, Islamism has no such power base. Islamism has control of no government, but in the age of globalisation it has employed the same kind of franchise and internet delivery systems favoured by corporations such as McDonalds and Dell. The Cold War relied on two mighty military machines conducting a series of proxy wars against each other. Islamism is not reliant on military might. It relies on winning the battle of ideas, a battle it can shape by using the modern media techniques of spin and alleging to speak for the disenfranchised.
The US seems to seriously believe that fighting Islamist inspired fighters in Iraq is equivalent to fighting the proxy Soviet forces of the Viet Cong. The problem is that the war on the ground does not itself frustrate the movement. On the contrary, it provides it with great media attention and a legitimacy it craves as the standard bearer for Arab and Muslim grievances from Morocco to Indonesia.
The best way to deal with the issue is not to promote Islamists to the level of the Supreme Soviet. The greatest mistake made since 2001 has been the invasion of Iraq, a high risk strategy which was poorly executed. The second mistake has been the mishandling of domestic terrorist legislation and investigations and the failure to bring communities together rather than harness division for political ends. If Nelson is serious about the values that bind us as a nation, he would drop his value-based assault on public schools, an assault that leads to less unity and greater secretarian education of the next generation.
My children’s generation is facing something that isn’t all that easy to see in day-to-day life, but it is resurgent totalitarianism which in the form, in the main, of Islamic extremism throughout the world and we have to be clear about precisely what we stand for and what we will do with our allies throughout the world.
The problem with this rhetoric, which seems to be setting the Liberals up to become lock-stepped to McCain's policy of confrontation, is that it betrays the conservative belief that communism and Islamist philosophy are similar political doctrines. The only thing communism and Islamism have in common, other than being 'isms', is a tendency towards greatly curtailing individual freedom. Communism relies on individuals subordinating themselves to the state for the greater good, while Islamism relies on individuals wholly embracing a narrow interpretation of the Koran. One sees the state as the ultimate entity, while the other sees it as a collection of true believers.
The real difficulty for conservatives schooled in Cold War politics is that Islamism is a totally different beast. Whereas communism evolved into a struggle between two global superpowers, each offering an alternative view on government and political organisation, Islamism has no such power base. Islamism has control of no government, but in the age of globalisation it has employed the same kind of franchise and internet delivery systems favoured by corporations such as McDonalds and Dell. The Cold War relied on two mighty military machines conducting a series of proxy wars against each other. Islamism is not reliant on military might. It relies on winning the battle of ideas, a battle it can shape by using the modern media techniques of spin and alleging to speak for the disenfranchised.
The US seems to seriously believe that fighting Islamist inspired fighters in Iraq is equivalent to fighting the proxy Soviet forces of the Viet Cong. The problem is that the war on the ground does not itself frustrate the movement. On the contrary, it provides it with great media attention and a legitimacy it craves as the standard bearer for Arab and Muslim grievances from Morocco to Indonesia.
The best way to deal with the issue is not to promote Islamists to the level of the Supreme Soviet. The greatest mistake made since 2001 has been the invasion of Iraq, a high risk strategy which was poorly executed. The second mistake has been the mishandling of domestic terrorist legislation and investigations and the failure to bring communities together rather than harness division for political ends. If Nelson is serious about the values that bind us as a nation, he would drop his value-based assault on public schools, an assault that leads to less unity and greater secretarian education of the next generation.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Why Hillary must get a tap on the shoulder
The Democratic race has produced an extraordinary phenomenon. It effectively has two front runners in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both splitting roughly equal portions of the vote. Aided by the proportional distribution of most of the delegates, neither candidate has made a decisive break. The Republicans have helped too, by closing many of their primaries to independent voters. These independents largely throw in their lot to the inclusive candidacy of Obama.
Because of Clinton's ability to hang on in the key states of California and New York, on the back of her position as junior New York senator and a large swag of Hispanic voters, she has held the tide against Obama's guerilla strategy, targeting caucases, individual voting districts and smaller, less-Clinton friendly states in the south and mid-west. The closeness of the race means it may be decided by the super-delegates, aka party bosses from each state, on the Democratic Convention floor. However, with the Republican nomination all but settled in favour of the combative John McCain, it is in the Democrats' interests to line up behind their best contender and begin the general election campaign in earnest. Otherwise, the Democrats will be like triathletes stuck in the transition zone while the Republicans have swept away in the next leg. The man best equipped to pilot them to victory is Obama.
On paper, Clinton may appear the stronger candidate, but those strengths are either ephemeral or negated by the dynamics of the electoral system. She has won in New York, California and Florida, although New York and California are solidly Democratic while Florida was not contested by Obama. Her core constituency is women and blue-collar Democrats, although none of these groups has delivered her victory in the south against Obama's black voting bloc. It would be even less likely to make a difference against the Republican evangelicals. Whereas Hillary would maintain the base, she has the major drawback of appearing toxic to independents and a motivating force for the Republican machine.
Obama by contrast, inspires large numbers of additional black and young voters to the polls. He does well in the middle ground with independents and may even turn the odd Republican. His victories have come in mainly Republican states, and he may spring surprises in states like Kansas, South Carolina and Louisiana if given the nomination. His big drawback is with the Hispanic vote, which delivered a number of delegates to Clinton in Nevada and California. A ticket with the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, may cure this defect to some extent. Richardson also has gubernatorial, government and foreign affairs experience, having been Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary and Ambassador to the UN.
Such a ticket would give the Democrats a powerful team, free from the Clinton acrimony of the past yet benefitting from its experience. It would be well-placed to win in Florida, for instance, and encourage a high turnout of blacks throughout the largely Republican-held south and mid-west. With doubtful evangelicals and conservatives offering lukewarm support to McCain, the Democrats have an opportunity to break back in to their old heartland and weave a new coalition between the progressive north and west and the religious south.
Because of Clinton's ability to hang on in the key states of California and New York, on the back of her position as junior New York senator and a large swag of Hispanic voters, she has held the tide against Obama's guerilla strategy, targeting caucases, individual voting districts and smaller, less-Clinton friendly states in the south and mid-west. The closeness of the race means it may be decided by the super-delegates, aka party bosses from each state, on the Democratic Convention floor. However, with the Republican nomination all but settled in favour of the combative John McCain, it is in the Democrats' interests to line up behind their best contender and begin the general election campaign in earnest. Otherwise, the Democrats will be like triathletes stuck in the transition zone while the Republicans have swept away in the next leg. The man best equipped to pilot them to victory is Obama.
On paper, Clinton may appear the stronger candidate, but those strengths are either ephemeral or negated by the dynamics of the electoral system. She has won in New York, California and Florida, although New York and California are solidly Democratic while Florida was not contested by Obama. Her core constituency is women and blue-collar Democrats, although none of these groups has delivered her victory in the south against Obama's black voting bloc. It would be even less likely to make a difference against the Republican evangelicals. Whereas Hillary would maintain the base, she has the major drawback of appearing toxic to independents and a motivating force for the Republican machine.
Obama by contrast, inspires large numbers of additional black and young voters to the polls. He does well in the middle ground with independents and may even turn the odd Republican. His victories have come in mainly Republican states, and he may spring surprises in states like Kansas, South Carolina and Louisiana if given the nomination. His big drawback is with the Hispanic vote, which delivered a number of delegates to Clinton in Nevada and California. A ticket with the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, may cure this defect to some extent. Richardson also has gubernatorial, government and foreign affairs experience, having been Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary and Ambassador to the UN.
Such a ticket would give the Democrats a powerful team, free from the Clinton acrimony of the past yet benefitting from its experience. It would be well-placed to win in Florida, for instance, and encourage a high turnout of blacks throughout the largely Republican-held south and mid-west. With doubtful evangelicals and conservatives offering lukewarm support to McCain, the Democrats have an opportunity to break back in to their old heartland and weave a new coalition between the progressive north and west and the religious south.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Rudd's 2020 vision highlights his approach
Kevin Rudd's proposed Australia 2020 Summit has variously been described as a great innovation, yet another glorified talk fest and the ultimate in PR flummery. Which description one favours is as much about one's own personal prejudices as the exercise itself. The clear message from Rudd's symposium on the Australian condition is that unlike his predecessor, the new PM is willing to at least listen to alternative ideas and engage in reasoned debate.
John Howard's prime ministerial tenure was marked with a determined effort to remake Australia in his own image. The 'white picket fence' became a metaphor for the restoration of an Anglo-dominant culture where immigrants from Asian backgrounds strove to fit into that dominant culture. Consequently, universalist notions such as human rights, multiculturalism and indigenous self-determination were dismissed and a conservative bulwark of commentators cultivated to conduct a culture war with so-called 'elites'. The goal was to support an existing world view rather than seek new ideas and perspectives. Howard was a man with a legalistic grasp of language, aiming to control every ounce of meaning his words carried. His allies had a ready supply of labels to dismiss arguments contrary to their common project.
Kevin Rudd's background and general manner both in opposition and on the Treasury benches reveal a totally different approach. While Howard's view saw the world as malleable to his own design, Rudd's aim is to solve the problems that world presents. It is a utilitarian vision, with the common good firmly in the centre. Rudd's philosophical background is not the Methodist preacher or the Republican push-poller, but the Chinese cultural tradition. Rudd is known in China as Lu Kewen, 'the hard-working and enduring one'. As his many colleagues seem to frequently anonymously admit to newspaper columnists, these traits describe him aptly. Another principle advocated since the days of Confucius is to listen to elders and to value intelligence. Rudd's 2020 vision exemplifies such a belief that people of intelligence beyond the party machinery and political apparatchiks have some value to add to our major policy challenges.
It is notable that most of the criticism for Rudd's plan comes from the old Howard support group. The idea that strong policy outcomes could come other than through the echo chamber of the Parliament, a Parliament which Howard essentially exercised an iron grip over, is an affront to these stagers. Rudd has promised to consider suggestions he considers to have merit, while offering reasoned explanations for rejecting alternative options. Such a return to a civilised political debate is a refreshing change from the Keating - Howard years of polarisation and dismissal.
John Howard's prime ministerial tenure was marked with a determined effort to remake Australia in his own image. The 'white picket fence' became a metaphor for the restoration of an Anglo-dominant culture where immigrants from Asian backgrounds strove to fit into that dominant culture. Consequently, universalist notions such as human rights, multiculturalism and indigenous self-determination were dismissed and a conservative bulwark of commentators cultivated to conduct a culture war with so-called 'elites'. The goal was to support an existing world view rather than seek new ideas and perspectives. Howard was a man with a legalistic grasp of language, aiming to control every ounce of meaning his words carried. His allies had a ready supply of labels to dismiss arguments contrary to their common project.
Kevin Rudd's background and general manner both in opposition and on the Treasury benches reveal a totally different approach. While Howard's view saw the world as malleable to his own design, Rudd's aim is to solve the problems that world presents. It is a utilitarian vision, with the common good firmly in the centre. Rudd's philosophical background is not the Methodist preacher or the Republican push-poller, but the Chinese cultural tradition. Rudd is known in China as Lu Kewen, 'the hard-working and enduring one'. As his many colleagues seem to frequently anonymously admit to newspaper columnists, these traits describe him aptly. Another principle advocated since the days of Confucius is to listen to elders and to value intelligence. Rudd's 2020 vision exemplifies such a belief that people of intelligence beyond the party machinery and political apparatchiks have some value to add to our major policy challenges.
It is notable that most of the criticism for Rudd's plan comes from the old Howard support group. The idea that strong policy outcomes could come other than through the echo chamber of the Parliament, a Parliament which Howard essentially exercised an iron grip over, is an affront to these stagers. Rudd has promised to consider suggestions he considers to have merit, while offering reasoned explanations for rejecting alternative options. Such a return to a civilised political debate is a refreshing change from the Keating - Howard years of polarisation and dismissal.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Warning! Emissions trading bogeyman approaching
The casual reader of yesterday's Australian might be alarmed to see that power costs are set to double under an emissions trading scheme. This is reminiscent of the same logic that the McCain - Lieberman energy bill co-sponsored by the perennial Republican candidate is set to cost American consumers several trillion dollars.
The statement comes from the National Generators Forum prognosticating that a global carbon price of $80 per ton would effectively double the Australian retail electricity price. It is unclear whether this is Australian or US dollars, given that global estimates are usually given in the latter. That figure is at the upper end of predictions by European banks, estimating a price of $60-80 per ton. Interestingly, an EU Impact Summary Working Document noted that cuts of 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2030 would necessitate a carbon price of $60 per ton - in 2020. The price would not reach $80 until 2025, even allowing for the kind of deep cuts even the climate change champion Rudd will not counternance. By the way, those figures are in Australian dollars, based on the current exchange rate to the Euro.
In other words, even if Rudd signed up for a 50% global reduction on GHGs by 2030, the electricity price is not going to double until 2025. Given I would wager my electricity bill would be at least twice its face value as compared to 1991, this increase may well have been the natural course of utility price inflation. Rudd's target is for a total cut of 60% by 2050, which means he is unlikely to sign up, and nor is anyone else, to anything like this level of price increase. Further, markets are generally skeptical that these projections will prove correct and that energy improvements and efficiency increases will mean the market sets an ultimate lower price.
The headline of the article is thus little more than an idle speculation based on a straw-man worst case scenario. By making it the headline, a subeditor has promoted it to the status of fact. Expect to see a lot more of this given slow-to-move conservatives' have the perverse incentive to stir up community suspicion and discontent for short-term electoral gain.
The statement comes from the National Generators Forum prognosticating that a global carbon price of $80 per ton would effectively double the Australian retail electricity price. It is unclear whether this is Australian or US dollars, given that global estimates are usually given in the latter. That figure is at the upper end of predictions by European banks, estimating a price of $60-80 per ton. Interestingly, an EU Impact Summary Working Document noted that cuts of 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2030 would necessitate a carbon price of $60 per ton - in 2020. The price would not reach $80 until 2025, even allowing for the kind of deep cuts even the climate change champion Rudd will not counternance. By the way, those figures are in Australian dollars, based on the current exchange rate to the Euro.
In other words, even if Rudd signed up for a 50% global reduction on GHGs by 2030, the electricity price is not going to double until 2025. Given I would wager my electricity bill would be at least twice its face value as compared to 1991, this increase may well have been the natural course of utility price inflation. Rudd's target is for a total cut of 60% by 2050, which means he is unlikely to sign up, and nor is anyone else, to anything like this level of price increase. Further, markets are generally skeptical that these projections will prove correct and that energy improvements and efficiency increases will mean the market sets an ultimate lower price.
The headline of the article is thus little more than an idle speculation based on a straw-man worst case scenario. By making it the headline, a subeditor has promoted it to the status of fact. Expect to see a lot more of this given slow-to-move conservatives' have the perverse incentive to stir up community suspicion and discontent for short-term electoral gain.
Win California, win the Presidency?
California is perhaps the one last key contest of the primary season. Merged into the hyperbolically renamed 'super duper Tuesday', where twenty-two states pledge their delegates, it remains a pivotal state in determining the outcome of the race, particularly on the Democratic side.
Since Bill Clinton's election in 1992, California has moved from swing-state to firmly Democratic. Two factors have produced this change. Firstly, demographic change in the form of a massive rise in the Latino population, who predominantly vote Democrat. This has been butressed by the centralisation of the party under Clinton and Gore. However, the picture is complicated by the trend away from registration among many on the left of the party and by the election of the popular Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, taking votes from the right. Even though 85% of voters in the San Francisco area voted for Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004, only 50% of voters were registered Democrats.
Conventional wisdom says that California should be a Clinton walkover. The big question is will those disenchanted leftists turn out for her, or will they favour Obama. Obama faces a similar quandary as he needs a decent swag of the 35% Latino vote to get elected, and be competitive in the New York primary. Even union endorsement in Nevada did not get Obama over the line as many Latinos broke ranks on racial lines and supported Clinton. Even if Obama can pick up white voters here, his problems with the other, largely unreported racial clash of American society make capturing the nomination difficult.
McCain's libertarian streak and opposition to illegal immigration reform make him a chance to pick up significant crossover support in the general election. However, Republicans will not permit independents to vote in the Republican primary which means this effect will remain camouflaged until November. He will also have Governor Schwarzenegger in his camp, which must surely increase his chances on capitalising on any resentment either across race lines with Obama or party lines with Clinton. This prohibition will increase Obama's vote, but it will probably not be sufficient to carry the day.
Based on a cursory reading of the demographic and political trends in California, this blog suspects that Clinton will win a reasonably close contest, with Obama's support assisted by a large swag of independents. McCain should win the Republican primary with Huckabee splitting the small conservative bloc from Romney. As for November, an early prediction is that Clinton will hold the party numbers, but California will be a closer contest than in the past few elections.
Since Bill Clinton's election in 1992, California has moved from swing-state to firmly Democratic. Two factors have produced this change. Firstly, demographic change in the form of a massive rise in the Latino population, who predominantly vote Democrat. This has been butressed by the centralisation of the party under Clinton and Gore. However, the picture is complicated by the trend away from registration among many on the left of the party and by the election of the popular Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, taking votes from the right. Even though 85% of voters in the San Francisco area voted for Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004, only 50% of voters were registered Democrats.
Conventional wisdom says that California should be a Clinton walkover. The big question is will those disenchanted leftists turn out for her, or will they favour Obama. Obama faces a similar quandary as he needs a decent swag of the 35% Latino vote to get elected, and be competitive in the New York primary. Even union endorsement in Nevada did not get Obama over the line as many Latinos broke ranks on racial lines and supported Clinton. Even if Obama can pick up white voters here, his problems with the other, largely unreported racial clash of American society make capturing the nomination difficult.
McCain's libertarian streak and opposition to illegal immigration reform make him a chance to pick up significant crossover support in the general election. However, Republicans will not permit independents to vote in the Republican primary which means this effect will remain camouflaged until November. He will also have Governor Schwarzenegger in his camp, which must surely increase his chances on capitalising on any resentment either across race lines with Obama or party lines with Clinton. This prohibition will increase Obama's vote, but it will probably not be sufficient to carry the day.
Based on a cursory reading of the demographic and political trends in California, this blog suspects that Clinton will win a reasonably close contest, with Obama's support assisted by a large swag of independents. McCain should win the Republican primary with Huckabee splitting the small conservative bloc from Romney. As for November, an early prediction is that Clinton will hold the party numbers, but California will be a closer contest than in the past few elections.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The New Segregationists
Heath Ledger's premature death is a tragedy for his family and for his many fans, colleagues and admirers of his work. Who knows what masterly performances he may have given us, with some acclaiming him to be a young Jack Nicholson. A further tragedy is the bizarre behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church, who plan to picket Ledger's funeral on the basis that he was a 'fag-enabler' through his role in Brokeback Mountain. These petty-minded firebrands are making a mockery of the American ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. One presumes that when Reagan and Bush went on ad infinitum about 'freedom', that was what they had in mind.
The Westboro insurgents present the Christian Right and those seeking its support for their presidential ambitions with a choice. They can draw a line in the sand and say that these proclaimed defenders of decency are a blight on civil society or they can adopt a craven position of expedient acquiesence. Westboro's rhetoric is reminiscent of the criticism levelled against whites who sympathised with oppressed blacks, a newspeak rendering of 'nigger-lover', a term so loaded in American discourse it can only be printed as 'n*****'. However taking a firm hand against such abuses does not seem to be on the agenda in a political climate where no one even mentions Governor Huckabee's evocation of the Confederate flag issue - code for slavery and all manner of inhumanity - during his South Carolina campaign.
In fact, the entire project of the Christian Right is reminiscent of the old segregationists. Segregationist policy was premised on Jim Crow laws mandating 'separate but equal' treatment for black and white. This fudge meant that as long as one provided facilities for both black and white patrons, one complied with the language of equality. In reality, Jim Crow was a vehicle to hide racist policy behind a legalistic veneer, upheld by the US Supreme Court for nearly sixty years. The Christian Right's shameless manipulation of its churches to deliver electoral success evokes such as a legalistic fudge. Under the Internal Revenue Code, churches can only retain tax-exempt status by not endorsing or opposing specific candidates. To get around this injunction, many churches publish the equivalent of how-to-vote guides detailing candidates positions on a broad range of issues. However, the key vehicle is the use of questions on abortion and marriage. The last US election was held in conjunction with marriage-related referenda in at least a dozen states. The implicit aim was to encourage voter turnout on these issues and hence maximise Republicans chances of re-election nationwide.
Interestingly, the only instance this blog has noted of criticism being levied at a church for involvement in politics was against an anti-war rector. However, not satisfied with this position of formalistic legality, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma proposed amending the law in 2006 to allow churches to endorse candidates and maintain tax-exempt status. If such proposals were to come to pass, the American political system may look more like the Puritan English Commonwealth of Cromwell than the Jeffersonian Republic.
The Westboro insurgents present the Christian Right and those seeking its support for their presidential ambitions with a choice. They can draw a line in the sand and say that these proclaimed defenders of decency are a blight on civil society or they can adopt a craven position of expedient acquiesence. Westboro's rhetoric is reminiscent of the criticism levelled against whites who sympathised with oppressed blacks, a newspeak rendering of 'nigger-lover', a term so loaded in American discourse it can only be printed as 'n*****'. However taking a firm hand against such abuses does not seem to be on the agenda in a political climate where no one even mentions Governor Huckabee's evocation of the Confederate flag issue - code for slavery and all manner of inhumanity - during his South Carolina campaign.
In fact, the entire project of the Christian Right is reminiscent of the old segregationists. Segregationist policy was premised on Jim Crow laws mandating 'separate but equal' treatment for black and white. This fudge meant that as long as one provided facilities for both black and white patrons, one complied with the language of equality. In reality, Jim Crow was a vehicle to hide racist policy behind a legalistic veneer, upheld by the US Supreme Court for nearly sixty years. The Christian Right's shameless manipulation of its churches to deliver electoral success evokes such as a legalistic fudge. Under the Internal Revenue Code, churches can only retain tax-exempt status by not endorsing or opposing specific candidates. To get around this injunction, many churches publish the equivalent of how-to-vote guides detailing candidates positions on a broad range of issues. However, the key vehicle is the use of questions on abortion and marriage. The last US election was held in conjunction with marriage-related referenda in at least a dozen states. The implicit aim was to encourage voter turnout on these issues and hence maximise Republicans chances of re-election nationwide.
Interestingly, the only instance this blog has noted of criticism being levied at a church for involvement in politics was against an anti-war rector. However, not satisfied with this position of formalistic legality, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma proposed amending the law in 2006 to allow churches to endorse candidates and maintain tax-exempt status. If such proposals were to come to pass, the American political system may look more like the Puritan English Commonwealth of Cromwell than the Jeffersonian Republic.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Republican primaries - a race where the first prize is defeat?
It is now a truth universally acknowledged that the US Presidential election is a race in want of a frontrunner. The Republicans want to find someone who fits their base and electability conditions in the mould of Bush (the Younger), while the Democrats desire a latter-day (Bill) Clinton. The irony is that the very models themselves are the subject of widespread opprobrium.
From Peregrine's distant vista, it appears that American voters favour candidates with gubernatorial experience. Being a governor requires a blend of popular familiarity and demonstrated competence. This dynamic is probably indicative of hardening party allegiances and the role of mega-media campaigning, replete with brief images and soundbite policy snippets. Senators rely on building local rapport within their state, but not so much on the machinery of electioneering. Many occupy their seats forever. Senators read an awful lot of legislation, but do not actually run much outside their own election. Note that two of the Democrats, Obama and Edwards have a net total of two terms of senatorial experience.
Of course, the American course of electoral honours only has so much influence on the voters. Beneath that litmus test of ability come a multitude of other issues. Race, religious persuasion, moral values and management and military credentials all feed in to determine voter allegiance, both for and against. Given the incredible diversity of the US, a race without a clear candidate that fits the profile is bound to throw up all sort of electoral college permutations. Add the issue of fundraising and the picture is further complicated.
The Republican electoral machine relies on a large number of poor whites voting on racial and religious lines against their own economic interests. With the entry of illegal immigration into the electoral mix, race issues are bound to come to the fore in the manner that gay marriage brought religious issues to the surface. Huckabee, Romney and Thompson are in battle for these votes, a battle Huckabee is winning. However, Thompson's presence in the race should dilute Huckabee's advantage and keep McCain's conviction and experience platform running. If Thompson drops out, Huckabee will get a lot more votes from the Republican base.
Romney's strategy to run on the economy (and target the empty fields of Wyoming and Nevada) means his true opponents are probably McCain and Guiliani. Guiliani and Romney have a lot of money to roll into campaigning, whereas McCain is on a tightrope given his poor showing. One thing is clear: Guiliani must get close in Florida otherwise he will simply lack the numbers. McCain needs to capitalise on his media attention to convince enough self-interested Republicans that he is electable.
Following the gubernatorial formula, Romney becomes a dark horse, although his candidacy depends on acceptance of his widely-commented Mormon faith. If he can overcome this prejudice, which is pretty unlikely given the depth of feeling among evangelicals, a Democrat victory would be assured because their energised turnout would easily overcome a lukewarm base. Hence he will not win the nomination. Huckabee's position depends on him winning states like Florida and Texas, because he has not got a candle in the west or north-east.
The big question is will McCain have enough money to take on a fresh foe in Guiliani. Romney and McCain will probably have to win either California or Florida to offset Guiliani's appeal in the north-east. Despite looking for all purposes dead, Guiliani's decision to conserve his energies gives him a good chance to gain late momentum. But he must convert Florida. One suspects that McCain, having campaigned hard and got a lot of attention, will hold Guiliani on national security. A poor finish by McCain in Florida would be dangerous, a poor finish for Guiliani could be catastrophic.
One interesting point is that Guiliani's moral record, Romney's Mormonism and McCain's bipartisanship make all of them dubious propositions in the South, where the majority of Republican states lie. Huckabee's popularist policy makes him a hot potato for Northern Republicans enconscened in Wall Street. Thompson, the other conservative white meat, lacks the vigour for a full tilt campaign. It appears the Republicans best chance lies with McCain: the maverick may finally get to have a tilt at the Democrats.
If McCain is the nominee, he will face hesistant supporters unconvinced on his social and moral stands, and against the tide on immigration. The Democrats will be waiting to avenge the Bush years, typified by the Bush debacle.
From Peregrine's distant vista, it appears that American voters favour candidates with gubernatorial experience. Being a governor requires a blend of popular familiarity and demonstrated competence. This dynamic is probably indicative of hardening party allegiances and the role of mega-media campaigning, replete with brief images and soundbite policy snippets. Senators rely on building local rapport within their state, but not so much on the machinery of electioneering. Many occupy their seats forever. Senators read an awful lot of legislation, but do not actually run much outside their own election. Note that two of the Democrats, Obama and Edwards have a net total of two terms of senatorial experience.
Of course, the American course of electoral honours only has so much influence on the voters. Beneath that litmus test of ability come a multitude of other issues. Race, religious persuasion, moral values and management and military credentials all feed in to determine voter allegiance, both for and against. Given the incredible diversity of the US, a race without a clear candidate that fits the profile is bound to throw up all sort of electoral college permutations. Add the issue of fundraising and the picture is further complicated.
The Republican electoral machine relies on a large number of poor whites voting on racial and religious lines against their own economic interests. With the entry of illegal immigration into the electoral mix, race issues are bound to come to the fore in the manner that gay marriage brought religious issues to the surface. Huckabee, Romney and Thompson are in battle for these votes, a battle Huckabee is winning. However, Thompson's presence in the race should dilute Huckabee's advantage and keep McCain's conviction and experience platform running. If Thompson drops out, Huckabee will get a lot more votes from the Republican base.
Romney's strategy to run on the economy (and target the empty fields of Wyoming and Nevada) means his true opponents are probably McCain and Guiliani. Guiliani and Romney have a lot of money to roll into campaigning, whereas McCain is on a tightrope given his poor showing. One thing is clear: Guiliani must get close in Florida otherwise he will simply lack the numbers. McCain needs to capitalise on his media attention to convince enough self-interested Republicans that he is electable.
Following the gubernatorial formula, Romney becomes a dark horse, although his candidacy depends on acceptance of his widely-commented Mormon faith. If he can overcome this prejudice, which is pretty unlikely given the depth of feeling among evangelicals, a Democrat victory would be assured because their energised turnout would easily overcome a lukewarm base. Hence he will not win the nomination. Huckabee's position depends on him winning states like Florida and Texas, because he has not got a candle in the west or north-east.
The big question is will McCain have enough money to take on a fresh foe in Guiliani. Romney and McCain will probably have to win either California or Florida to offset Guiliani's appeal in the north-east. Despite looking for all purposes dead, Guiliani's decision to conserve his energies gives him a good chance to gain late momentum. But he must convert Florida. One suspects that McCain, having campaigned hard and got a lot of attention, will hold Guiliani on national security. A poor finish by McCain in Florida would be dangerous, a poor finish for Guiliani could be catastrophic.
One interesting point is that Guiliani's moral record, Romney's Mormonism and McCain's bipartisanship make all of them dubious propositions in the South, where the majority of Republican states lie. Huckabee's popularist policy makes him a hot potato for Northern Republicans enconscened in Wall Street. Thompson, the other conservative white meat, lacks the vigour for a full tilt campaign. It appears the Republicans best chance lies with McCain: the maverick may finally get to have a tilt at the Democrats.
If McCain is the nominee, he will face hesistant supporters unconvinced on his social and moral stands, and against the tide on immigration. The Democrats will be waiting to avenge the Bush years, typified by the Bush debacle.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Does the present justify the past of monarchy?
UK historian David Starkey's incendiary remarks vis-a-vis Elizabeth II's cultural sophistication seem a timely segue into the republican debate. According to the Constitution, Australia's Head of State is Queen Victoria and her heirs and successors. This presupposes that the monarch continues to play a fundamental role in the governance of the nation.
The traditional purpose of monarchs was very clear. They were the apex of a feudal system, ultimate holder of all lands that were then effectively leased back to the various ranks. The monarch coordinated territorial relations and allowed a group of diverse regions to work together. The monarch thus played a major role in government, and in deed embodied the nation as a whole. However, as power gradually devolved to advisors and then to elected parliamentarians, the position became more ceremonial.
The purpose of a ceremonial monarch is to attend numerous functions and act as a symbol of continuity. Thus they are a living embodiment of both the present nation and its history. The question then becomes whether in a country like Australia whether the long tradition of English history is something we want to be tied to ad infinitum through our machinery of government.
In the current environment, a monarch represents the nation both on a ceremonial and economic level. This raises not just questions of identity but conflict of interest. Our constitution was written in the 1890s, as a cooperative agreement between a remote group of colonies. Over the last fifty years, the system has become inherently unbalanced, with the partner states being subordinated to the federal sphere. At the same time, the UK has become closely aligned to the EU rather than the old links of Empire.
In this climate, it is clear that the current arrangements are no longer suited to our present circumstances. On the domestic level, federal-state relations are imbalanced. States have responsibility for funding public health and education, massive systems to maintain and develop. The Commonwealth has control over the vast majority of the tax base. The GST transformed the state's residue independent tax collection into the benevolent grant of the federal government. The Commonwealth's chief sources of power are the external affairs power (implementing international conventions) and the corporations power. These two powers give a near total jurisdiction over most areas.
On the international level, it is hard to see a UK trade delegation actively pushing the claims of the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand exporter. As a matter of identity it seems disingenous for Australia to be represented by a largish power on the other side of the world.
Clearly the system needs renovation. Either the States need some form of guaranteed funding to justify their continued responsibilities or another method of delivery must be developed. On the national level, the monarchy does seem something of an anachronistic tie. A presidency based on a short-listing and direct election process, something like an elected Australian of the Year position, may deal with the partisan difficulties plus mass expenditure campaigning for the post.
The traditional purpose of monarchs was very clear. They were the apex of a feudal system, ultimate holder of all lands that were then effectively leased back to the various ranks. The monarch coordinated territorial relations and allowed a group of diverse regions to work together. The monarch thus played a major role in government, and in deed embodied the nation as a whole. However, as power gradually devolved to advisors and then to elected parliamentarians, the position became more ceremonial.
The purpose of a ceremonial monarch is to attend numerous functions and act as a symbol of continuity. Thus they are a living embodiment of both the present nation and its history. The question then becomes whether in a country like Australia whether the long tradition of English history is something we want to be tied to ad infinitum through our machinery of government.
In the current environment, a monarch represents the nation both on a ceremonial and economic level. This raises not just questions of identity but conflict of interest. Our constitution was written in the 1890s, as a cooperative agreement between a remote group of colonies. Over the last fifty years, the system has become inherently unbalanced, with the partner states being subordinated to the federal sphere. At the same time, the UK has become closely aligned to the EU rather than the old links of Empire.
In this climate, it is clear that the current arrangements are no longer suited to our present circumstances. On the domestic level, federal-state relations are imbalanced. States have responsibility for funding public health and education, massive systems to maintain and develop. The Commonwealth has control over the vast majority of the tax base. The GST transformed the state's residue independent tax collection into the benevolent grant of the federal government. The Commonwealth's chief sources of power are the external affairs power (implementing international conventions) and the corporations power. These two powers give a near total jurisdiction over most areas.
On the international level, it is hard to see a UK trade delegation actively pushing the claims of the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand exporter. As a matter of identity it seems disingenous for Australia to be represented by a largish power on the other side of the world.
Clearly the system needs renovation. Either the States need some form of guaranteed funding to justify their continued responsibilities or another method of delivery must be developed. On the national level, the monarchy does seem something of an anachronistic tie. A presidency based on a short-listing and direct election process, something like an elected Australian of the Year position, may deal with the partisan difficulties plus mass expenditure campaigning for the post.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Save the whales...from the international lawyers
Kevin Rudd made an audacious statement during the cut and thrust of the election campaign that he would be willing to take firm sction against Japanese whaling ships in the Southern Ocean. This promise got somewhat submerged under the other key election issues, but has now risen for air with the opening of the whaling (sorry, scientific research) season.
Rudd's position is that Australia needs to take firm action to gather evidence for presentation in a possible future action in the International Court of Justice. This is in line with his other policy promise to ask the ICJ to adjudicate on whether Iranian President Ahmenidjad's alleged statement that he would drive Israel into the Mediterranean amounted to genocide. Rudd clearly believes that international disputes should be subject to moral adjudication by international legal bodies.
The problem is that the situation vis-a-vis Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean is not clear cut. Japan claims a right to take whales for scienific purposes, conducting both lethal and non-lethal research to establish details about populations. Australia claims the right to intervene to protect the whales, for the purpose of preservation and conservation of living resources. Both claims derive from Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty.
It is arguable that Australia could employ military personnel and assets to further any peaceful purpose under the Treaty. Diplomatically it may not be terribly clever, given warships at ten paces is never the best basis for negotiation. However, the use of converted ships as coastguard patrols would arguably appear to come under actions allowable under the Treaty.
Domestically, one could see this, if one so chose, as a wedge issue. Nelson's Liberals are cautious in their support - opposition sets them against 90% of Ninemsn's readers. However, Peregrine does not believe that Rudd's aim is a Tampa-style conservation move, but genuine action to resolve a long-running international dispute. The other key point is that an Australian official presence will deter Greenpeace and other activists disabling Japanese whaling ships, actions that led Japan to warn it would seek Australia's cooperation to curb activists and even scramble Japanese police aircraft to protect whalers.
Rudd's position is that Australia needs to take firm action to gather evidence for presentation in a possible future action in the International Court of Justice. This is in line with his other policy promise to ask the ICJ to adjudicate on whether Iranian President Ahmenidjad's alleged statement that he would drive Israel into the Mediterranean amounted to genocide. Rudd clearly believes that international disputes should be subject to moral adjudication by international legal bodies.
The problem is that the situation vis-a-vis Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean is not clear cut. Japan claims a right to take whales for scienific purposes, conducting both lethal and non-lethal research to establish details about populations. Australia claims the right to intervene to protect the whales, for the purpose of preservation and conservation of living resources. Both claims derive from Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty.
It is arguable that Australia could employ military personnel and assets to further any peaceful purpose under the Treaty. Diplomatically it may not be terribly clever, given warships at ten paces is never the best basis for negotiation. However, the use of converted ships as coastguard patrols would arguably appear to come under actions allowable under the Treaty.
Domestically, one could see this, if one so chose, as a wedge issue. Nelson's Liberals are cautious in their support - opposition sets them against 90% of Ninemsn's readers. However, Peregrine does not believe that Rudd's aim is a Tampa-style conservation move, but genuine action to resolve a long-running international dispute. The other key point is that an Australian official presence will deter Greenpeace and other activists disabling Japanese whaling ships, actions that led Japan to warn it would seek Australia's cooperation to curb activists and even scramble Japanese police aircraft to protect whalers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)