Fear of spiders

The Government seems to be filled with a desire for a few changes around here. This is first and foremost from the office of the Attorney-General, George Brandis:

THE repeal of the ‘Andrew Bolt’ provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act that make it unlawful to offend and insult people because of their race will be the subject of the first legislation Attorney-General George Brandis will introduce to parliament.

The repeal, which will honour an election promise, will change the definition of racial vilification to eliminate at least two of the grounds that were used against the conservative columnist over articles about light-skinned Aboriginal people.

And then there’s this, again from the Attorney-General:

LITIGATION funders and plaintiff law firms are facing the prospect of regulatory change after Attorney-General George Brandis strongly criticised the involvement of law firms in the companies that finance class actions.

He said the litigation funding industry was under ‘active consideration right now’.

He believed the involvement of law firms with these companies gave rise to unavoidable moral hazards and conflicts of interest.

‘I am by no means satisfied about the way this is dealt with at the moment by rules of court or by self-adopted protocols by those practitioners,’ he said.

‘In the near future it is my intention to give some indications about the way I think those conflicts of interest and moral hazards should be addressed.’

And finally there’s this:

TONY Abbott will take an axe to 20 government committees and councils today in the first stage of a campaign to cut costs and slash redundant agencies.

The move comes as the government warns of a mounting bill to top up funds at major commonwealth authorities, as regulators plunge into the red in a struggle to meet growing demands.

The Prime Minister’s changes, to be unveiled today, risk a backlash from groups ranging from sporting shooters to adoptive parents as he scraps advisory councils and hands their functions back to government departments.

And let me say about these advisory councils, that my experience on them was that we were hardly ever responsible for the slightest change in anything although I would put in a good word for the Australian Statistics Advisory Council (ASAC).

But I liked this in particular from Joe Hockey:

Every cupboard I am opening has spiders in it — as illustrated by the fact that, in a meeting with the ACCC, they tell me that they are running out of money in April this year and that they are underfunded for the next four years by over $100m.

If you have this kind of arachnophobia you should avoid becoming Treasurer in a Coalition government immediately following a Labor Government, but I am sure that Joe will be on top of it.

Completely ridiculous and preposterous

What do you do if you are a political leader and you think global warming is completely ridiculous and preposterous but most people think it’s a valid problem that needs immediate attention? Here’s one answer:

By late 2006 his government hit a ‘perfect storm’ with on-going drought, severe water restrictions, bushfires and the release of the Stern Review and Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth.

‘To put it bluntly, “doing something” about global warming gathered strong political momentum in Australia,’ Mr Howard said in his written lecture. . . .

But six years on, Australia’s second-longest serving prime minister insists the high tide of public support for “over-zealous action” on global warming has passed.

‘I am very sceptical about the possibility of a global agreement ever being reached when you look at what happened in Copenhagen,’ he said, adding there was no real prospect of a deal between the major emitters Europe, the US and north Asia.

Mr Howard believes anti-global warming policies should never stand in the way of economic growth in developing countries.

And in developed countries, what about them?

It is bizarre

In the Salem Witch trials as I recall – my memory is a little rusty here – there were a bunch of fanatics burning climate change deniers at the stake. To think there is anything needed at all to “fix” our carbon emissions is a kind of loopyness that I just see as part of the world today, something along the lines of wanting to spend your way out of recession. Which brings me to this:

FORMER Treasury secretary Ken Henry has described Tony Abbott’s direct action scheme for tackling climate change as ‘bizarre’ and predicted the Coalition will wind up implementing an emissions trading scheme.

Direct action, as I understand it, says that we will wait for the rest of the world to come up with some kind of carbon-limitation scheme but in the meantime we will try to lower carbon emissions in ways that actually do some good of some other kind even if there isn’t a carbon emissions problem in the first place, and we will spend far less money on it as well. Carbon taxes and carbon-emissions schemes are both 100% wasteful if there is no carbon problem to solve. Direct action actually takes some positive actions. It is bizarre that people who believe carbon taxes or an ETS will actually do some good can rise to such high places of authority over our lives.

Abiding by our way of life

Let me return to that speech by Rupert Murdoch the other day to pull two other bits from it. First this:

But at the end of the day, the values that define Australia depend on more than good government and strong allies. They depend on sound and vigorous institutions especially private institutions.

You can’t have the rule of law if the courts aren’t free and independent – or if you have lawyers running amok as they do in the American system. We cannot allow the rule of law to become the rule of lawyers!

You can’t have a free democracy if you don’t have a free media that can provide vital and independent information to the people.

If the ALP is wondering why the Murdoch Press was a tad hostile to its re-election, they might wish to dwell on this. And this is not just Rupert Murdoch but a pretty sizeable proportion of the country who believe exactly the same. Who were people the likes of Rudd and Gillard to threaten these long-established traditions of freedom and the media? On that alone they needed to go not to mention the rest.

We are not yet overwhelmed by governments but have been moving rapidly in that direction. Our election may have saved us from even more. All governments want to spend so it will be hard to stop even our present incumbants from supporting their vision with our money. But at least there is the possibility that they will see it as their role to build the civic culture that Murdoch was discussing.

And then, from that same speech, there was this:

But for all this progress, there is still a strand among some parts of Australian society who seem to value every culture except our own. These people are gravely confused about what real multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism is not relativism, and tolerance is not indifference.

Australia has clear values and strong institutions. One key value is an openness to all comers – provided they are willing to abide by our way of life.

Australia is what it is because of who we already are. I have always been struck that we made a Jew our Governor-General in 1930. This is a country open to the talents. But it is not a country into which we can bring strings of takers who do not contribute or who do not wish to embrace the values of an open and tolerant society that have developed on this continent over the past 200 years. Never perfect, but it has always been the ideal.

Fixing IR

I had wondered how Tony Abbott and Eric Abetz were going to deal with the now misshapen federal industrial relations tribunal given the disproportionately large number of union appointments under the previous government. Abolish; abolish and re-constitute; new legislation; many new appointments but with an employer background. Every one would have been costly and taken a political toll. What they are now proposing to do shows what a creative and sensible government we are now blessed with. Apparently The Australian has an exclusive: “Tony Abbott to bring in new IR supremo“:

THE Abbott government is moving to impose an appeals body over the nation’s workplace umpire, declaring concern at inconsistent decisions by the Fair Work Commission.

The new body, which follows employer claims that Labor had stacked the tribunal, would be headed by a Coalition appointee and would establish a new avenue for appeal against commission rulings.

And then, with the appeals process in place, the re-balancing of the Commission can take place over the next few years as retirements and other departures take place.

I am filled with admiration for whoever thought this up.

The Murdoch vision

Rupert Murdoch gave a speech last night to the Lowy Institute on “Let’s learn to thrive on disruption“. And what he means he says early on:

For Australia is on the cusp of becoming something rare and valuable in this new world: an egalitarian meritocracy, with more than a touch of libertarianism.

But we can’t wait for later.

In the past few years, we have all seen how advances in communications and travel have eliminated the tyranny of distance. The same might be said for size.

Think about Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. These are all small places, and hardly blessed with natural resources. Yet not only have they carved out a competitive position in the world because of their free, open and dynamic economies, they have become a source of inspiration for countries around the globe.

Australia can and should do better than all of them.

Australia is the best country in the world because we do have the great English traditions of free institutions, free markets and a willingness to accept and adapt to change. The US was once such a country but isn’t any more or at least may no longer be. We are such a country and are getting better. But what I found most astonishing in the speech was this:

Australia must be the world’s disruptive economy.

The economist Joseph Schumpeter once described the process of ‘creative destruction’ as essential to capitalism. The current fashionable word to capture that sense of creative chaos is ‘disruption’.

As soon as I saw the word “disruption” in the title I went looking for Schumpeter’s name. He is the economist of disruption, who sees that the role of the entrepreneur is not to behave in the way economic theory now teaches, concerned with incremental change with one more unit of some already-existing product leading to a change in revenues and costs. It is about individuals who do new things in new ways. Understanding the role of entrepreneurship is to understand the way in which the world betters itself by a continual introduction of new ideas embodied in wholly different ways of doing things.

It is the vision of people who look forward to the future, who want to engage with change because they know that change is coming, understand that change is often for the better and have introduced institutions that will allow such changes to be introduced, causing disruptions of course, but also with a relatively smooth transition to the new. This is how it has always been in this, the last-ever new frontier society in the world, and I too hope it will continue in just this way, building on our past and on into a future filled with unknown unknowns.

Just put ’em away for a couple of months

hocky and the f word

Having been at the front of the protest movement back in the 1960s, what always amazed me was how easily we won our various confrontations with authority. I went along because it was the thing to do, got to meet girls, could exhibit my morality in a public place and did mildly care about the issues. But over time the realisation grew that it was absolutely riskless. Nothing would ever happen to me as long as I just stayed in the pack. A few of my friends got busted occasionally but they were the loud mouths who drew attention to themselves. And they would be duly carted off and then join us in the morning for a coffee and a smoke.

I actually saw this demo pictured here as they wandered down Bourke Street after their festivities were over. The answer. Put a couple away for a month or two, the really violent ones, make it clear that there actually are risks to one’s health and safety from going beyond peaceful protest, and it will stop. The major idiots will still keep it up but we minor idiots will wander off and find something else to do.

Who will audit the auditors?

The AFR had a very small article the other day written by Tony Shepherd that I wouldn’t have paid much attention to except that he is now going to run the Commission of Audit. One can only at this stage hope that the Commission does its job and raises the alarm about how our productivity is being wasted by governments in ways that lower our living standards and reduce employment. It is my strong belief after many years at the Chamber of Commerce and watching the ways of politicians, who respond to political rewards and not to economic, that governments should never allow themselves to think that anything they propose to produce will ever make the economy stronger, raise living standards or add to the number of jobs.

There are now a series of traditional areas for governments. National defence and roads which no one else will do. Schools, public transport and hospitals which may not be done to an optimal extent so we often find the private operators supplemented by the public. And there are a few natural monopolies that may require a more than usually heavy handed form of government regulation or even involvement. But after that, the governments should not involve themselves in any form of production whatsoever.

We have a market economy, and the plain fact is that most forms of production do not take place in the kinds of places politicians want to show up at to cut the ribbon when they are finally opened for business. You know, things like steel mills, mines, concrete producers, car washes, supermarkets, paint factories, paper clip and toothpick manufacturers. You know, the tens of thousands of small and detailed forms of production that are necessary to our wellbeing that spring to life as if from nowhere because there are profits to be made and which hire most of the people in this country who have jobs.

My article comments on a number of statements in Tony Shepherd’s own article which raise real concerns in my mind. Here are those statements:

“Governments and business and community leaders are increasingly united in recognising the merits of selling publicly owned assets to unlock funding for badly needed new infrastructure.”

“Contributing to a rethinking of privatisation is the opportunity to draw on superannuation funds as an alternative source of infrastructure investment.”

“The private sector can shoulder the lion’s share but governments will continue to have a substantial funding role when it comes to non-commercial or social projects.”

“We should be seeing a virtuous circle where governments funds get good projects started and, once the asset is mature, it is then sold.”

“Governments should be encouraging more private investment in green field projects by properly dealing with the problem of early market risk. There are ways to use the government balance sheet to do this.”

If these statements don’t raise dark thoughts in your own mind you should read my article. In fact, you should read my article anyway because there is likely to be a lot more of this up for discussion by a lot more people than myself in the years ahead.

The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism

Wow! Did Tony Abbott really say that? This is from The Daily Caller and relayed on Drudge:

Australia’s newly elected prime minister pulled no punches when giving his thoughts on the country’s carbon tax, which he says must be abolished as quickly as possible.

‘The carbon tax is bad for the economy and it doesn’t do any good for the environment,’ Abbott told The Washington Post. ‘Despite a carbon tax of $37 a ton by 2020, Australia’s domestic emissions were going up, not down. The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and that’s why it’s going to get abolished.’

‘If the Labor Party wants to give the people of Australia a Christmas present, they will vote to abolish the carbon tax. It was damaging the economy without helping the environment. It was a stupid tax. A misconceived tax,’ Abbott added.

Using the s-word to describe socialists. We really are in a new world.

Rebalancing the news

I’d have been happier if the AFR had been pouring out on its front page how hopeless the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Government had been if they had done it at the time. The front page headline across the page yesterday, under a picture of the four top members of the new Government, read as follows:

Poll confidence rebound stalls

Then above the headline it says, “RBA worried about business investment”.

Does the AFR not know that all this is Labor’s handiwork? That what you see is what they did? That trying to fix this mess is the work of years and will require patient persistence. These are page 10 stories. It is not about “the Coalition’s post-election economic honeymoon is already fading” which is the opening phrase of the article.

What they did not do is place these words at the front which are instead found in para 5:

Reserve Bank of Australia deputy governor Phillip Lowe reassured Australians that all the ingredients are in place for a broad economic rebound.

Might have changed the sense of where things are going, specially since consumer sentiment is the worst of all economic indicators. It’s not a Labor government however so all the news but perhaps a different balance. But what got me was why the deputy governor thought things were about to improve:

Record low interest rates and a weaker dollar meant that Australia was well placed to weather the end of the resources investment boom, he said.

What can I say. Record low interest rates will slow recovery not speed it up but in the low state in which economics has fallen, how is anyone to know.