Australian Federal Election 2016: genes are destiny excuse

Journalist Jennifer Oriel in The Australian on 11 April 2016, putting the case for a two-tiered national education system where public schools and their 'dumb' students living in comparative poverty are offered less opportunity because genetics are allegedly destiny:

More punitive taxes and big spender social programs in education and health are central pillars of ALP plans for fiscal repair. The former is aimed at reducing the deficit Labor increased by squandering the proceeds of the mining boom. It wasted billions on cash splashes and social programs that have failed to achieve stated policy goals in improving educational and social outcomes. Now the party needs a scapegoat. The politics of envy provides an endless supply…..

Whether the object of envy is intelligence, talent, beauty, status or wealth, there is always a group that feels entitled to what nature or nurture did not provide. If they cannot take the envied trait or property by force, the envious seek to deride those who bear it.

As a unifying political device, the emotion of envy has few equals. In Australia, it finds social form in the tall poppy syndrome. Visitors to Australia long have remarked upon the darker side envy amplifies in our national character.….

Modern Labor began its campaign against Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull by sowing envy about his wealth and international investments. But the collective envy required to justify a circular regimen of Keynesian redistribution demands a collective target and policy goals that are always just out of reach, either because they are unattainable or conveniently unquantifiable. Equality of outcome is the substantive socialist solution.

While liberals support equal opportunity and formal equality, socialists engineer equality of outcome through policy prescriptions increasingly at odds with science. Labor’s education policy is a case in point. In a letter to school principals last week, Bill Shorten committed to redressing inequality by promising money the government doesn’t have to fund Gonski education reforms. Despite the sound aim of improving the educational outcomes of all children, at a cost of $37.3 billion, delivering the Gonksi policy through government inflicts a heavy toll on the taxpayer with doubtful return on investment. Numerous private companies provide high efficacy literacy and numeracy programs while decades of government-run interventions have had little impact in levelling educational outcomes. And recent research indicates the Gonski reform package, like numerous social programs before it, is unlikely to succeed.

Despite Labor’s education revolution and promises of substantive equality, vast differences in educational outcomes continue. The most recent research suggests a reason for inequality of educational attainment that should provoke a rethink of social and economic policy. Speaking on SBS’s Insight program, Brian Byrne of the University of New England revealed findings of soon to be published research with colleagues at the Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders. It indicates that genes are the most important determinant of maths and reading skills among schoolchildren. Their study of twins’ NAPLAN performance apparently found that maths, reading and spelling skills are up to 75 per cent genetic and writing skills are about 50 per cent genetic. The influence of schools and teachers, the focus of Labor’s policies, accounts for only about 5 per cent of performance.

Social psychologist Richard Nisbett was more hopeful in his assessment of the nature versus nurture debate in education. In Intelligence and How to Get It, he analyses research on various interventions to improve the educational outcomes of children from poor backgrounds. Some appeared promising, but many had only a modest impact whose effect diminished.

Recent research suggesting academic performance is substantially heritable challenges existing literature in which academics and politicians extol the benefits of government interventions to redress educational inequality. But it could be used constructively to drive policy reforms that provide greater choice in school and university education to cater to inborn differences…… [my red bolding]

There we have it in a nutshell - genes are destiny, a second-tier education system is advisable and anyone who suggests otherwise is suffering from pathological envy.

However, the journalist wasn't being as honest as possible concerning the views of Emeritus Professor Brian Byrne.

Here are two quotes from the answers he gave the Insight program moderator when questioned about that international twin study, which included twins from the Sydney area:

JENNY BROCKIE: This is what's genetic, what's inherited? 

PROFESSOR BRYAN BYRNE: What's genetic, for the NAPLAN varies between about 50 and 75 percent of the differences amongst children's performance can be traced back to genetic differences which leaves a fair bit for the environment…..

JENNY BROCKIE: And genes aren't destiny Bryan we need to make that very clear? 

PROFESSOR BRYAN BYRNE: That's right. 

Nor does the journalist specifically mention that Professor Dr. Richard Nisbett has formed a view that genetics matters less than differences in family environment and culture when it comes to intelligence and educational outcomes.

Wangan and Jagalingou to Adani Mining: Take your shut up money and go home

https://youtu.be/cdts26tQElM

"Adani Mining won’t listen – they are rude and obstinate – so we will take the fight up a notch. We are planning more action in the courts and will take this fight all the way.

We will continue to fight. We are protecting Wangan and Jagalingou country from irreversible destruction, from complete devastation. We will maintain our stand against the Adani Carmichael mine. Because when we say no, we mean no."

wanganjagalingou.com.au/donate

Dear Prime Minister, Australia doesn't need lower taxes

The Australian federal election tax debate is well underway.

The Financial Review revealed on 12 April 2016 that modelling indicated that a cut to company tax would not be in the national interest as it would lead to a sharp decrease in living standards by 2040.....

"It is national income, and not production, that provides an indicator of living standards. Overall we conclude that while a cut to company tax will boost domestic production, it will lead to a fall in real incomes in the range of $800 to $2000 per person in present value terms," Dr Dixon writes in The Australian Financial Review.

The Turnbull Government received an open letter on 13 April......

The Australia Institute, 13 April 2016:

Top economists and community leaders have signed an open letter calling on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to not to cut taxes at this time - especially not on company profits.

The letter, published as a full-page newspaper advertisement, is signed by Former Reserve Bank Governor Bernie Fraser, ACTU National President Ged Kearney, Former WA Premier Carmen Lawrence, Uniting Church Australia President Stuart McMillan and Nobel prize winner Peter Doherty and a collection of economists are part of a list of 50 prominent Australians who are calling for prioritising services, not tax cuts.

The letter reads:

“Cutting programs which support needy Australians to give more tax benefits to companies is not fair. Collecting more tax, more equitably, will make Australia a better place to live and work.”

“Now is not the time to cut taxes. It would be fiscally irresponsible to lower the company tax rate in the current budget environment,” Executive Director of The Australia Institute, Ben Oquist said.

“Proponents of a cut to the company tax rate continue to promote claims of long-term, trickle-down benefits without identifying the immediate impact to revenue and in-turn essential services.

“In fact, a five-point cut in the company tax rate would deliver a projected $27 billion windfall over ten years for the four major banks alone. This simply makes no economic sense and would put Australia’s revenue base at risk. 

“Australia is a low taxing country, 6th lowest by OECD standards. We also have a clear revenue problem, which should be this priority for this budget,” Oquist said.

This was followed three days later by a breakdown of the taxation profiles of the Liberal-Nationals and Labor federal governments.....

THE 10 HIGHEST TAXING AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS

2004-05  24.3% Liberal
2000-01  24.2%  Liberal
2005-06  24.2%  Liberal
2002-03  24.0%  Liberal
2003-04  24.0%  Liberal
2006-07  23.7%  Liberal
2007-08  23.7%  Liberal
1986-87  23.3%  Labor
1987-88  23.2%  Labor
2001-02  23.2%  Liberal

[Stephen Koukolas, 16 April 2016]

THE 10 LOWEST TAXING AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS

1992-93  20.0%  Labor
1993-94  20.0%  Labor
2010-11  20.0%  Labor
2009-10  20.2%  Labor
1991-92  20.7%  Labor
2011-12  20.9%  Labor
1983-84  21.0%  Labor
1994-95  21.2%  Labor
2012-13  21.5%  Labor
2013-14  21.5%  Labor

And the source for these numbers are the MYEFO released by Treasurer Morrison and Finance Minister Cormann in December 2015: http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/myefo/html/index.htm [Stephen Koukolas, 16 April 2016]

Australian Federal Election 2016: is the country really going to the polls on 2 July?

On 18 April 2016 the Australian Senate again failed to pass the Turnbull Government’s Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) bill - this time by two votes.

A fact which gave the prime minister the double-dissolution trigger he was hoping for and an apparently favoured poll date – 2 July 2016.

If this is indeed his preferred date, then the election writs need to be issued no later than 31 May, as there is a mandatory minimum 33 days between writs and polling day.

The 2016-17 budget speech is scheduled to be delivered on 3 May, the appropriation bills are then submitted to the House of Representatives later that same day or the next and read a first and second time.

With the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply speech expected on 5 May, all appears well with Turnbull’s time table. He has twenty-six days up his sleeve before having to quit governing to enter the official election campaign period.

However…….

The debate on the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) is known as the ‘Budget debate’ and normally continues over a period of several weeks. The scope of discussion in the Budget debate is almost unlimited because the debate on the main Appropriation Bill is exempt from the standing order (rule) which requires the second reading debate on other bills to be strictly relevant to the bill. The standing order allows debate on appropriation bills to cover matters relating to ‘public affairs’. This is interpreted to mean any matters concerning government policy or administration. [Australian Parliament, Infosheet 10 - The budget and financial legislation]

In 2015 it took forty days for the House of Representatives to finish debating Appropriation Bill (No. 1) -  the bill covering money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for ordinary annual services of government.

Government has the numbers in the Lower House and can possibly truncate this debate – but not by much and not without alienating a substantial numbers of voters.

At this point Turnbull’s twenty-six day leeway may be dwindling down to less than 14 days. Still, getting to the 31 May writs deadline with the main appropriations bill passed looks vaguely possible.

But…….

Before they become law the three main budget appropriation bills must be passed by the Senate in the same way as any other bills. [ibid]

Two years ago the Senate took a mere two days to send the main appropriation bill back down to the House of Representatives. Last year the senators took only one day.

This year the 'reformed' Senate may just decide to debate this bill a good while longer and, it will serve the prime minister right if the cross-bench runs him down to the wire on this.

Of course Turnbull could go to an election without money from consolidated revenue being guaranteed for 1 July 2016 through to 30 June 2017.

It’s just that this would be such a slapdash look for a former investment banker who portrays himself and his government as good economic managers.

Australia Autumn 2016: The Emu in the Sky

The Emu in the Sky

CSIRO Australian Aboriginal Astronomy

Map of Australian sky in April here.

So Malcolm Turnbull wants to continue Tony Abbott's vendetta against the former Labor Government's industrial relations legislation

After Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull initially promised to abolish a road safety tribunal if re-elected, following the body's attempts to introduce a new minimum pay rate for trucking contractors, he then announced that the demolition process would begin in this week's special parliamentary sitting.

So what did he actually abolish on 18 April 2016 and why?

The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal (RSRT) began operation on 1 July 2012.

The Tribunal makes road safety remuneration orders, road transport collective agreements, deals with certain disputes relating to road transport drivers, their employers or hirers, and participants in the supply chain and, conducts research into pay, conditions and related matters that could be affecting safety in the road transport industry.

One month after the last federal election which saw the Liberal-Nationals coalition win government, the Abbott Government announced a review of the RSRT as part of its election promise to review industrial relations law made since the abolition of Work Choices.

The Government’s pre-election Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws (May 2013) included a commitment to review the operation of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal as a matter of urgency. [Review of the Road Safety Remuneration System, Rex Deighton-Smith Jaguar Consulting Pty Ltd, 16 April 2014]

This review was published on 16 April 2014 and, such was the alleged urgency of the matter that the government did not act on its recommendations.

On 11 December 2015 the Tribunal published its Contractor Driver Minimum Payments Road Safety Remuneration Order 2016 which was to take effect from 4 April 2016.

This was the second remuneration order it has made – the first being in 2014.

Subsequent to Remuneration Order 2016 the Abbott-Turnbull Government ordered a second review of the RSRT which was published in January 2016 – a year in which not so co-incidentally it faces a federal election.

On application by Australian Trucking Association (ATA) and National Road Transport Association (NatRoad) the Federal Court of Australia granted a stay on the remuneration order on 1 April 2016, which it later lifted on 7 April 2016.

This is where the matter stood on 18 April 2016 as to the continuing existence of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and the validity of its remuneration orders relating to time and distanced travelled by contract drivers.

But what of the road safety issue? Many people on the NSW North Coast are concerned about their safety when travelling on routes used by heavy commercial vehicles. Anecdotes concerning near misses and reckless heavy vehicles are common when it comes to travel on the Pacific Highway between Coffs Harbour and the NSW-QLD border.

Heavy vehicles reportedly make up 3 per cent of all Australian road traffic and heavy vehicle speeding above posted limits is recognised by governments, the trucking industry and the community as a serious issue in Australia.

Although speeding is a significant risk factor for road crashes for all types of motor vehicles, it is generally considered to be a more critical factor in heavy vehicle crashes. This is because of:

longer breaking distances—heavy vehicles require between 20 to 40 percent more stopping distance;

shorter reaction times—reaction time is a smaller proportion of stopping distance;

greater instability—heavy vehicles are less stable than lighter vehicles, which makes emergency manoeuvres and loss of control on curves more likely; and

greater collision energy—due to their size and rigidity, heavy vehicles exert more collision energy and cause more damage on impact than do other vehicles (Bishop et al. 2008; Brooks 2002; NTC 2005). [Australian Institute of Criminology, October 2012, Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 446]

The federal Dept. of Infrastructure and Regional Development publishes quarterly bulletins on fatal heavy vehicle crashes.

These following statistics are found in its December 2015 bulletin and accompanying tables.

During the 12 months to the end of December 2015, 210 people died from 187 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks or buses.

These included:

– 115 deaths from 102 crashes involving articulated trucks

– 79 deaths from 72 crashes involving heavy rigid trucks

– 20 deaths from 17 crashes involving buses.

Of those 58 fatal crashes which occurred in NSW:

* 31 involved articulated trucks (5 of which did not involve another vehicle) – resulting in 34 deaths of which 22 were drivers of either the heavy or light vehicle involved

* 22 involved heavy rigid trucks (1 of which did not involve another vehicle) - resulting in 24 deaths of which 16 were drivers of either the heavy or light vehicle involved

* 5 involved buses – resulting in 5 deaths of which 3 were drivers of the bus or light vehicle involved.

The correlation between truck drivers wages and safety has been drawn to the attention of the Turnbull Government.

The Conversation, 13 April 2016:

On the question of pay and road transport safety, the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report said:

directly comparing remuneration and safety does demonstrate statistically significant correlations. However, results vary substantially.

the four most recent papers range in conclusion from a) a very large effect, b) a U-shaped curve, in which a large positive effect of initial remuneration rises eventually turns negative, through to c) and d) with a very small effect

the literature is very limited in size and focuses on employee drivers

Drivers are likely to benefit the most [from tribunal orders] due to increased remuneration and fewer road accidents, followed by government and members of society who face costs following road crashes, and will therefore benefit from an improvement in safety.

You can read the full response from O'Connor’s spokeswoman here.

If you just read that Pricewaterhouse Coopers report excerpt above, you might think that the evidence is fairly mixed. In fact, the overwhelming weight of evidence supports Albanese’s claim: there is persuasive evidence of a connection between truck driver pay and safety. [my red bolding]

So there we have it.

The Turnbull Government ignored evidence and supported trucking industry calls to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and, with the assistance of Senate cross benchers on 18 April, set in motion the removal of a minimum wages award for contract drivers.

However, voters and other road users are being told ‘don’t you worry about that’ when it comes to the safety of themselves and their families when sharing roads with commercial heavy vehicle operators seeking to make profits under a no minimum wage, performance (time) based system.

First Dog on the Moon slyly put the case for the continuance of a minimum wage, without the ongoing political interpretive dance (left) being performed by Michaelia Cash in pursuit of the creation of Work Choices Mark II:

Click on image to enlarge