"New Matilda" lists the reasons behind an intuitive distrust of NSW Treasurer Michael Costa

It has long been obvious that Premier Iemma and I share some misgivings about NSW Treasurer Michael Costa's style of personal grooming and dress. Why else is this epitome of Mafioso-style elegance rarely found standing behind Morris Iemma during election campaign media conferences?

 

However, in other matters Iemma appears content to give his minister carte blanche whereas my mistrust remains visceral.

 

Yesterday's New Matilda gives a profile of Michael Costa which goes some way to explaining why many ordinary people dislike this politician.

 

"It's a strange old world when powerful unionists, who came to power through union politics and who nominally represent the Labor Party, are calling for policies that will only decrease the power of their own power-base - and hurt the lowest paid and most vulnerable in our society. But that's the allure of neo-classical economics. The stark beauty of the classical model often trumps the messy examination of the data on the ground. It's what the psychologists call a "heuristic".

On reading Labor, Prosperity and the Nineties, we shouldn't be surprised that Costa is spoiling for a fight with his union colleagues over energy deregulation. He has no truck with environmental concerns and doesn't seem to believe there is much of a case for union restraints on managerial power at all. Costa is a deregulator, a decentraliser, and a self-styled reformer. He is also a visceral climate change skeptic who once called Tim Flannery an "idiot."

Don't expect Costa to back down over energy deregulation. From the evidence on the public record, this is the fight of his career."

Japan loses the plot in its opposition to anti-whaling protests.

The Government of Japan appears to have finally lost the plot in the face of continuing anti-whaling protests.

 

On Monday Radio Netherlands reported:

 

"Tokyo - Japan has summoned the Dutch and Australian ambassadors following an attack by anti-whaling campaigners from the Sea Shepherd organisation on a Japanese whaling ship in Antarctica.----

Tokyo is protesting to the two countries because Sea Shepherd is registered in the Netherlands, and Australia offered the ship a base of operations. Although Australia is one of the leaders of the worldwide protest against whaling, it has condemned Sea Shepherd's actions."

While yesterday The Age ran an article containing the following:

 

"Japan described the US-based Sea Shepherd as "terrorists" and has lodged protests with Australia, where the Sea Shepherd's Steve Irwin vessel last called into port, and The Netherlands, where the boat is registered.

Japan summoned Australian Ambassador Murray McLean and Dutch Ambassador Alphons Hamer, urging them to prevent more clashes, the Japanese foreign ministry said."

 

How strange. The US-based Sea Shepherd organisation, with a properly registered Netherlands ship captained by a Canadian citizen and breaking no Australian law, uses an Australian international sea port and suddenly Australia is supposed to be responsible for its actions.

 

Yes, Japanese government support for its whalers has definitely entered the territory of la la land. 

However, the Asahi Shimbun shows that for domestic consumption, government rhetoric is somewhat more measured and abandons the "terrorists" label.

 

Japan Whaling Association 3 March 2008 media release here.

The lure of dirty s*xy money

Since becoming Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has worked his way thorough a number of election issues and electoral worries.
Not surprisingly this has not necessarily involved a level of thoroughness which would see these matters resolved for the foreseeable future.
Take the issue of political donations.
Rudders has rightly flagged a revamping of laws relating to political funding, but does not bite the bullet and either finally ban donations by corporations or create a government-funded level playing field for candidate election expenses.
Instead he is limiting reform to a complete ban on foreign contributions and a drop in the disclosure threshold from $10,000 to $1000 with a cap on the value of individual donations from corporations and individuals.
Which is a bit of an attempt at having your cake and eating it too.
Aw Kevin, mate - sometimes I wish you were less of a liberal and more like a real Labor man.

Honk if you love Labor

Newspoll results published in The Australian today appear to indicate that it is not just post-election euphoria which is giving such high approval numbers to the Rudd Government and such dismal numbers to the Coalition.

Left click lower right corner to enlarge.

Rudd Government moves on housing afforbability but will developers rort the proposed schemes?

The Rudd Government has moved to address growing mortgage and rental stress across Australia.

It has acted where the former Howard Government virtually sat on its hands for years.

 

Tim Colebatch in The Age today looks at some of the reasons for the housing crisis and Federal Labor's response.

 

What has gone wrong? There are many culprits, but the key ones are:

• Tax breaks for housing investors have lured more than a million Australians to invest in houses or flats, renting them at a loss, using the losses to reduce their tax (known as negative gearing), and then relying on capital gains, which are lightly taxed, to make the investment pay. Last year alone, housing investors borrowed $75 billion to buy existing houses, flats and units, up from $25 billion a decade ago and $2.5 billion 20 years ago. Investors' share of home lending, excluding refinancing, has doubled from 20% in the 1980s to 40% over recent years. That is a huge change in the market, and much of it has been at the cost of first home buyers. Their share of new lending has shrunk from 19% to 14% in that time. People without deep pockets now have to keep renting rather than buy.
• Local opposition to redevelopment of inner and middle suburban areas has led to serious shortages of supply, relative to the demand from people wanting to live close to the city. Land is finite, and when buildings can't go up, prices go up.
• On the outskirts, shortages of serviced land in some cities, coupled with heavy state government charges to supply infrastructure, have been blamed for driving prices up. They certainly help explain why an outersuburban block in Sydney costs much more than in Melbourne, but it is not clear that they explain why prices have soared in inner and middle-suburban areas.
• The Commonwealth and state governments have largely abandoned their former role as financiers and builders of new housing. In the booming 1950s, they built 20% of all new homes. Now they build 2%, and no one has picked their role as a supplier of affordable housing. No wonder Kevin Rudd says the issue of housing affordability is now "at a critical point". And it is likely to get worse.

Labor's central promises are:

• The national rental affordability scheme, aimed at reducing rents and increasing housing supply. This will offer $500 million over five years in tax breaks for investors who build rental housing, and then rent it out at 20% below market prices for the area. Yesterday Rudd reaffirmed this, and extended it to promise a second $500 million over the next five years (or from 2011-12, if the first tranche is used up by then).
• First home saver accounts, aimed at supporting aspiring buyers who have the discipline to save. Would-be buyers who save 10% of their earnings each year for five years will receive government contributions of up to $5000 towards their deposit.
• The housing affordability fund, aimed at reducing the cost of new blocks by investing $500 million to help states and councils fund the provision of infrastructure. Rudd announced yesterday that the first slice will provide $30 million to provide online services by which you can track the progress of your application for planning approval.
• Release surplus Commonwealth land for new housing.

From 2000 onwards under Howard and Costello the First Home Buyers scheme was shamelessly rorted by the wealthy, and on the NSW North Coast we have seen developers push inappropriate lot development on the spurious grounds that housing built would be exclusively for the aged or disabled. So what is to stop developers ripping-off both the Commonwealth and local communities under these new schemes? Not much I expect. 

It is rather disappointing that there is so little emphasis placed on public housing by this new government, without which there is no balance in social policy.

After all, public housing is a long-term solution for low-income families and the proposed tax breaks for investors will only guarantee rental housing for ten years before those houses, flats, units, built under the new scheme will be free to come onto the real estate market.

New Federal Housing Minister, Tanya Plibersek, needs to consider the possibility that jumping into bed with the private sector to ease housing affordability may be like swimming with a hungry crocodile - a rash decision quickly regretted.    

Where is your rural and regional tax dollar going to?

ABC News reported this yesterday.

 

"The NSW northern district president of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), Ian Murray, says official figures show the big mining companies received $1.3 billion in fuel rebate concessions last year, while coal prices were at record highs.

Mr Murray says it appears taxpayers, who are paying more than $1.40 at the bowser, are subsiding the coal companies.

"Why do companies that are reaping the highest prices - unprecedented profits that they have out of this industry - still receive taxpayer-funded fuel rebates?" he said.

"It is embarrassing to be part of an industry where this is taking place."

 

This is something many living in regional areas such as the NSW Northern Rivers, with poor or non-existent public transport, would like an answer to.

It's bad enough that within bowser prices it appears that a tax upon a tax exists, without finding that hard-pressed motorists and working families are subsidising some of Australia's richest and dirtiest polluters.

Which American bully will replace the incumbent bully in the US Oval Office?

It's hard not to be aware of the battle between nominees for the US presidential race, as Americans go through a drawn-out process to decide on their Republican and Democratic candidates.

However, I have to wonder why we all seem so interested out here in the real world.

When the reality is that, no matter who replaces George Dubbya in the White House, the world will still find itself facing a global bully with few redeeming features.

Perhaps that is what interests us all - exactly what face this bully will wear after the next presidential election. Obama, Clinton, McCain?

I've found a Reuters site which shows posts on the race from blogs outside the US:

Voices without Votes

On the North Coast we even have a song about US foreign policy (details in sidebar):

TexasFever.mp3