Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “Abbott's controversial new foundation for Australia”, 29/01/2013, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/How-Abbott-would-lay-a-new-foundation-for-Australi-pd20130129-4DSH5?OpenDocument
While the aspirations are fine, but to me Australia needs more bold and creative thinking.
Perhaps, the most important strategic policy Australia could do is to amend the constitution to achieve two important goals:
1. to enable a stable and more equal relationship between the commonwealth and the states. That will be a lot of work to improve the federation, but the past experience suggests that the federal government has too much power at the expense of the states to be a good federation.
2. to mandate a fiscal framework that automatically constrains any federal government's expenditures and revenue to not exceed a set ratio to the GDP.
Without a hard constraint, government of the day can choose easy and lazy ways as opposed to better and effective ways to govern.
With a hard constraint, political parties will have to compete for better skills in governing and administration, leave the private and household sectors with more resources to use and a better policy environment to be creative and better off.
Australia will be much better off if amendaments to the constitution to such effects are introduced. And the sooner it is done, the better it will be for all Australians.
Showing posts with label Australians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australians. Show all posts
2013-01-15
Perhaps it's time for changes in Australian federation
Comments on Julie Novak “Cut leviathan's hunger for tax”, 15/01/2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/cut-leviathans-hunger-for-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226553883178
The Australian federation has been unique in comparison to most other western federations, due to its small population and its geographical and possibly cultural isolation.
Because of its isolation, it may have largely been the case that the sum of the states together as a federation is relatively much greater than in those other federations.
If that speculation/assumption is correct, then it explains why Canberra has been much stronger fiscally and hence the large vertical imbalance without the states to secede.
Fiscal equalisation in its current form worked in the past because for most of the time the donor states were the two largest states, namely NSW and Victoria. Other states benefited from such equalisation, so few would secede.
But now the situation has changed. WA and Queensland have also become donors, due to their mining boom and the strong revenue from mineral royalties and associated stronger performance in the housing market.
International trade and globalisation have removed some of the isolation factors Australia had endured in the past. Economic integration and people exchanges have linked Australia to the increasingly stronger Asia.
What that means is not yet very clear.
It could mean the force of internal bound has weakened and one or more states may use succession as a means in gaining more concessions from Canberra in their negotiations.
So far the story has been unsuccessful for any states yet, although the agreeing to a review of the GST distribution by the PM and the Treasurer in 2011 announced in WA may be an indication of the potential power of WA – it has gained virtually nothing.
And that was expected given that WA had no representation in the review panel – that was consisted of former premiers of NSW and Victoria and a business person from South Australia.
The Australian federation has been unique in comparison to most other western federations, due to its small population and its geographical and possibly cultural isolation.
Because of its isolation, it may have largely been the case that the sum of the states together as a federation is relatively much greater than in those other federations.
If that speculation/assumption is correct, then it explains why Canberra has been much stronger fiscally and hence the large vertical imbalance without the states to secede.
Fiscal equalisation in its current form worked in the past because for most of the time the donor states were the two largest states, namely NSW and Victoria. Other states benefited from such equalisation, so few would secede.
But now the situation has changed. WA and Queensland have also become donors, due to their mining boom and the strong revenue from mineral royalties and associated stronger performance in the housing market.
International trade and globalisation have removed some of the isolation factors Australia had endured in the past. Economic integration and people exchanges have linked Australia to the increasingly stronger Asia.
What that means is not yet very clear.
It could mean the force of internal bound has weakened and one or more states may use succession as a means in gaining more concessions from Canberra in their negotiations.
So far the story has been unsuccessful for any states yet, although the agreeing to a review of the GST distribution by the PM and the Treasurer in 2011 announced in WA may be an indication of the potential power of WA – it has gained virtually nothing.
And that was expected given that WA had no representation in the review panel – that was consisted of former premiers of NSW and Victoria and a business person from South Australia.
Although WA was successful in forcing that review, it is far from satisfied by the review outcome. As a result, it is likely that WA will push for more changes – just think about the original design and subsequent legislation of the MRRT by the federal government and what it means for WA if that revenue could stay within WA.
2012-07-26
Academic scholars in Australia shouldn't be Chinese-scholars bashing on climate change
Comments on Justin Norrie "Rich nations should do more on climate, say Chinese" 26/07/2012,
https://theconversation.edu.au/rich-nations-should-do-more-on-climate-say-chinese-8417#comments
It seems the tone of this article appears a little biased against China and Chinese scholars.
For example, the article states "It (China) produced 8.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2010 – an increase of 15.5% on the previous year".
Readers with a rational mind would naturally be surprised how an increase of that magnitude could occur in China at the current economic environment and at the current high level of emissions.
Then you have the more obvious first and second paragraphs:
"Greenhouse gas cuts pledged by developed countries will not be enough to stop temperatures rising by 2 degrees by 2100, according to Chinese researchers who argue wealthy nations should bear greater responsibility for tackling climate change.
The controversial assertion is contained in a paper published today in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper, produced by 37 Chinese climate scientists and statisticians, says that two types of modelling show developed nations were responsible for 60% to 80% of the global temperature rise, upper ocean warming and sea-ice reduction until 2005."
Why is that argument or viewpoint a controversial assertion? Is that because it was made by Chinese scholars?
Why in academic fields like the Conversation should people bash China and Chinese scholars?
For example, the article states "It (China) produced 8.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2010 – an increase of 15.5% on the previous year".
Readers with a rational mind would naturally be surprised how an increase of that magnitude could occur in China at the current economic environment and at the current high level of emissions.
Then you have the more obvious first and second paragraphs:
"Greenhouse gas cuts pledged by developed countries will not be enough to stop temperatures rising by 2 degrees by 2100, according to Chinese researchers who argue wealthy nations should bear greater responsibility for tackling climate change.
The controversial assertion is contained in a paper published today in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper, produced by 37 Chinese climate scientists and statisticians, says that two types of modelling show developed nations were responsible for 60% to 80% of the global temperature rise, upper ocean warming and sea-ice reduction until 2005."
Why is that argument or viewpoint a controversial assertion? Is that because it was made by Chinese scholars?
Why in academic fields like the Conversation should people bash China and Chinese scholars?
2010-04-14
Have a correct perspective on levels of government
Comments on Jack the Insider Blog “The states still rate”, 14/04/2010, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_states_still_rate/
People are seldom always satisfied with government services, so it is expected that the State governments bear the main blame for the public dissatisfaction.
Had the federal government been providing services, the situation could be even worse. The home insulation, the BER, the NBN, etc, are all relevant example. The question is: what has the federal government done well, especially the Rudd government?
An important benchmark is international comparison with similar countries, how our government services compare to theirs'.
In that respect, Australia may not be necessarily worse than them and is likely to be better.
So one has to be realistic and have the correct perspective.
People are seldom always satisfied with government services, so it is expected that the State governments bear the main blame for the public dissatisfaction.
Had the federal government been providing services, the situation could be even worse. The home insulation, the BER, the NBN, etc, are all relevant example. The question is: what has the federal government done well, especially the Rudd government?
An important benchmark is international comparison with similar countries, how our government services compare to theirs'.
In that respect, Australia may not be necessarily worse than them and is likely to be better.
So one has to be realistic and have the correct perspective.
2010-03-27
Wake up to modern and real world please
Comment on Terry McCrann “Rio Tinto gets to grips with a new reality in China over Stern Hu & co”, 27/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/rio-tinto-gets-to-grips-with-a-new-reality-in-china-over-stern-hu-co/story-e6frg9if-1225846167483
With all respect, it appears that the author relies too much on "guess" work and has used too little rational analysis and intuition based on facts.
Closer economic ties with China do not necessarily mean any loss of sovereignty or dignity for Australia, in a modern, globalised and progressive world.
The past and outdated mentality of power international politics emanating from Australia's reliance on the US as a protector has had too much bearing on some Australians, so they cannot escape from it and continue to use that in their analysis of the future.
Closer economic ties in the context of different political systems and values to some extent means both ways: we need China and China needs us, it should be a win-win to both, not the situation where one wins and other loses.
The world is moving to a multi polar system and becoming more equal as opposed to hegemony, or two camp rivalries. Politically speaking, differences in size like population are becoming less and less important.
Our analysts and commentators cannot live in the past forever but to catch up with the new international reality.
Otherwise they will become irrelevant.
PS: the fact that it has been so difficult (maybe for some even impossible) to come to terms that Stern Hu and his other three colleagues have accepted bribes, just manifests so clearly how close-minded some people in Australia are. Don't any Australians commit crimes or behave inappropriately ever?
Rio was adamant that Stern Hu did not do anything wrong earlier on, how did it know for that sure? Did it monitor their movements in China all the time? Was that possible? That simply blind faith just defies logic and begs belief.
With all respect, it appears that the author relies too much on "guess" work and has used too little rational analysis and intuition based on facts.
Closer economic ties with China do not necessarily mean any loss of sovereignty or dignity for Australia, in a modern, globalised and progressive world.
The past and outdated mentality of power international politics emanating from Australia's reliance on the US as a protector has had too much bearing on some Australians, so they cannot escape from it and continue to use that in their analysis of the future.
Closer economic ties in the context of different political systems and values to some extent means both ways: we need China and China needs us, it should be a win-win to both, not the situation where one wins and other loses.
The world is moving to a multi polar system and becoming more equal as opposed to hegemony, or two camp rivalries. Politically speaking, differences in size like population are becoming less and less important.
Our analysts and commentators cannot live in the past forever but to catch up with the new international reality.
Otherwise they will become irrelevant.
PS: the fact that it has been so difficult (maybe for some even impossible) to come to terms that Stern Hu and his other three colleagues have accepted bribes, just manifests so clearly how close-minded some people in Australia are. Don't any Australians commit crimes or behave inappropriately ever?
Rio was adamant that Stern Hu did not do anything wrong earlier on, how did it know for that sure? Did it monitor their movements in China all the time? Was that possible? That simply blind faith just defies logic and begs belief.
2010-03-17
Macklin's welfare change lacks enough flexibility
Comments on Paul Kelly “Macklin's welfare fight is only the beginning”, 17/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/macklins-welfare-fight-is-only-the-beginning/story-e6frg6zo-1225841562048
While Paul Kelly seems a strong supporter for this policy change, he nevertheless has taken the easy road of siding with any change by the government when facing a difficult issue.
Yes, there is a need for change, but it does not mean any change will be better or equally good.
Unfortunately in this regard, Paul does not analyse the issue critically enough.
A more sensible approach is giving the government the mandate to use that on any welfare it sees fit, but without any predetermined and possibly a compulsory percentage without taking account the real situations or with little regard to the real need in different situations in the complex world.
The main shortcoming of government income management in the name of changing behaviour is that it can be very disempowering for those under management. For some it may produce the opposite effect to the legislation’s intention, that is, rather than change their behaviour to the better it may actually worsen theirs.
So there is a clear need to restrict its use to absolute minimum and target well.
While Paul Kelly seems a strong supporter for this policy change, he nevertheless has taken the easy road of siding with any change by the government when facing a difficult issue.
Yes, there is a need for change, but it does not mean any change will be better or equally good.
Unfortunately in this regard, Paul does not analyse the issue critically enough.
A more sensible approach is giving the government the mandate to use that on any welfare it sees fit, but without any predetermined and possibly a compulsory percentage without taking account the real situations or with little regard to the real need in different situations in the complex world.
The main shortcoming of government income management in the name of changing behaviour is that it can be very disempowering for those under management. For some it may produce the opposite effect to the legislation’s intention, that is, rather than change their behaviour to the better it may actually worsen theirs.
So there is a clear need to restrict its use to absolute minimum and target well.
2009-09-25
Australia needs bright minds in politics
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “PM yearns to lead world on climate”, 25/-09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26120525-7583,00.html
It appears that both sides of politics are silly over the ETS bill.
For the government, as the article argues, there is no need to pass it for business certainty. As long as the government are reasonable and sensible and firm on ETS, it will send an unequivocal signal to businesses. So indeed there is no need for passing the bill early for certainty.
For the opposition, there is no need to wait until others have decided. If everyone is doing what the opposition is doing, how will the world move in terms of climate change? It is a silly proposition. The key is to have a sensible and flexible bill that has the ability to accommodate what other will do.
Even under the government’s new round pressure, the coalition can still make reasonable progress by making amendments that incorporate enough flexibility to make the bill more workable and acceptable to it.
So both sides of politics are just silly and stubborn and stuck in dirty politics.
They just reflect the deep problems with Australian federal politics - there are not enough bright minds in it. That is a pity for the nation.
It appears that both sides of politics are silly over the ETS bill.
For the government, as the article argues, there is no need to pass it for business certainty. As long as the government are reasonable and sensible and firm on ETS, it will send an unequivocal signal to businesses. So indeed there is no need for passing the bill early for certainty.
For the opposition, there is no need to wait until others have decided. If everyone is doing what the opposition is doing, how will the world move in terms of climate change? It is a silly proposition. The key is to have a sensible and flexible bill that has the ability to accommodate what other will do.
Even under the government’s new round pressure, the coalition can still make reasonable progress by making amendments that incorporate enough flexibility to make the bill more workable and acceptable to it.
So both sides of politics are just silly and stubborn and stuck in dirty politics.
They just reflect the deep problems with Australian federal politics - there are not enough bright minds in it. That is a pity for the nation.
2009-07-29
Safety of overseas students and Australian principle of equality
Comments on Luke Slattery “Education debacle to cost us badly”, 29/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25850835-5016677,00.html
It is not just the revenue but also what we Australians stand for are important and at stake. Yes overseas students generate revenue for our universities and contribute to our education exports. That is important and there is no question about it
However, what is even more important is what we Australians stand for. We are a nation and people proud of the principles of equality and egalitarian society. We are also proud of our human rights record. As such a nation, we should welcome other people coming to our country, no matter they are visiting, studying or permitted working. We should and must provide as safe an environment to our visitors as to ourselves.
We should treat them as equal and afford them with the decent human rights we so dearly cherish, love and defend. Only by doing that truthfully with our warm hearts, we can really be proud of ourselves as an equal society that is characterised by the equalitarian principle.
The attacks on Indian students are a reflection of some problems that needs not only close attention but also serious actions by governments, universities and the public at large. While those attacks have been made public, some much more serious incidents, including killings of overseas students and visitors have not received anywhere enough attention or reporting.
We must face them, confronting them and resolving them.
It is not just the revenue but also what we Australians stand for are important and at stake. Yes overseas students generate revenue for our universities and contribute to our education exports. That is important and there is no question about it
However, what is even more important is what we Australians stand for. We are a nation and people proud of the principles of equality and egalitarian society. We are also proud of our human rights record. As such a nation, we should welcome other people coming to our country, no matter they are visiting, studying or permitted working. We should and must provide as safe an environment to our visitors as to ourselves.
We should treat them as equal and afford them with the decent human rights we so dearly cherish, love and defend. Only by doing that truthfully with our warm hearts, we can really be proud of ourselves as an equal society that is characterised by the equalitarian principle.
The attacks on Indian students are a reflection of some problems that needs not only close attention but also serious actions by governments, universities and the public at large. While those attacks have been made public, some much more serious incidents, including killings of overseas students and visitors have not received anywhere enough attention or reporting.
We must face them, confronting them and resolving them.
2009-07-24
Interesting Australian mix of emotions and rationality
Comments on David Penberthy “SA should stop worrying and learn to love yellowcake”, 24/07/2009, http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/sa-should-stop-worrying-and-learn-to-love-yellowcake/
Everyone has emotions and rationality. They are not necessarily always consistently related to things.
The nuclear issue in Australia provides an excellent example to illustrate this point.
On the one hand, it has allowed to have a few uranium mines. On the other hand, new uranium mines are opposed almost at all costs and irrespective their cases, for fear of its environmental effects.
On the one hand, uranium (or uranium ore?) is exported to other countries to be used in their nuclear power generations. On the other hand, no nuclear power stations are allowed to be built in Australia for fear of safety.
On the one hand, it was allowed to be used as a nuclear boom test site. On the other hand, it opposes any of its vast and geologically very stable land to be used to store nuclear waste.
On the one hand, it wants to reduce carbon pollution emissions. On the other hand, nuclear power with almost zero carbon emissions is not allowed to play a role in that noble endeavour.
They are an interesting mix of emotions and rationality (or irrationality). But that is what Australians have been for quite a while and still are. No one knows how long that interesting mix will last for and when there will be some reconciliation.
Only time can tell.
Everyone has emotions and rationality. They are not necessarily always consistently related to things.
The nuclear issue in Australia provides an excellent example to illustrate this point.
On the one hand, it has allowed to have a few uranium mines. On the other hand, new uranium mines are opposed almost at all costs and irrespective their cases, for fear of its environmental effects.
On the one hand, uranium (or uranium ore?) is exported to other countries to be used in their nuclear power generations. On the other hand, no nuclear power stations are allowed to be built in Australia for fear of safety.
On the one hand, it was allowed to be used as a nuclear boom test site. On the other hand, it opposes any of its vast and geologically very stable land to be used to store nuclear waste.
On the one hand, it wants to reduce carbon pollution emissions. On the other hand, nuclear power with almost zero carbon emissions is not allowed to play a role in that noble endeavour.
They are an interesting mix of emotions and rationality (or irrationality). But that is what Australians have been for quite a while and still are. No one knows how long that interesting mix will last for and when there will be some reconciliation.
Only time can tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
