2010 Federal Election Opinion & Analysis

Constitutional crisis not on the cards

David Scott — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:53:18 +0000

The following opinion piece is written by Professor Simon Evans, constitutional law expert from the Melbourne Law School at the University of Melbourne. It originally appeared on the ABC's The Drum here.

As the counting in Saturday's federal election continues, many people are asking what happens next.

Who is the Prime Minister today? Who gets to form a new government? What is the Governor General's job? And what happens if neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott can reach agreement with the independents?

The first question is the easiest. Julia Gillard is Prime Minister. However, her Government is still in caretaker mode. The caretaker conventions continue to operate until the result of the election is clear and a new Government is formed. The Government cannot make major appointments or dismissals, or significant legal or financial commitments, at least not without the agreement of the Opposition. Whatever the political inconvenience, this is not likely to cause any legal problems in the short to medium term.

The Governor General will eventually appoint a new government that has the support of the House of Representatives - that is, at a minimum, a government in which the majority of the House would express confidence if required on a confidence motion and (probably) that could pass an annual budget.

On current projections, neither major party will have 76 seats in the 150 seat House of Representatives in its own right. They will therefore be trying to get independent or Greens members to agree to support the government on important votes and perhaps even to join the government as an element of that support, as in Tasmania.

Following the recent UK election in which no major party secured an outright majority, it was asserted that the incumbent government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown had the right to have the first crack at forming a government.

Here, it seems much more likely that there will be parallel negotiations with both major parties. Some of the independents have signalled that they will regard the long term stability of the government that is formed, and its policies, as being significant in their decision of whom to support. That is entirely proper. There is no binding convention that the incumbent stand aside, or not seek to form a government with independents and others, if they win fewer seats than the opposition or a smaller percentage of the votes.

But, while she remains Prime Minister, it will be Julia Gillard who advises the Governor General whether she can form a government with independent and/or Greens support, which has the confidence of the House of Representatives. (The May 2010 UK election shows that the formal agreement need not necessarily be signed before the new Prime Minister is appointed if they are able to advise the Governor General that they will be able to form a government.)

If she can't reach an agreement with them, she may have to advise the Governor General that she no longer enjoys the confidence of the House of Representatives and resign. If there was genuine doubt about whether she could in fact form a government, she could insist on putting the issue to the vote in the House of Representatives rather than resign immediately.

If the LNP Coalition was able to reach an agreement with the independents, she could advise the Governor General to invite Mr Abbott to form a government. However, the March 2010 Tasmanian election shows that it is possible that the Governor General would refuse that advice and require the House of Representatives to meet and vote on a series of confidence motions.

Of course, it is entirely possible -- but perhaps unlikely -- that neither party can reach agreement with a sufficient number of independents and Greens to form a government that had the confidence of the House of Representatives.

In those circumstances, a further election may be necessary.

It is extraordinarily unlikely that the Governor General would order a new election unless the Prime Minister (who ever that was) advised her to do so. If the Prime Minister did so before the Parliament met, the Governor General could probably refuse the request and require the Prime Minister to see if a Government could be formed when the Parliament met.

How long can the uncertainty go on? Legally, for a very long while.

Under the Constitution, the Parliament must meet by late November, at which point matters would likely be resolved by a series of confidence motions -- either supporting the government, identifying a new government that had the support of the House -- or revealing that a new election was necessary to resolve the situation. (If a new election was required, it would be at least 33 days before it took place.) But on a practical level, it is extremely unlikely that the matter would not be resolved much sooner.

The situation we find ourselves in is unusual for the Australian national parliament -- the first hung Parliament in many decades. But it is not unprecedented. It is a fairly regular occurrence at state level. It is far from unusual internationally. (And of course it would be par for the course if Australia ever embraced proportional representation for the House of Representatives.)

Talk of a constitutional crisis is entirely overblown at this stage.

Why I’m voting Labor tomorrow

Dr Lauren Rosewarne — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:18:53 +0000

After politely nodding through one of my recent anti-Abbott rants, my brother mused that it was interesting that I was still a Labor party faithful. Faithful? I spluttered. I’m not bloody faithful!

So the late nineties were a crazy, crazy time. People were buying Savage Garden CDs, men were popping Viagra for the first time and those creepy Furbys had just hit toy store shelves. I was in my late teens, and yes, I worked for The Party. Indeed, it was a very long time ago but, cards on the table, I did indeed earn a little cash from the ALP: (to steal a favoured histrionic lament from my grandmother): mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

By 20 however, my interest in politics became exclusively academic. Analysing, commenting, mainly mocking. Not an indictment on the Party necessarily: I feel the same now about my feminism. Less marching, less boycotts, more sarcasm, more scorn, I say! And yet, while my one ALP membership has well and truly lapsed, yes, I’ll absolutely vote for Cath Bowtell tomorrow. None of this about faith, however. It’s not about any deep beliefs. It’s not about dyed-in-the-wool fervour and it's not about deluded optimism. Labor gets my vote because they're our best alternative.

News Limited's Vote-a-Matic suggests I vote Greens. An automated system would say this, of course: a passion for gay rights, women’s rights, workers rights: sure, Bob and Co make sense. Except for that one little detail overlooked by Vote-a-Matic: my hostility towards the environment. I'll be honest here: words like the sustainability make me want to hunt down some fossil fuels just to burn them. I glaze over when climate change is discussed. I hate sun on my skin - so much so in fact, a boyfriend once believed I was Gothic - and sometimes, hell, I even drink bottled water. And boy do I love a good long-haul flight! On the flipside, I don’t eat meat and I don’t drive a car: truth be told, I really think I've done enough.

In a two party system, I’m going to vote for the party that supports a feminist leader. The party that puts an Asian-born lesbian on the front bench. Yes, I’ve been ridiculously disappointed with the PM’s campaign and no, Labor is certainly not progressive enough for me. However, tomorrow my vote matters more than it ever has and tomorrow is not the time for petty polling day protests.

I’ll vote Labor and I’ll desperately hope they win. And when they win I'll spend the next few years voraciously complaining that they’re not progressive enough. As is my democratic right! But that delightful word enough will get me through. Not progressive enough is a vastly different thing from not progressive at all.

Dr Lauren Rosewarne

20 August 2010

No compromise on communications policy

Emma O'Neill — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:39:44 +0000

It is certainly rare that communications arises as an important election issue. Although we have seen important issues such as media ownership play a part in previous election campaigns, the scope of the communications policy at question in the 2010 election is sure to keep Senator Conroy’s Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in the news for the coming weeks.

By all accounts Senator Conroy has had a patchy, but certainly high profile first term in his increasingly significant portfolio. For the first time the communications agenda is almost completely dominated not by broadcasting or the press, but by the Internet. Senator Conroy’s two equally polarising policies, regarding Internet censorship and the National Broadband Network (NBN) are both key issues in this campaign, and are also clear points of difference to the proposed policy of the opposition.

Both policies, when looked at broadly, seem to be somewhat contradictory. The NBN is a ‘once-in-a-generation’ commitment by the Government to open up the full possibilities of broadband to the Australian public. The promised super fast speeds (around 100mps) seems to suggest that the government is fully committed to opening up this resource for use by the Australian people. Conroy himself has talked of the network as opening up the possibilities of the Internet to people’s fingertips.

However, at the same time, Labour seem to be intent to try and reign in the potentials of the Internet by imposing a filtering system, which by most accounts would not only restrict the open nature of the net, but also slow speeds for consumers. Not surprisingly there has been significant backlash to the filtering system, and as such the Prime Minister has recently watered down Labour’s intentions, but the will does seem to be there to try and impart some kind of control.

The Opposition on the other hand have strongly opposed both policies, therefore landing itself in a similarly contradictory position. Tony Abbott, and a host of his colleagues have lambasted the NBN for its size and cost, and have promised to significantly change the policy if elected. This issue plays squarely into their ‘Labour = Big Government’ narrative, and they have been able to tie in their policy to their belief in the market as a driving force for industry, whether that allows for a super-fast, open broadband for Australians or not.

Interestingly they have also come out in opposition to the Internet filter. Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has labelled it a ‘flawed’ system, and has called for a return to the Howard-era tactic of relying on parent’s to monitor their children’s use of the web. Their stance seems to suggest that the Internet should be allowed to continue as an un-filtered open space, as opposed to the restrictive policy being presented by the Government.

Whilst these issues are perhaps not ‘election-deciders’, they are undoubtedly important. Both parties have taken up strong positions and seem unwilling to find a compromise. Australian’s use the Internet in more and more devices everyday, and therefore these issues will be of great interest to the public at large. Which party can convince the public that they have the right plan in place remains to be seen.

Blaise Murphet is in his final year of the Master (MA) of Global Media and Communication at the University of Melbourne

Tax breaks for big projects a 'dumb idea'

David Scott — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:28:41 +0000

Professor John Freebairn from the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Business & Economics has criticized Tony Abbott’s idea to offer generous tax breaks to super funds and homeowners to invest in Government approved projects to help fund a $700 billion infrastructure wish list.

“I think it is a dumb idea. Why subsidise one type of investment at the expense of other investment options, when there is no explicit market failure reason for doing so?”

You can find out more about Abbott's idea in today's Age: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/abbott-in-push-for-big-projects-20100817-128it.html.

Professor Freebairn, one of Australia's leading experts on taxation reform and labour economics, is available for further comment. Please contact the University of Melbourne media office on 8344 4123.

We Are The Storytellers

Martin Bortz — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:24:48 +0000

Any student of literature can describe a story's dramatic arc. First, the exposition. The characters are introduced, background told, relationships established. The exposition ends with the inciting moment, which begins the next phase - rising action. The rising action reaches climax and then flows into the falling action. Once this part of the story is told, we reach the denouement, the resolution.

This heuristic applies to elections as well. We have, from the outset, a protagonist and an antagonist (although who is which will depend on your political persuasions). We know their background and their relationship with each other. Then, the election, the inciting moment, is called. Following that, the rising action (or should that be Real Action?) evolves as each candidate reveals their position and continues on the campaign. The climax this year will occur on 21 August, and, unlike the traditional arc, the falling action and denouement will occur very shortly (almost instantly) after.

A great story is one that lingers well after the credits have finished. You think about it the next day, or the one after. Sadly, elections very rarely fit this definition. Like a Pauly Shore movie, we quickly try and forget them. Though it has had its own share of drama, Election 2010 will, most likely, also inhabit the $2 bin of Australian history. However, it is not the election story itself that matters. Rather, it is the epilogue, the next make-up of the Federal Parliament, that counts.

Our history, our story, is moulded and shaped by the people that occupy those seats in Canberra. And, while we may dismiss them, even scorn them, we must nevertheless recognise that politicians have the power to greatly influence how the story is told, and whether or not the Australia of which we dream is made manifest.

This Saturday we each will be adding our own contribution to the story. Some will choose to leave their contribution blank; others will painstakingly decide the way in which their political will is expressed. Cynicism aside, a vote is an opportunity to contribute to the story. Votes count.

After the action has fallen, after the resolution has been reached, we will know how the next chapter of Australian history will develop. And, whatever the outcome, once the election is decided, we often can do little but watch the story unfold.

So, please, choose your words carefully.

Marty Bortz
Masters Student
School of Social and Political Science
University of Melbourne

Suffer the children left behind

Katherine Smith — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:10:22 +0000

The largely bipartisan schools policy views public education as a broken sector. It's not a position worth voting for.

It is hard to think of a time when the two major political parties in Australia agreed so much about education policy. That could be a good thing if the policies were good. But are they?

National reporting of school performance aimed at market discipline is a shared commitment. So is the testing behind this - though the Coalition wants more testing. National curriculum is a shared commitment. So is payment by results. Maintenance of non-government school funding in real terms is also shared - with change more or less delayed.

There are certainly points of divergence, which we will come to later. But what sort of consensus is it that combines national testing, national performance reporting and a national curriculum with a feudal mix of public and private schools, differently funded and administered? These things do not fit together. Yet they do reflect a shared view about Australian schooling. And it is this underlying view that is the most disturbing aspect of the cross-party convergence on school policy.

Labor, like the Coalition, has been careful to protect those parts of the feudal regime that are truly medieval - confessional schools serving church and sect, diocesan authorities and boards, and the grammar schools with their episcopal or ecclesiastical patronage that barely covers their corporate rears. Australia has invested mightily in these schools to raise them out of their historical mediocrity. Today they are a very secular sector of choice.

Representing the modern state are the public schools. These are widely seen as the sector of second choice. The Coalition says they are value-free, sub-standard, and given over to "social engineering". It is the Coalition that initiated testing in the 1970s to lift standards in public schools. But Labor has perfected the instruments to compare schools and impose market responsiveness.

Both see public schooling as a sector to be fixed. Make it more like private schooling. This is why the two big parties share the one tool box - national curriculum, testing and reporting, payment by results, the marketplace, school autonomy.

Neither party sees that the harder they drive the privatisation agenda, the weaker they make the public sector. The expansion of private schooling drains the public system of cultural and academic resources, makes schools unviable in size and mix, and diverts scarce funds into an over-resourced and predatory sector. Access to demanding courses, to model students, to specialist teachers and to good facilities is being whittled away.

Christopher Pyne is on record as saying that "needs in government schools are greater". But the list of policies on the Liberal Party website does not include a single initiative specifically addressing those needs. Instead, the commitment is to "protect choice". We protect choice by diminishing chances for others. This is a fundamental injustice. It is remarkable that Christian Schools Australia can demand more choice with no thought for the impact on children left behind by choice.

Labor, under Kevin Rudd, took up the national reform agenda developed by Victoria. It struck national agreements through COAG to improve low outcomes. But the partnerships do not address underlying issues - major funding disparities, operating conditions in schools, and the residualising effects of the "choice" (which Labor itself promotes as if to undermine the agreements).

These operate within a framework of national testing that narrows educational effort and is content with modest relative gains in basic skills. Neither Labor nor the Coalition expects more.

Marginal improvement relative to circumstances explains the superficiality of the high-profile policies concocted by ministerial staff. Teach for Australia, Teach Next, Rewards for School Improvement, and Reward Payments for Great Teachers have all arrived from the United States with a contentious and largely negative history. They are short-cuts devised in response to a faltering public system, neglected in favour of choice.

It is a failed vision of public schooling that subjects the Labor Party to the indignity of scavenging on the scrapheap of failed educational reform. The Greens, by contrast, start from the premise that public schooling is intrinsically valuable and the best vehicle to engage all children. They want a public system that is "recognised as among the best in the world". Can either of the big parties say this or mean it? Is either prepared to draw out the consequences - setting high standards for all public schools, adopting the funding priorities that this requires, and making durable improvements in the quality of the teaching force?

The big parties' vision of public schooling as a broken sector is not worth voting for. Australia needs a national system of schools. We want schools that care for all, not just for their own. We need a national system, not because the states cannot manage, but because the ALP and the Coalition are destroying the viability of public schools. If it is important enough to have a national curriculum - to expose all children to high cultural standards, not simply literacy and numeracy - it cannot be less important to have a national system of schools that gives all children the resources they need - good teachers, good peers and good programs.

Richard Teese is professor and director of the Centre for Post-Compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning at the University of Melbourne

This opinion piece was first published in The Age, 16 August 2010.

Campaigns, crackpots and colourful characters

Dr Lauren Rosewarne — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:00:53 +0000

Getting roused enough to blog about the election has been difficult. Amidst sterile speeches and predictable press conferences and those delightfully dodgy dowries, summoning creative juices has been hard. Hard, but not impossible. Something keeping me buoyant, something making the whole thing strangely bearable are the characters. The sharp-tongued, the psycho, the strange. When so many seem straight from central casting, there are those few pollies who, fabulously, are in a complete league of their own.

Truth be told, loony Latham lost me long ago. There was the incident with the taxi driver and the temper and the broken arm. And the one with the photographer and the temper and the fast food restaurant. I’ve fallen for alcoholics, I’ve fallen for drug addicts, but thugs are just… thugs. And yet, while Latham’s talents are likely better suited to the vowing-vengeance Chaouk family than federal politics, by no means am I lamenting his return.

With no qualifications in psychology, dubbing someone insane is out of my skill set. Signs however, are clearly there. From his strange stroking allegations against the PM to his Nelson Muntz-interview technique, he’s a delightful plot twist. And that twist was beautifully described by yet another favourite election nutjob, Barnaby Joyce.

My preferred Sunday morning TV fare involves Rage when the playlist is good or NBC’s Dateline when the case is gory. Last Sunday however, I gave ABC24 a go. And was duly rewarded. There, the reliably ridiculous Barnaby asked the host whether he watched Days of Our Lives. And the host, in perfectly ABC-style, looked incredulous. And batty Barnaby, in the style of every man unable to own his perverse penchants, stammered through an explanation of watching DOOL in his crazy hazy uni youth. And then he charmed me. Barnaby offered the perfect Salem/Election 2010 connection: Stefano DiMera.

Known also as Phoenix, the thoroughly Transylvanian Stefano has survived plane crashes and car bombings and drownings and heart attacks. And he’s organised kidnappings and surgery follies, secret doors and baby swaps. And Barnaby, in that wonderful Barnabian way, likened the resurrections of DiMera to the reappearances of Rudd and Latham; ghosts of Labor past.

Ridiculous and hyperbolic but so thoroughly apt, Barnaby had me at hello. I like loose cannons. I like unvetted comments. I like failed attempts at humour. And I love the crackpots. No, I wouldn’t vote for them and I don’t want them next to me on a tram or in a lift, but my do they bring a certain special something to the table.

Dr Lauren Rosewarne

16 August 2010

The Phantom of the Opera

Martin Bortz — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:43:07 +0000

The last week or so has been one of resurrection. John Howard has emerged from the stalls to lend his support to the Liberal campaign. Kevin Rudd, fresh out of hospital following a gall bladder removal, has re-joined his frienemies in the ALP. Julia Gillard seemed to rise like a phoenix on the last episode of Q&A (and, dare I say it, may have given her party a much needed boost). And, of course, Mark Latham. Yes, Mark Latham. Like the sour grapes of wrath, Latham is providing the election coverage with moments of awkward acerbity.

I'm not sure of Mr Latham's journalistic credentials. I imagine he has none. As he ambushes the candidates on the trail, he more resembles a serial pest than a man-who-once-could-have-been-Prime Minister. Of course, it was Latham's spectacular fall from grace that has relegated him to the pages of political curiousities. 60 Minutes seems to have capitalised on his history. Knowing the man will provoke a reaction far disproportionate to his talent, they have parachuted him in to cover the final weeks of the election.

I wonder what The Chaser are saying?

The tragedy (or comedy, depending on your view) is that his presence is yet another distraction from what the parties are actually saying. We saw this farce most apparent as Tony Abbott visited an RSL in Sydney today. As (strangely) NineMSN reported, the routine quickly turned an otherwise run-of-the-mill announcement into a circus. While Abbott was attempting to win over the veterans, Latham launched into a barrage of questions of dubious nexus to the election, preventing the opposition leader from demonstrating Real Action on veterans affairs. One gentleman, god bless him, called out to Mr Latham - 'It's not about you Mr Latham, it's about the veterans'. Indeed.

Earlier in the week, Latham confronted the incumbent in an encounter that has been described by Laurie Oakes as 'ugly'. Anyone watching that meeting would have turned the Cringe-o-meter up to 11. And, for what it's worth, Ms Gillard's graceful but firm handling of the situation may have just augmented her Q&A appearance on Monday.

So, why is the man so bitter? Why is his behaviour so erratic? Former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett chalks it up to a bi-polar disorder. I think that's plausible. Failing that, it may be the lingering, cruel ghost of a leadership not quite grasped. Either way, the Latham train-wreck continues to squeal and shout and shoot sparks from a rotting, rusty track.

Toot, toot.

Marty Bortz
Masters Student
School of Social and Political Science
University of Melbourne

Family guy

Katherine Smith — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:17:17 +0000

Tony Abbott’s family is playing an unprecedented role in this election, but will it shift votes, asks Dr Stephanie Younane Brookes from the School of Social and Political Sciences.

THE LIBERAL PARTY’s campaign message is pitched directly at Australian families. “Real action” on childcare, a $760 million boost to the education tax rebate and a twenty-six-week paid parental leave scheme are all designed to resonate with the kitchen-table economics of the “ordinary” family. But does this strategy reflect a sophisticated understanding of the voting behaviour of the Australian electorate?

Images of the family are not new in Australian elections, of course. On the campaign trail, politicians have long positioned family at the centre of society, taken their own families on the hustings, and even spoken of the nation itself as the “Australian family.” What is new is opposition leader Tony Abbott’s emphasis on his status as husband and father to demonstrate how he embodies “family values.” Abbott’s repeated and specific references to his own family at formal campaign events are even more unusual.

Through this language and imagery, the Liberals are trying to do two things at once: to exploit the perceived electoral advantage that Abbott’s home life offers and to solve the perceived electoral challenge of a female prime minister. In this narrative, Abbott is a family man who is surrounded by, and understands, women. Voters are invited to contrast the opposition leader with his opponent and to draw conclusions about the values and integrity of the candidates based on their home lives. '

Election campaigns are about identification. Candidates take a stand on issues, make policy promises, and present a vision for the nation in the hope that their message will resonate with voters. When politicians give televised speeches, host photo opportunities and update Twitter feeds, they are attempting to reflect the hopes, fears and underlying values of “ordinary” people.

Asia must be an Australian policy priority

Katherine Smith — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:31:31 +0000

Asialink and Asia Society AustralAsia Centre Group CEO, Jenny McGregor today said that relations with Asia must be a priority for the next Federal Government.

Releasing a statement of 'Asia priorities' for the next ten years, Ms McGregor said a long-term bipartisan commitment was required to ensure Australians were fully able to engage with Asia over the coming Century.

The statement, endorsed by the Asialink and Asia Society Boards, calls for greater resources to prepare Australia for the Asian Century.

"Australian governments must make an enduring and significant investment in equipping young Australians for the challenges of business, of solving regional and global issues, and of managing the increasingly complex interactions around our region," she said.

“Australia’s top four export markets are all in Asia. Last year, sales of Australian product to these four – China, Japan, Korea and India – dwarfed US and UK sales eight to one. Our services trade with Asia grows twice as fast as with the rest of the world.

“Our security, health and development interests lie in the Asian region. In preventing pandemics and people smuggling, in building transparent and accountable systems to support trade and investment, in forging creative exchanges in the arts and in science, Australians need to be more than ever focused on Asia.

Read Asialink and Asia Society AustralAsia Centre's Australian policy priorities for the next ten years here.

The education revolution is finally here

Emma O'Neill — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:52:12 +0000

This week Prime Minister Gillard announced a suite of radical policies that will do far more to improve student learning than any school hall or national curriculum ever could. Performance bonuses for teachers and schools; Teach Next, which moves passionate professionals into teaching careers; and an Australian Baccalaureate to complement state high school certificates. Combined with earlier initiatives such as the MySchool website which compares school performance and profiles across the country; and last week’s promise to hand more power back to principals and parents, we have a real revolution. Not just of schooling policy, but Labor policy.

These policies – quite rightly – overturn traditional Labor and teacher union platforms and demonstrate that the Gillard is willing move beyond traditional alliances and ideas to do what the evidence says is necessary (not that we were in doubt!)

Take performance pay, which rewards the best – not longest serving – teachers with a 10% salary bonus. Under Labor’s new performance framework, excellent teachers will be rewarded not only for student achievement, but also their contribution to the school community, support for colleagues, and involvement in extra curricular activities.

The policy responds to shocking findings by Melbourne’s own Grattan Institute that 91 per cent of teachers felt the best teachers in their schools did not receive the greatest recognition, and that only 8 percent said they’d receive any recognition if they improved their teaching. Indeed, OECD data shows that Australia was the fourth worst of 23 developed nations when it came to recognizing and rewarding effective teachers.

It’s a dysfunctional system. Our teachers – and students – deserve better.

For this reason, performance pay has many supporters, including the Australian Council of Educational Research, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Primary Principals Association, which represents all school sectors.

Yet, the policy is opposed by teacher unions and old Labor ideologues because – shock horror – it recognizes that not all teachers are equal in their talent and dedication.

For instance, Angelo Gavrielatos, federal president of the Australian Education Union, condemned the scheme as ‘wrong’, ‘misguided’ and ‘bad’ without providing any evidence. He claims it will do nothing to address teacher shortages, willfully ignoring the complementary Teach Next policy and the fact many teachers leave when their enormous efforts receive little more than a pat on the back.

The policies are not new. Teacher bonuses are already being implemented in Victoria, and around the globe. ‘Teach Next’ type schemes have had great success in the UK and US, attracting excellent teachers, and raising the profile and esteem of this important vocation. And school-based-management, working well in Victoria nearly 20 years, has been repeatedly recognized by the OECD as a key attribute of the world’s top performing school systems.

But most are from the ‘too hard’ basket, fought against by the states (for some legitimate reasons) and by the teacher unions and ideologues (for generally illegitimate reasons.)

This is the very definition of revolutionary policy – progressing beyond old party lines and old rhetoric. Doing what works, rather than what is politically convenient. It’s certainly time.

Bronwyn Hinz
School of Social and Political Sciences and Melbourne Graduate School of Education
University of Melbourne

Australia needs fibre-based NBN

Emma O'Neill — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:07:54 +0000

An enduring characteristic of human nature is our inability to understand and accept the rate of technological change and its impact on society. In 1876, William Preece, Chief Engineer of the British Post Office said: "The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys“ and in 1943, the Chairman of IBM famously said: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." It is easy to laugh at these comments and dismiss those who said them as relics of the past. But a similar array of laughable throw-away comments pervade the public debate on the planned fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) National Broadband Network.

A breath of fresh air comes from Julia Gillard and Stephen Conroy, who highlight the benefits of new broadband technologies and have correctly pointed out that building Broadband Network will have the same kind of transformational impact as the railways in the 19th and 20the centuries. But doubters and naysayers seem intent on living in the past. For example, Kenneth Davidson’s (the Age, August 2, 2010) described the railway analogy as “bollocks”. But the information age has only just begun, and broadband technologies are poised to transform society in ways that we don’t yet fully understand. Only a few years ago, many people were perfectly happy with incredibly slow dial-up modems. And in some Asian countries Internet users are now demanding 100 Mb/s and beyond.

Davidson argues that an alternate approach is to use “very fast broadband based on mobile technologies and existing fibre”. This really is bollocks, and it defies the laws of physics. The reality is that very fast broadband – 50 Mb/s and above - cannot be delivered to the entire population using wireless and existing fibres. In fact, it would require numerous mobile telephone towers to be placed along every suburban street, and it would require new optical fibres to be installed down every street to connect to these towers. The net result would be thousands of kilometres of new fibre - much the same as will be required for the NBN – and ugly streetscapes across the nation. What’s more, the mobile network would consume about 200 megawatts more electricity than a fibre-to-the-premises network and would require new power stations to drive it.

FTTP and wireless technologies are complementary, not competitive. FTTP can provide data rates well beyond what wireless can deliver. On the other hand, wireless provides a degree of mobility that FTTP cannot provide. Fortunately, the screen size of small mobile devices is quite small, and video on these devices does not require nearly as much bandwidth as fixed video screens. Wireless provides a convenient access to limited data. FTTP provides the full power and capacity of the Internet to a fixed location. Both technologies have their place. Neither technology will make the other obsolete.

A recent report commissioned by the City of Seattle found that a fibre access network would produce indirect benefits of more than $1 billion per annum. In addition, energy efficiency improvements in industry and the reduction in usage of private and public transport would result in greenhouse emissions reduction of 600,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. Scaled to a country the size of Australia, these benefits would amount to more than $5 billion per annum. Looking at these indirect benefits from fibre-based broadband, the $43 billion price tag on the NBN starts to look like a bargain.

For the first time in history, Australia is poised to be at the cutting edge of Internet technology. But we are teetering on losing a once-in-a lifetime opportunity.

Rod Tucker is a Laureate Professor and Director of the Institute for a Broadband-Enabled Society, University of Melbourne

The biggest issue

Penny Rush — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:04:30 +0000

I have always been concerned about the environment and its ability to sustain a growing population that has consumerism as a defining feature.

Then last semester I took Dr Peter Christoff’s enlightening subject Climate Change Policy and Politics. Along with the policy and politics came the science behind climate change and descriptions of the impact it is already having on many people’s lives and the impact it will have in the (very) near future on all of us.

I turned on the television this evening and the news had dramatic footage of fires in Russia and floods in Pakistan. And of course our own bushfires in 2009 are still fresh in my mind. My parents both fought fires for the CFA for weeks that summer (and many others). My sister is a climatologist and has been talking about the reality of climate change for a decade.

How can any issue be more important than the environment? If we have no environment then it doesn’t matter what the schools are like, whether there are enough hospital beds or whether we are all connected to the internet at the speed of 100 megabits per second.

Labour talks about cleaner power stations, the cleaner car rebate, connecting renewables, emission standards for cars, and tax breaks for green buildings. That’s like emptying the bath one teaspoon at a time instead of pulling the plug. And there is no mention on the website of the elusive Emissions Trading Scheme. I could not find their overall strategy or any budget for environmental action.

I went hunting for Real Action on the Coalition website and, hallelujah, they have a Direct Action Plan for the Environment and Climate Change, and it is detailed and budgeted. They propose spending $3.1 billion over four years. To put that figure into context their commitment to hospitals and nursing is $3.6 billion and to broadband is $5.3 billion over approximately six years.

The Greens have the strongest statements concerning climate change but little detail and no budget detail. They propose a 40 percent cut in emissions by 2020 and that polluters must pay for it. No further detail.

And if I voted for the Greens in my electorate, where would preferences go, and what difference would it make?

I have more work to do (and so do the parties) before August 21.

Penny Rush
Student, Master of Public Policy and Management

More incentives for schools with challenges

Sally Sherwen — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:15:22 +0000

Bronwyn Hinz from the University of Melbourne says while Labor’s plan to give schools discretionary grants of up to $100,000 if they improve their students’ literacy, numeracy and attendance is a good policy, it could be much better.

"Schools are already have enormous incentives to improve student outcomes - including school reputation and their passion for education – incentives enhanced by the MySchool website which compares them with schools around the country," she says.

"We don’t need more incentives. We need more support for those schools with additional challenges, to bring them up to higher levels. Targeting the money where it’s most needed would do more to close the gaps between high and low performing schools."

Bronwyn Hinz ,
School of Social and Political Science & Melbourne,
Graduate School of Education University of Melbourne

Out for Lunch - Back in Five

Martin Bortz — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:11:26 +0000

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, dad.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

***

Often we're told that a Labor Government will send us broke. Spend, spend, spend. Indeed, the voters have seen that very thing this electoral cycle. The current Government has taken a once healthy surplus and has turned it into a frightening deficit. Quod erat demonstrandum.

What is missing from this elegant proof are two very telling variables. First, Howard et. al. governed during a period of tremendous growth, propelled by the resource boom. It was precisely this situation that allowed such a surplus to be accumulated. Indeed, Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has since stated that only a fool could ruin the economy in such circumstances.

Second, the current Government, in its spending initiatives, was trying to avoid the same fate that had befallen other advanced economies the world over. The opposition has used the current deficit as political ammunition - you can't trust Labor with the economy. I really do wonder what the Liberal Party would have done if faced with the same financial turmoil. Maybe the same. Or maybe not. We'll never know. I guess it's easy to throw popcorn from the cheap seats.

What I hope the preceding discussion illustrates is that too often we attribute government successes or failures to circumstances well beyond anyone's control. It is far too glib an analysis to point to any one factor as determinant of a Prime Minister's (or opposition leader's) credentials. The world is too complex. Yet that is precisely how election campaigns are run.

Exhibit B, Your Honour - refugees. Abbott professes that he will 'stop the boats'. He claims that the number of boat arrivals has risen under the current government. Yet he ignores that refugee arrivals everywhere have increased. He also ignores the tremendous complexity of the refugee debate, preferring to reduce it to a series of fear-inspiring buzz-words (as I have written previously).

Does that mean that politics is meaningless? Maybe, but probably not. Rather, it means that there is more to this campaign (and indeed to public policy) than meets the eye. It means that there is a little more thinking that should be done before siding with a candidate. Unfortunately, time-poverty, cynicism and apathy are all great foes in the battle for the public's imagination.

So instead we vote on a whim. We vote for the better haircut, the better name, the better chef. We vote for the least-bad-candidate. I'm not entirely sure that this democracy, our democracy, lives up to its ideals. But, hey, it's still the best-system-that-doesn't-work that we have.

Just some food for thought.

Marty Bortz
Masters Student
School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Melbourne