Tag: australia

After watching this interview (Windows Media, Real Player) on ABC’s Insiders, I’m wondering whether Kevin Rudd is styling himself after the little Lego men I used to play with as a kid (ah Lego – hours of fun). His hair is so incredibly shiny and plastic looking!

Unfortunately, my opinion of the Ruddster, Gillard and Labor in general has slipped even further since my last post. I’m disappointed with their “Forward with Fairness” Industrial Relations policy. If they win government, Labor will scrap Australian Workplace Agreements (individual contracts introduced by the current government), preferring a collective bargaining model. They’ll ditch the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and a bunch of other related bodies, replacing them with a new all-powerful IR referee called Fair Work Australia (or “FWA”, as in “Unions rule, FWAHAhahahahaaaa!”). This is not a forward looking policy at all. In fact, it’s a giant step backwards. I’m not against some protections for low paid workers, but this policy goes a lot further than that. Labor’s got to come up with a more realistic model. And it it has to be a model that doesn’t protect workers at the expense of the unemployed (or, to put it another way, a system that doesn’t protect the working class at the expense of the poor). In the past, keeping the unemployed out of work was one of the nasty side-effects of heavy union involvement in the workplace. Just because Australia has a low rate of unemployment now, does not mean it will stay that way.

When Kevin Rudd challenged for the Labor leadership, I was skeptical of Labor’s ability to pull together after the ballot. As it turns out, Kevin Rudd has done a superb job of holding the party together. He made a great start, and he’s been exceedingly clever in attacking the Howard government over a number of issues ever since. As a result, the electorate seems to love Kevin Rudd – if the polls are anything to go by. Labor looks more likely to win a Federal election than it has done in a very long time. I’ve been a fan of Kevin Rudd for some time, and even thought he could have won the Labor leadership in the wake of Mark Latham’s resignation if he had contested. However, as the masses fall in love with Kevin Rudd, my own opinion of him is steadily declining. The question is, has it declined so much as to make me reverse my pledge never to vote for John Howard again?

It was at the end of last year that Rudd wrote an opinion piece for The Australian titled “Child of Hayek“, which sought to equate John Howard’s policies with the views of the famed economist and social theorist Friedrich Hayek. The article then set about highlighting the differences between Hayek’s liberal views and those of social democrats such as Kevin Rudd. The problem is, his article vividly highlighted to me why I’m not a social democrat and, after a few moments thought, it also understates the reasons why John Howard most certainly is not a child of Hayek. If only he was!

Rudd, and other social democrats, imparts on the state values that can be meaningfully held only by individuals (compassion etc). He also makes the mistake, constantly made by the supporters of socialism, that individualism is the same as selfishness or egocentrism. It is not, and never has been.

After speaking about Hayek’s values, he says:

To values of liberty, security and opportunity, we add social democratic values of equity, sustainability and compassion.

So according to Rudd, “security” was one of Hayek’s values. In fact, Hayek wrote a whole chapter in The Road to Serfdom devoted to reducing the importance of security (social, physical and otherwise) so as to maximise individual freedom. He ends the chapter with a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This remains one of my favourite quotes of all time, and I think it is particularly important in the world we find ourselves living in today. To my mind, the greatest security is to be found in the strength of our freedom. Furthermore, equity is one of the defining characteristics of liberalism, and historically not something that social democrats can claim to value to any large extent. As defined in the Merriam Webster online dictionary, equity is “justice according to natural law or right; specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism”. Liberalism is all about removing privilege from special interest groups. In fact, it is socialism, democratic or otherwise, which cannot help but enforce the privileges of special interest groups due to their proclivity to planning.

Rudd says Hayek also argued that any form of altruism was dangerous. This is not true. Here is what Hayek really says about altruism:

For our problem it is of minor importance whether the ends for which any person cares comprehend only his own individual needs, or whether they include the needs of his closer or even those of his more distant fellows – that is, whether he is egoistic or altruistic in the ordinary senses of these words. The point which is so important is the basic fact that it is impossible for any man to survey more than a limited field, to be aware of the urgency of more than a limited number of needs. Whether his interests centre round his own physical needs, or whether he takes a warm interest in the welfare of every human being he knows, the ends about which he can be concerned will always be only an infinitesimal fraction of the needs of all men.

He continues, thus (emphasis is my own):

This is the fundamental fact on which the whole philosophy of individualism is based. It does not assume, as is often asserted, that man is egoistic or selfish or ought to be.

In other words, the individual judges by his or her own conscience what is important in the world. Delegating these powers to the state does not make society any more compassionate or humanitarian. It merely concentrates power in a single body, and severely reduces the individual’s freedom to choose. If Rudd, by social democracy, does not mean that these powers are vested in the state rather than the individual, then his attack on individualism becomes contradictory. So, we must assume that this is what he means.

Hayek has made the comment that primitive societies were reliant on altruism for their survival, but that does not in any way imply that altruism should be purged from the modern society. The modern society arguably operates more effectively where altruism is to be found. But a society based on liberal philosophy retains its stability when altruism is not always present. I think this is the difference. Rudd has introduced a non sequitur in making his argument.

Rudd also likes to tell us that he and other social democrats stand for a “fair go”. But what is a “fair go”? In a free market, a free society, all play by the same rules. There are no special interest groups. Everyone has an equal opportunity to gain wealth. Each person is free to spend their wealth as they see fit. Morality rests with the individual. It is the individual who must ensure a fair go for his or her neighbour. To take moral choices from the individual and give them to the state makes it impossible for the individual to exercise morality or immorality within that sphere.

This last point is what really irks me about socialism. Socialists claim the higher moral ground because they insist that when the state is given the power to make these choices for us, it is somehow better than leaving it to the realm of individuals. But what it really does is remove from individuals the necessity to make these choices at all. That is, socialism precludes the opportunity for individuals to make ethical choices, either good or bad. The state takes on that role instead. This inevitably means that it’s the wants and needs of the strongest special interest groups that are satisfied, to the exclusion of other groups. That is the only flavour of morality that can be exercised by the state. By removing the need for individuals to make these choices for themselves, people lose touch with each other and fail to consider the concerns of other individuals. Afterall, if the state’s got you covered (in theory, at least), why should I care? Why should I take any interest in your well-being? It is a fantastic myth, perpetuated by socialists, that because the market acts anonymously, our social interactions become likewise anonymous, thereby annihilating the social fabric. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is precisely individual liberty, as granted by unfettered markets, that compels us to take a direct interest in the welfare of our fellow human beings.

Just in case you still think John Howard is a Hayek worshipper, here is another quote from Hayek that I really like. It resonates directly with recent events concerning terrorism and newly introduced laws in Australia and in other Western democracies.

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

And didn’t the Howard government just announce that they’ll be funding a campaign, to the tune of $2.5 million, to warn parents not to smack their children. If that’s not a sign of a nanny-state, I don’t know what is.

Finally, if John Howard is the market fundamentalist that Rudd says he is, how is it possible that The Prime Minister’s overall economic strategy places all our eggs in the resources basket? If Howard was a market fundamentalist he wouldn’t have any say in which baskets anyone’s eggs are placed in. Another contradiction.

Howard a child of Hayek? I don’t think so. But I’m beginning to think Rudd might be a child of Marx. Well, not really. But his preparedness to participate in an ANZAC day dawn service featuring a fake sunrise and then lie about his and his office’s complicity in the organisation of the event sounds quite Orwellian to me. His “management” of the media also leaves a bit to be desired at times. Finally, he either sincerely misunderstands Hayek, or he’s attempting to play on the perceived ignorance of voters by performing a character assassination on Hayek and then hoping to discredit Howard by associating him with this obscure man from the past. Either way, it’s not something one would hope for in a potential leader of our nation. Yet, despite all this, I still won’t be voting for the Liberals, which means Labor is in with a good chance of capturing the vote of this disillusioned voter. Lucky Labor.

More and more the Liberal Party under John Howard is retreating from liberalism towards authoritarianism. The latest blow to the cause of liberalism and free speech in this country is the banning of books, DVDs and other material deemed to “advocate” terrorism. The Liberal Party has lost the courage of its convictions, and so too, it seems, have the Australian people. Friedrich Hayek, whom Kevin Rudd would have us believe is the father of John Howard’s policies, would be dismayed at this latest assault on the liberal cause. I will have more on Kevin Rudd’s laughable statement to The Australian at a later date. But for now, I think all Australians need to wake up to this slow and steady erosion of our freedoms before it’s too late. Our system of liberalism and democracy is strong enough to absorb the odd hate-filled book or DVD. If we don’t believe that, we may as well abandon our current system in favour of an authoritarian or totalitarian regime – the very kind that we, supposedly, abhor.

Well, it’s been almost a week since the Labor caucus ousted Kim Beazley and elected Kevin Rudd as their new leader and Julia Gillard as his deputy. In my last post, I made the comment that it might have been in Labor’s best interests for Kevin to wait until after the next election before contesting the leadership. I also made that comment in the wake of Mark Latham’s resignation. However, Mr Rudd has made a really good start. It began with a confident interview on the 7.30 Report, continued with his staring down of the internal Labor factions so he could install the front bench that he wanted, and now he’s talking about overhauling the education system. More to the point, I already get the feeling that Labor will, for once, be constructing a strong party platform from which to launch their election campaign. This is something that neither Kim Beazley nor his recent predecessors were willing or able to achieve as Labor leaders. My frustration with Mr Beazley’s incoherrent policies are already well documented in this blog.

Maybe Mr Rudd does have enough time to make an impact before the next election after all. He won’t be able to fix Labor’s internal organisational problems, but he may be able to do enough to get everybody focused on the one message. He’s given Labor a good chance by choosing his preferred front bench (I understand the final places on the bench will be decided this weekend) rather than bowing to factional and union pressure. It’s still early days. Kevin Rudd is no Mark Latham, but I remember that Mr Latham was fairly impressive when he first began as Labor leader, and look what came of that!

Whether it’s Kim Beazley or Kevin Rudd who emerges victorious from the Labor caucus this morning, Mr Rudd has made a big mistake by challenging for the leadership at this point in time, so close to the next federal election. Labor looks just as divided as ever, and Kevin Rudd and his “running mate”, Julia Gillard, look immature and impatient. Kevin would have done well to stand firmly behind Kim Beazley, bide his time, wait for Labor to lose the next election, and then step into the leadership role looking far less blood-thirsty. Mr Rudd would appear more mature, and the Labor party less fractured. This more patient approach would also have allowed him to give the federal Labor party the big shake-up that it so badly needs. There is not enough time between now and the election to begin that kind of operation. Sure Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard can choose a new-look front bench, but everyone knows that Labor’s problems run far deeper than that.

I’m not sure I dig this “new style of leadership” that Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard seem to be proposing. Since they announced that they’ll be challenging Mr Beazley and Ms Macklin, the pair have not appeared on TV as individuals (at least, not that I’ve seen); it’s like they’re joined at the hip. It’s quite unnatural and it’s beginning to freak me out!

Mark Latham may have been potty mouthed, his policies may have been misguided and he may have ended up being universally despised. But one thing he had going for him was conviction. To me, he came across as knowing how he wanted Australia to be, and he believed in his policies. In other words, he had a vision, even if most Australians clearly disagreed with that vision. Kim Beazley, on the other hand, seems at a total loss when it comes to articulating a clear platform for Labor, beyond the expected vociferous opposition to the Coalition’s workplace reforms. Worse still, Beazley seems intent on hijacking his own tilt at the prime ministership by announcing policies that appear to be completely devoid of anything resembling logic.

His most recent idea, which can only be described as stunningly ill-conceived, is to have all those coming to our shores – even tourists – sign a pledge to respect Australian values. Not only is this idea unworkable, it’s just plain stupid, because it won’t have any effect whatsoever on improving migrant integration. This laughable policy follows hot on the heels of Beazley’s confused uranium policy, which I’ve commented on previously. I note with interest that Bill Shorten, the secretary for the Australian Workers’ Union and new Labor candidate for Maribyrnong, has also called for Labor’s “half pregnant” uranium policy to be scrapped.

Kim Beazley is trying to match John Howard’s political savvy by attempting to appear clever and wise. Unfortunately, all he’s managing to do, in my eyes, is prove that he is incapable of leading this country. John Howard’s call to the state Liberal and National parties in the wake of their humiliating defeat in the Queensland election was basically “get a plan, get a vision and spend time working on them”. Federal Labor would do well to take that advice on board, too. Beazley has been completely reactive, continually playing catch-up, and therefore relying on half-baked policies which he feels compelled to introduce to look as though he’s providing a sensible option to the Australian people. It won’t do. Labor needs to provide us with an alternative to the Coalition at the next election; but on current form, I can’t see that many people will trust the management of our country to the Labor party, workplace reforms or not.

Kim Beazley, leader of the opposition, is asking his colleagues in the Labor Party to support an about-face with regards to their long-standing “no-new-mines” uranium mining policy. Essentially, Beazley is now arguing that new uranium mines should be opened so that Australia can benefit economically from responsible mining of the fissile material. Nevertheless, Beazley is at pains to differentiate his view on uranium mining from that of the Liberal Party. Like Kim Beazley, the Liberals are keen for Australia to become an “energy superpower” on the back of uranium mining, but they are also open to the idea of establishing nuclear power generators as a means to reduce carbon emissions and to diversify Australia’s energy sources. Furthermore, John Howard is now speaking of the possibility that Australia could enrich the uranium that it mines, rather than leaving the enrichment phase of the nuclear fuel cycle to the nations that already have well-established enrichment facilities such as the US, France and Japan. Mr Beazley, however, remains firmly against the development of nuclear power plants and enrichment facilities in Australia, saying that Australia’s energy future is with renewables. In effect, Kim Beazley is saying that it’s okay for Australia to dig up uranium and export it to other countries where it will be enriched and then used as fuel in nuclear power reactors, but it’s not okay for Australia to generate electricity from uranium.

This new policy stance smacks of hypocrisy, and is surely no less arbitrary than Labor’s existing “three mines” policy. I can see absolutely no sense in Kim Beazley’s position on the use of uranium within Australia. Either uranium should stay in the ground or Australia should be able to use it to generate electricity as other nations do. Furthermore, if Australia is to increase uranium mining, why ought we not add value to that uranium by enriching it ourselves, especially if we are to develop a nuclear power industry. As John Howard notes, it would be ludicrous to sell uranium to, say, the US, and then buy it back in its enriched form for use in a nuclear power generator. If Beazley’s reasons for not developing a nuclear power industry were grounded in economics – that it is probably not cost effective to build nuclear generators – or a genuine concern that leaving behind radioactive waste for future generations is morally reprehensible, then fair enough. But his objections to this point have been totally unqualified.

Obviously, it would be great if Australia could develop its renewable energy industry to the point where fossil fuels and nuclear power aren’t needed. But the reality is, at this point, and for several decades to come, coal, gas, hydro and nuclear power are and will be the only technologies capable of meeting Australia’s base load requirements. Most renewable energy sources have the severe limitation that they cannot produce electricity on demand: the sun doesn’t always shine, the wind doesn’t always blow, the waves aren’t always rolling in. For the same reasons, they cannot satisfy peak-load demand either. Things might change if some form of large-scale energy storage technology was devised, but this won’t happen soon. Even though the entire east coast of Australia (including Tasmania) is linked by an electricity grid, and it’s possible that the production peaks and troughs of renewable energy sources could be probabilistically compensated for (if the sun isn’t shining in Melbourne, the sun might be shining and the wind might be blowing along the coast of Queensland), demand would outstrip supply. This would be the case even if a huge increase in the efficiency of electronic equipment were factored into the equation.

I’m undecided on whether the nuclear power option should be pursued. But I do know that if we increase our mining of uranium, which both major parties seem to think is a good idea and which will therefore probably happen unless the Greens are miraculously handed government at the next election, then we should also consider developing our nuclear power industry if it is economically viable. Beazley’s position makes no sense at all. We ought to invest in research on renewable energy because Australia can eventually become an energy superpower by exporting renewable technologies too, but it’s fair to say renewables won’t be able to satisfy our power needs on their own for a long time to come.

Update (26/07/2006):

According to this report (pdf) from the CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development, Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST) power may, in fact, be able to satisfy a large portion (if not all) of Australia’s electricity needs. One thing in its favour is that it can store energy as heat, which is much simpler and more cost-effective than using batteries. Although the report cites some sources that claim CST will be cost-competitive with coal by 2013, the lowest prices achieved by CST technologies are around US$120/MWh, which are the lowest of any solar technology. By comparison, the average price of electricity in Queensland in the 2005-2006 financial year was A$28.12/MWh.