Alex White » Policy

The NT Intervention: a case study in dog whistle politics

Alex — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:28:14 +0000

I wrote earlier in the week that dog whistle politics is about saying one thing that is interpreted differently by a specific, targeted section of the community to the rest of the community.

In 2007, the Howard Government was hemorrhaging support to Labor from its traditional “base” in the mortgate beltways. The Rights At Work campaign run by the ACTU had successfully made the “battlers” question whether Howard was really on their side.

Howard needed a circuit breaker – something he could use to cut through to these people while not alienating the more affluent blue-ribbon Liberal supporters in the inner city.

The Northern Territory Intervention was exactly that. It was a political dog whistle dressed up as a compassionate response to poverty and child abuse in indigenous communities. The NT Intervention was never about better outcomes for indigenous people, but was all about tapping into a feeling stirred up by Pauline Hanson and One Nation a decade earlier of anti-Aboriginal sentiment. It was targeted at the same people who see nothing wrong with Rugby and Football figures calling Indigenous players “black c-nts” or “boongs”.

Many Indigenous policy experts, including the authors of the Little Children Are Sacred report, noted at the time that the Intervention actually ignored most of the recommendations of the Report and of many other inquiries into disadvantage in indigenous communities.

Instead, the Intervention focused on the One Nation-esque policies: quarantining of welfare, suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act, compulsory acquisition of townships, removal of customary law and cultural practice considerations from bail applications and sentencing within criminal proceedings, and so on.

The Pauline Hanson attacks on Indigenous Australians focused on the perception that Aboriginal people get more government support than white Australians. If you look at the things the Intervention does, it targets specifically the areas that Hansonites focus on when attacking Aborigines.

The dog whistle is evident, because mixed in with the policies of controlling Aboriginal welfare payments, taking their land off them and removing racial discrimination protection was Mal Brough’s rhetoric about “improving the wellbeing of children”, stopping abuse, and fixing up the “squalor” of the Aboriginal communities. So, for the audiences in leafy suburbs, it sounds like the Intervention is a compassionate action; for its intended audience however, it is underscorring the punitive policies and saying that Aborigines will no longer get so-called preferrential treatment or special privileges denied to white people.

Clearly the Intervention dog whistle was unsuccessful for Howard in retaining government.

However, it was a spectacular dog whistle of the first order, and has been so successful that it continues to wedge progressive Indigenous policy activists to this day – with some supporting it, and others opposing it. For Labor, there is no joy in my view. The voters at the Intervention sought to capture can be persuaded to vote Labor on other issues, like job security, education or health. Instead, it just marks Labor as continuing a failed, conservative policy of discrimination.

As the Intervention has largely been (from what I’ve seen and read about it) unsuccessful in achieving its stated aims, I believe that Labor should junk it and approach Indigenous policy from a fresh angle; one that isn’t stained with veiled racism and conservative dog whistle politics.

Was Work Choices a Roadblock to Productivity?

Alex — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:16:25 +0000

A critical assessment of the Work Choices laws in addressing its stated aims and objectives

The 2005 legislation, Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act represented one of the most fundamental shifts in industrial relations laws and Commonwealth-State relations since Federation. With the principle aim of Work Choices to “unleash a new burst of productivity growth”, John Howard described industrial relations reform as “an article of faith for the Coalition parties”. This “article of faith” statement was also allegedly repeated in a speech to the 2005 Liberal Party Federal Council, although this appeal to ideology was not repeated in later public statements.

Using the corporations power in the Australian Constitution (Section 51(xx)), Work Choices sought to introduce a single national workplace relations system, overriding most state industrial relations systems. This in itself was remarkable, upheld by the High Court; until Work Choices it was widely believed that the Commonwealth’s direct role in industrial relations was limited by Section 51(xxxv), limiting powers to make laws to “conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes beyond the limit of one state”.

Work Choices elevated individual statutory agreements (Australian Workplace Agreements, AWAs) as the pre-eminent form of workplace agreement, with enterprise level workplace agreements (collective agreements) and state and Federal Awards relegated to lesser status. The arbitration system, encapsulated by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) that had been a feature of the Australian workplace relations system since 1904 had its role greatly reduced, with new Offices and Commissions responsible for overseeing the application of workplace agreements, setting of minimum wages and settling of industrial disputes.

When introduced to Parliament in November 2005, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews MP said: “the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 moves Australia toward a flexible, simple and fair system of workplace relations.” The central objective, according to the then-Government was to “encourage the further spread of workplace agreements in order to increase productivity and hence the living standards of working Australians.” For the Howard Government, Work Choices was not merely an economic argument, “it is a moral argument”, with the new laws to create a “good society” and a “brighter future”.

You can download the entire paper here.

A critical assessment of the Work Choices laws in addressing its stated aims and objectives by Alexander White is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.

We need strong action on emissions trading

Alex — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:32:34 +0000

The Garnaut report released earlier this year made the case for a robust emissions trading scheme. If Australia is to combat climate change, Federal Labor needs to take immediate action to reduce the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere.

As activists, we have a duty to lobby senior Ministers in parliament to do everything they can to urgently implement an effective emissions trading system. After all, it is our generation that will need to deal with the problems that are not addressed today.

Without strong action now, by 2050 – in our lifetime – we may face an even more serious economic and environmental crisis than the one we face now. Our standard of living will inevitably decrease, our food supplies will be threatened and our environment will be devastated.

Big business and climate change skeptics inevitably complain that introducing a strong emissions trading scheme will damage our economy. The Stern Report and now the Garnaut Report put those concerns to rest. To do nothing would do more damage than an ETS ever could.

For Australia to take early action now would put as in a better position down the track, as larger polluters are forced to transition to a carbon constrained economy. If we are early adopters and developers of carbon reducing technology, we will be able to export our expertise. New climate-friendly industries – already a massive growth area in the US and Europe – will be opened to Australian investment.

Federal Labor must not waiver from their duty to the future. Kevin Rudd promised long-term thinking. We need Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to stand up to the self-interest of big business and the climate change skeptics in the Opposition.

Web: Garnaut Review

Australia needs strong collective bargaining

Alex — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:03:43 +0000

The right to collectively bargain was gutted by the Howard Government… unfortunately it looks like the Rudd Government may squib at fully restoring that right. Under the WorkChoices laws, Australian workers have no enforceable right to collectively bargain. Employers can indefinitely delay collective bargaining, denying their employees rights.

Collective bargaining at a workplace level is the most effective way to improve conditions and pay at work.

Paul Keating on collective bargaining:

If you go to 200 or 300 people in a factory or 200 or 300 people in a workplace and come to a three or four year bargain to the improve productivity and share it between wages and profits you’ve got a good chance of getting productivity from the whole enterprise. But if you just take one person at a time, bring them into the boss’ office and cut their wages there’s no chance of getting any productivity. That’s why trend productivity is now rapidly on the way down. It was 3 per cent under me. It’s now under 1 per cent. So how are we going to keep inflation low with, at the moment wages are running at about 4 per cent, productivity is under 1. This is consistent with an inflation rate of 3 per cent, or higher. The Reserve Bank knows that. That’s why they’ve got the rates on hold.

The great lie of the Howard Government in respect of workplace changes, they are simply a set of arrangements to keep unions out of workplaces. They’ve got nothing to do with productivity and the quicker we move away from that kind of discriminatory structure to a truly trust based co operative sharing of work and workloads, then we get back to reasonable levels of productivity and again, reasonable rates of growth in real wages. It’s no accident as you saw in today’s front page of The Sydney Morning Herald and other places that the wage share in the economy has gone down, and the profit share in the last four years has gone up because wages are now in real terms, are declining.

Labor’s policy is to legislate for collective bargaining rights, but it appears as more details come to light that no enforceable rights will be granted to Australia’s workers.

The ACTU is running a campaign to promote collective bargaining.

Desalination and water security

Alex — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:45:34 +0000

Water security and sustainable use are crucial elements for future development. Agricultural use represents seventy per cent of water use in Victoria and Australia, with the remainder consumed by industry and urban usage. The drought and broader environmental concerns necessitate that Victoria develop alternative water sources to traditional surface reserves and rain-fall.

Desalination is an alternative water source to ensure water supplies for Melbourne, and reduce pressure on traditional water sources.

Desalination technologies

Reverse osmosis (RO) is the preferred method in Australia (64% of national capacity) and worldwide, and is being utilised in the NSW desalination plant. This technology can be used for both salt-water desalination and waste-water reclamation (irrigation water or treated effluent).

Environmental considerations

Environmental impacts are of great concern to the public. Of particular concern are any affect desalination may have on:

Marine water quality and biota â€“ disposal of concentrated salty effluent, and traces of chemicals used in reverse osmosis process;
Vegetation â€“ potential effects of construction and operation of desalination plant on near by vegetation;
Atmospheric emissions (especially greenhouse emissions and nitrogen oxides) â€“ most greenhouse gas emissions come from construction and ongoing use, while other potentially toxic emissions originate from the RO process; and
Noise â€“ protecting amenity of nearby residents caused by high pressure pumps.

RO plants have lower energy consumptions than other desalination technology, which means less atmospheric emissions. It also converts a greater percentage of intake brine into water, which results in greater amounts of drinking water for the same volume of chemicals needed for other desalination technologies.

The reliance on fossil fuels makes renewable energy an attractive investment. Solar powered RO plants exist in rural areas in Australia.

Economic considerations

Membrane technology, especially RO is widely considered to have lower costs than other technologies, particularly in construction and production of drinkable water.

RO is economical for both large and small scale desalination. Flow rates can be increased or decreased, and plants can be expanded by adding extra modules.

Energy costs represent approximately 33% of total life-cycle costs. Commonly cited energy sources considered globally are RO plant with electric power from the local network and RO plant with solar energy. Renewable energy powered plants reduces carbon emissions caused by power generation, but increase water costs.

Conclusions

Reverse osmosis is the preferred desalination option given the drought conditions and the uncertainty of traditional water sources.

RO is the most widely used, can be utilised for salt and waste water desalination, and its environmental impact is relatively low. RO plants can also be expanded to meet future demand.

Labor needs a strong stand on emissions trading

Alex — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:59:01 +0000

Federal Labor needs to take a strong stand on emissions trading.

After the Garnaut Report and the Green Paper, it appears that Federal Labor may not make the Australian emissions trading scheme as robust as it needs to be to ensure that damaging climate change is mitigated.

An emissions trading scheme (ETS) is essential for Australia’s long term environmental and economic future.

A strong ETS with a high price on carbon is crucial. Introducing a cap in emissions creates scarcity; market forces then forces the price up. We need a cap that strongly restricts carbon pollution.

Victoria is well placed to take advantage of a strong ETS. Although we have enormous infrastructure that pollutes heavily, Victoria also has abundant natural resources. And we already have a number of emerging players in renewable technologies.

By setting a high cap, the Federal Government can ensure that market forces ensure that new technologies, particularly renewable energy and carbon capture and sequestration, have an opportunity to compete against lower-cost polluting energy and industries.