Busting the Net Zero Myth

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Every day, gentle reader, we are bombarded through the media with stories about energy costs, and how they are entirely the fault of the current government.

It's worth looking at the recent history to try to understand the reasons for price increases and to attempt to analyse exactly what has happened.

Australian energy costs began to rise as far back as 2015 when the east coast gas market opened up for large scale international exports which tied local east coast prices to global markets. These global markets price gas much higher internationally, and hence the vast gap between east coast and west coast prices as illustrated below.

In 2022 the prices of electricity and gas spiked dramatically. Some reasons for this were developments in the international situation, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain issues. Locally, wholesale generation costs rose by as much as 140% in early 2022. Outages in aging local coal generators also contributed to costs. When a plant fails without warning, a large block of power can be removed from the grid, and the market reacts by pricing upwards accordingly.

Over 60% of Australia's coal fired generators are more than 40 years old. Metal pipes and turbines crack and wear out after 40 years.

The Coalition's claim that Net Zero is responsible for energy price rises is not substantiated by the facts. 

It has more likely had the opposite effect, as shown by recent CSIRO reports. Wind and solar are the cheapest forms of new power generation. 

But it's worth going back a little further in our history. Much of the energy generation and retailing industry was privatised in two waves, the first in the mid to late 1990s, and the second between 2010 and 2015.

Privatisation was supposed to provide greater efficiency, and the assumption that this would lead to cheaper electricity was made in the process of selling it to the voter. It hasn't. So what was the point of it in the first place?  

It hasn't had that effect in the UK.

Housing and Migration

Pic courtesy the Wire.

One of the memes doing the rounds in social media at the moment, gentle reader, connects migration with the housing crisis.

Lets have a look at that, and attempt to establish the reality.

First up, what are the actual existing migration rates in Australia?

The graph (from the ANZ Bank) is interesting. We see peaks in 2007, 2011 and 2024. Between 2006 and 2019, the rate was more or less steady around 400,000. Then we see a precipitous drop with the pandemic, with a rebound about 650,000 peaking in 2023.

The rate began to fall after this peak, and continues to trend down.

A graph (from Adviser voice) of the accumulated shortfall doesn't match all that well with migration. It was higher between 2012 and 2015 than it is now.

No doubt migration is a factor, but it part of a complex picture that has been developing for decades. Issues such as planning systems and zoning are important.

Interest rate changes, fewer people per household, and investment policy are also significant.

So why has it become a political issue?

That's much easier to understand. The alleged link has become a meme (an idea that spreads). Social media amplifies memes, and they develop a momentum of their own very quickly.

This is especially the case if gross oversimplification provides the structure of the meme as it does in this case. 

Link that with the xenophobia that lurks in the dark corners of Australian politics, and before you know it, some people take to the streets.

Maybe we should be looking at better solutions than restricting migration. This would have a minor impact on housing, and conceivably would have unintended harmful consequences.

Any housing reform needs to address the issues of construction and supply. It should also look at less restrictive zoning and planning. Approval pathways should be streamlined and development approvals fast tracked. 

The use of prefabricated and modular homes needs to be considered. It's always been a mystery to me that homes in Australian are built one at a time. As a petrol head I understand that motor vehicles haven't been built as unique units since Henry Ford invented the assembly line. Most cars are not custom built these days, and if they are, they cost an arm and a leg.

Social  housing seems to have been abandoned completely by one side of politics, and only halfheartedly promoted and supported by the other. Of course, it's difficult to make money out of investing in social housing. Social housing seeks to provide affordable rents which limits revenue.

Given the dimensions of the crisis, maybe it's time for some radical measures. Here are some suggestions -

1. Remove negative gearing beyond the residential home.

2. Abolish the Real Estate industry. It's unnecessary, and its costs to buyers and sellers operate as a handbrake for people trying to enter the market.

3. Remove stamp duty and land tax.

These radical measures terrify most politicians, so we probably won't see them anytime soon.

What operates now in the housing sector defies Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The first level on his pyramid specifies shelter after all.

Assumptions and Spin

 

Image courtesy Richard Bradley

To be perfectly honest, gentle reader, AI gives me the yips.

But every now and again, just to stir the possum, I ask it a question.

I asked - "Why have energy prices in Australia increased?"

The answer didn't mention "net zero". 

Here it is in full -

Australia is a major energy exporter, and domestic prices for gas and coal have been driven up by high global demand and geopolitical factors, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine. 

Gas-fired generators are often used to top up supply when other sources are insufficient, and the high cost of gas in the wholesale market effectively sets the price for all electricity during those periods.

A large portion of an energy bill (around 40-50%) covers the cost of the poles and wires network. Significant investment is currently required to replace aging infrastructure, improve cybersecurity, and build new transmission lines to connect remote renewable energy projects to the main grid. 

These costs are passed directly onto consumers through network charges.

Many of Australia's coal-fired power stations are old and becoming less reliable, leading to frequent unplanned outages. When these major generators fail, backup power (often more expensive gas) is required, causing price spikes in the wholesale market.Inflation and Interest Rates.

The general rise in inflation and interest rates has increased the cost of capital expenditure for energy companies, which in turn influences the final price for consumers.

The only rationale across this list with a direct relationship to the current government's policy refers to the cost of replacing infrastructure. Some of this replacement is simply maintenance, as what is in place now is aging. This would be necessary irrespective of how the energy is generated.

Certainly, the cost of networking wind and solar is a factor. The Australian Energy Council has presented estimates, but they don't necessarily show that the generation source is the prime factor driving increased costs. There are a range of factors, it's very complicated, and a long way from the "Net Zero is to blame" meme.

Perhaps there is another very significant factor which arises from how energy is marketed and sold, not how it is generated.

Electricity costs in Australia rose by 183% between 1996 and 2016, which was about three times the general rate of inflation. South Australia is  fully privatised and has the highest prices. Marketing, advertising, managerial and sales staff (increasing by over 200% in comparison with pre-privatisation) has a cost attached. 

Privatisation has delivered high rates of return to private owners, who were able to inflate the asset based used to calculate permitted returns at a net loss to the taxpayer.

Private companies face higher borrowing costs than government, and these are passed on to customers. Contrary to expectations of increased efficiency with privatisation, the sector experienced a marked decline in labour productivity after privatisation.

The history shows that privatisation was not the efficiency silver bullet expected, and it's worth considering whether nationalisation of the grid might at least be worth consideration. It's an essential service, after all.

But then ideology would emerge as a consideration, and debates over ideology never end well....

"Peace" in our Time

 

Pic courtesy NYT.

We're being bombarded with media (both mainstream and social) about the arrival of "peace" in the Middle East.

When you've lived as long as I have, and observed the history of that part of the world, the notion that there is now "peace" is greeted by at the least incredulity, and at the most derisive laughter.

I am the same age as the state of Israel, after all.

Granted, credit should be allocated to Trump, as he seems to have driven much of the negotiation. His financial connections in Saudi Arabia though his son-in-law have no doubt greased the palms of the oligarchs that run the show in that country, and his family businesses will no doubt benefit from the reconstruction benefits and the contracts they generate.

He needed them to be onside, and along with the Qataris, the Egyptians and the less compromised Europeans, in the end they were.

He is, after all, in the same business as Osama Bin Laden.

Let's identify what has actually changed after the agreement.

First, and most critical, the Israelis aren't continuing to kill scores of Gazans using air-delivered high explosives daily. I have personal experience as a conscript, of being on the receiving end of misguided ordnance. It was a long time ago, but it's not something you forget. To be delivered from that is, I suppose, a kind of "peace".

Second, the living hostages have been released, along with thousands of Palestinians imprisoned by the Israelis. 

And there is hope of something more permanent. Excuse my cynicism, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Sound and Fury....

 

Pic courtesy Dan Connors - Medium

You can always rely on the bard, gentle reader, to find words fitting any given situation.

If he were alive today, I have no doubt that he would apply those words to the statements made by the abomination occupying the White House at the moment.

These statements are indeed sound and fury, but what do they actually signify?

To my way of thinking, they signify a mindset foreign to rationality, but uniquely American. This mindset is known as American exceptionalism. It's an important feature of their culture.

I have met plenty of Americans, in a range of situations including serving beside them in Vietnam (albeit a long time ago), working with American teachers in the seventies when a local shortage meant many were recruited, and visiting their country not so long ago.

My contact with Americans over the years has revealed a few things. Individually, they're reasonable people, but collectively, they harbour beliefs about their country that are largely delusional.

That's where the "exceptionalism" label applies. Many of them believe that because they're Americans, their country is exempt from the rules of international behaviour that apply to everyone else..

Life expectancy - International comparisons

Hence their scorning of international organisations, and most recently their sanctions against the ICC.  Put simply, they believe that they are somehow culturally superior to almost everyone else, and they are simply excused because of this assumed superiority.

Incarceration rates - International comparisons

This "superiority" is a fiction. Their life expectancy, incarceration rates, murder rates  and  health care standards provide real evidence of conditions of national inferiority.

 It's pretty clear that the US is indeed exceptional amongst Western countries, but in a negative sense. 

Health Care system performance

Trump's worldview is a blend of real estate entrepreneur and world championship wrestling promoter. As such, he does indeed represent the world view of many of his countrymen.

Murder rates comparison

 So his words do indeed signify something, but that "something" is exploitative, manipulative, and arrogant.

Not much has changed since 1970, when we used to say as Australians serving aside Americans - "You can tell them anything; sell them anything".

A glance at the images above affirms that aphorism.

As Australians, we have more in common with the Vietnamese than the Americans. Like the Vietnamese, we have a sense of humour, endurance and kowtow to nobody.  Remember that in the end, the Vietnamese overcame American exceptionalism....

Crime, Punishment and Politics

Image courtesy Brittanica

Recent elections in Queensland and the Northern Territory have seen a change in government based on policies that are tough on crime.

These policies were reduced to three or four word slogans, such as "Adult crime - adult time" in the case of Queensland, and three point programmes - "Reduce Crime; Rebuild the Economy and Restore our Lifestyle" in the case of the Northern Territory. The Country Liberal Party in the Territory is slightly more expansive in their use of the English language, but it's pretty simple stuff.

So, gentle reader, let's follow the KISS* principle, and keep it simple.

The simplicity ought to mean that if children are locked up for serious crimes in both jurisdictions, the crime rate should fall. Now that is a prediction, and not a certainty. To discover whether or not the action of jailing children lowers the crime rate, it's necessary to look at statistics.

Amongst the many learned articles available on Google Scholar on the topic is an international study. It found that there is no consensus on the impact of the criminal justice system on criminal activity, but that increasing the risk of apprehension and conviction is influential in reducing crime. It's a very detailed study and looks at statistics from a range of locations including California and New South Wales, but found no evidence that an increase in incarceration rates reduces crime.

That conclusion is arrived at by the research over and over again. Having said that, there is a correlation between effective policing and the crime rate.

What to me is significant is the role of the media. Stories about home invasions, street stabbings and random violence invariably attract attention. Reports of domestic violence are not so attention grabbing, although statistically more people (men women and children) are harmed in these latter circumstances than the former.

These media reports enhance the fear narrative used by politicians to seek and hold power, but there is no reason to believe that punitive measures increase public safety and the quality of community life.

Maybe it makes sense to compare recidivism rates across various jurisdictions, identify those countries with the lowest rates,  and examine the practices that reduce recidivism. Currently, Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates worldwide (20%) which compares with the USA which has both one of the highest (68%) and shares with China and Turkey the highest incarceration rates. This map is instructive.

Incarceration rates worldwide (the darker the higher) - courtesy  Wikipedia

The countries with the lowest recidivism rates are Iceland, Finland and Norway. Maybe we should look at their practices. The Scandnavian option is deccribed here.  What is statistically clear is that getting tough on crime simply doesn't work, whereas prison reform does.

That is, unless you want to use it as a scare tactic in an election. In that context it seems pretty effective. It does nothing for your constituency, but it does get you elected.

*Keep It Simple Stupid

Affirmative Action

 

It was different in 1968

Teaching has always been a tough gig, but these days it seems to be getting tougher.

The attrition rate for early career teachers is pretty constant, and remains a problem. 

This report provides some useful detail.

Recently, reports of misogynistic behaviour directed at young female teachers have appeared. This essay describes an experience that is, unfortunately, far from unusual. 

It's nothing new, of course, and the plight of the casual or relief teacher is well-known. I had the opportunity to do some relief teaching post retirement, but chose advisory visiting teaching instead. The idea of working with a different bunch of students each day did not appeal. 

Frankly, without the possibility of properly engaging with your students for more than one day at a time, it seemed to me a futile exercise, despite the fact that it pays well.

This issue overlaps with the problem of gender balance within the profession, or as it frequently labelled, the feminisation of teaching.

If the statistics weren't enough evidence of a problem, my recent experience as a consultant made it abundantly clear. I had been working for a number of years in support of the rural primary school where I started my career in 1968.

At the time I was a member of a staff of eighteen, eight of whom were male. During my sojourn in support of the same school between 2006 and 2017, the school which now has thirty full timers on staff had only one male teacher.

The janitor-groundsman was male, but that really didn't assist. The phenomenon of a staff of female teachers led by a male principal (the cliche we hear a great deal) was also absent, as the principal was female.

In any profession, a gender balance which has gone beyond say, 80/20 either way, is regarded as undesirable. This gender balance report was compiled from the standpoint of improving diversity in corporate structures.  Most contemporary writings on the subject adopt a point of view which discriminates between the raw numbers and the hierarchical structures as they apply to gender in the profession.  

The problem is complicated in that whilst a large majority of teachers are female, the hierarchical structures within the profession favour career paths for men because they don't have to manage the interruptions caused by childbirth and child rearing.

Does this mean that the problems encountered by the author of the essay above are insoluble? 

I hope not, as apart from creating a difficult path for aspiring teacher of either gender, they simply encourage a view of teaching as a profession lacking in clout and significance. There is some irony in the fact that teachers are roundly criticised in some (especially right wing) media for leading children astray in a political sense, whilst these same criticisms imply that the profession is not all that important.

Perhaps there is room for a campaign of affirmative action that attracts males to the profession, driven by the same energy used (for example) to attract women into the trades and STEM. There is ample evidence out there that boys need strong and non-violent male models who can successfully relate to both genders.

Given the current worthy emphasis on the message that "women can do anything", maybe we need another message that says that "men can do most things, including teaching".

Diversity, by definition, requires balance.

  

Short Finals at Cunnamulla

I was going through some archived video the other day, and came across this.

It was a video grab (via iPhone) of a landing we made at Cunnamulla in 2017, when I was working permanent part time as an Advisory Visiting teacher.

The chartered flight (Beechcraft Super King Air) flew Roma - Cunnamulla on Thursdays with the flying surgeon and his offsider anaesthetist. As far as I know, he never performed surgery on these occasions. Rather, he was assessing and preparing patients for procedures carried out in Roma.

To be honest, I never had any idea what he was doing during the day. Upon arrival, I would be dropped off at the school, and the medical (QHealth) people at the hospital. We'd be collected by a government vehicle at the end of the day and driven to the airport. Boarding the aircraft after it had been locked up and sat in the sun all day, particularly in the summer, wasn't much fun, although once the engines were started it cooled down quickly. 

Hitching a ride on these regular charters was a very efficient use of taxpayer resources. The aircraft was a nine-seater, there was plenty of room, and a whole day wasted on travel by car was avoided.

Nevertheless, permission to do it was withdrawn shortly at head office level, overriding the very sensible local decision to allow it. I never was told exactly why. It's possible that it had something to do with cost and/or insurance.

In any case, I always enjoyed the flights, and usually sat in the cockpit where I could see what was going on. The airstrip at Cunnamulla was originally built for US bombers (B-17s) stationed there in World War Two. One of the US personnel involved was a certain Lt Commander Lyndon B Johnson on leave from the US Congress. Apparently he had advised that  Cunnamulla was inland far enough to be out of range of Japanese attacks.

That history explains the length of the strip at Cunnamulla at 1733 metres. It would still be marginal for modern airliners. A 737 needs 2133 metres.  

 

At the Bakery

Pic courtesy ABC

My daily habit, gentle reader, is to drive the short distance to a nearby bakery to buy a coffee and a bagette. 

 I should probably walk, but my son's blue heeler looks after my exercise by taking me around the block daily. Besides, I enjoy driving. 

You should always do something you enjoy every day. I can at a stretch, pretend I'm still driving my MX5, despite the fact that I had to dispose of it a few years ago as physical access became a problem. The CX3 has the same engine and gearbox, after all. 

 This morning, as I was about to drive out of the car park at our local shopping centre, I was approached by a woman who asked for money. I told her I didn't have any cash (which was true) and was about to offer to buy her something from the bakery if she was hungry, but she didn't give me the chance, telling me to "f**k off" before I completed my explanation. She then approached somebody else, and as far as I could tell, got a similar response. 

 I was thinking about this incident on the way home. The last time somebody asked me for money was in Washington on a visit in 2018. Apart from that, I vaguely remember a similar request in Paris in 1980. 

That was a very long time ago and in a very different place when the world and I were a little younger. So what has changed, in regional Queensland, and perhaps in this land of Oz, to cause this behaviour to emerge? Are there fundamental changes afoot, or was this an isolated insignificant incident? 

ACOSS (the Australian Council of Social Service) with the cooperation of the University of NSW, has published a report which illustrates pretty clearly at least one aspect of the situation, that of wealth distribution in Australia. It reveals, amongst other things, that people in the highest 20% of the wealth scale hold nearly two thirds of all wealth (64%), while those in the lowest 60% hold less than a fifth of wealth (17%). 

 That is obviously significant, but is this disparity a simple enduring reality, or is it part of a trend? Generally in this country, current research doesn't detect a measurable trend, and that, I suppose, is somewhat comforting. Ann Harding's 2002 paper does however suggest that the middle class (however you define it) is shrinking. Certainly, the Australian dream of home ownership is increasingly beyond the means of many of the younger members of the current middle class. 

 Inequality across the pacific is growing, as is apparent from this illustration from this Pew Resource Centre study.

Social and economic trends across the Pacific are almost always visited on us in this country, after a three/five year delay. The abandonment of support for the war in Vietnam first in the USA, and a few years later here, is the best example of this phenomenon.

These trends shape the political culture. 

In the USA, the response seems to be the rise of neo-Fascism. In Australia, the emerging of the TEALs and the growth of support for Green candidates in urban electorates is apparent. Young renters are becoming more than a little unhappy with the major parties.

The Marketing of Outrage

Australia Day aftermath. Pic courtesy Courier Mail

Unless you've been under a rock for the last few days you've been hearing, gentle reader, about the controversy regarding Australia Day merchandise and a couple of our leading retailers.

Let's look at what's actually happened, and then examine the blowback.

Woolworths published this statement which was picked up by Channel Seven -

There has been a gradual decline in demand for Australia Day merchandise from our stores over recent years. At the same time there’s been broader discussion about 26 January and what it means to different parts of the community.

We know many people like to use this day as a time to get together and we offer a huge variety of products to help customers mark the day as they choose.

Woolworths and BIG W celebrate the best of Australia every day, and we’re proud to support the farmers, producers, and suppliers who work with us.

When you drill down, they're saying two different things. One is that there has been a decrease in demand for Australia Day merchandise recently, and the other is that the day means different things to different parts of the community.

I can't understand why those statements are controversial. They both reflect reality, and any large retailer that ignores measurable trends affecting their business will rapidly become a small retailer.

Then there's Aldi. 

They're reported as announcing they won't stock special Australia Day merchandise, but you won't find any mention of that on their website.

As you might expect, they're talking about what they are selling, rather than what they're not selling.

The irony is, if you walk into a Woolworths or Aldi store, you'll find Australian flags stocked, it's simply that they're not promoted. Strange but true.

So what is the media outrage all about? Marketing, of course. The various online and print media organisations are marketing the story.

It attracts clicks and sells papers. Outrage always does.

And the politicians extracting every ounce of attention by commenting are generally those who regard the market as sacred.

Autonomy

There are a number of different dictionary meanings for this word, gentle reader.

They include "freedom from external control or influence", or "the power or right to act, speak or think as one chooses", or "the state of not being subject to or affected by something".

To me, the vital element of true autonomy lies in an individual or society's capacity to control, manage, develop and/or improve quality of life. 

This element is particularly vital to people living with disability. In that case, personal autonomy is often dependant on the capacity to live without relying on others. Of course, for many the disability (which could be related to age or physical impairment) makes it impossible to get by without some form of external help, and the way in which this help is applied can make all the difference.

In other words, true autonomy means that the person being helped is in control and has the power to choose what kind of help is most useful and important. He/she should always be in charge.

And this is often when, with the best of intentions, it breaks down. By that I mean that well-intentioned people, often paid to help, will almost subconsciously begin to exert power and control over the individual or group. Once this happens, the relationship between the those being helped and those helping becomes a co-dependency. 

This is unhelpful, and creates a situation which prevents any growth or development on the part of the dependent group or individual. This is what Noel Pearson often talks about. At the root of it all is resistance to the transfer of power from the helping agency to the target group, or individual.

And this, gentle reader is the main reason behind the lack of progress in improving quality of life for people in remote communities, indigenous or otherwise, and is what the Voice is all about.

Opponents of this transfer of power are often not aware of this issue, and are fearful of a change in the status quo.

Now I have often been admonished by Murris when I point out a similarity between the plight of people with disabilities, and people in remote communities, but I'd always insist there is a valid case to be made that the problem is about a transfer of power. 

Until these people gain control of their own destiny, nothing will change. 

Will the Voice achieve that?

I don't know, but it's a good place to start...

Same Old, Same Old...

 

Pic courtesy Montrose Services

The Disability Royal Commission has just released its findings. 

There are over two hundred recommendations. Enacting them will be a monumental task. 

The last Royal Commission with as many recommendations as this one was the 1991 inquiry into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. 

Of *RCIADIC's 339 recommendations, a Deloitte Access Economics review in 2018 found that, 64% have been implemented in full, 14% have been mostly implemented, 16% have been partially implemented and 6% have not been implemented.

It's to be hoped that twenty-seven years down the track, the disability royal commission has a better outcome.

Somehow, although I won't be around to see it that far down the track, I believe that the result for people with disabilities will be similar to that for indigenous people in custody.

I write this because everything I saw in my 40 year career in special education points in this direction. Ironically, the five years I spent in aboriginal education in remote North-West Queensland confirms it.

Both are areas of enormous challenge, and both are shaped by the general population's disregard, sprinkled with a fair amount of fear and ignorance.

It is dismaying to note the disagreement about recommendations for the future of both special schools and group homes reflected in the findings. The commissioners were divided.

It's profoundly depressing, that in the year 2023, we are stuck in the worn out debates about provision, with the argument cycling around binary concepts, of one style of organisation opposing another.

Here's a simpler solution. All schools should be special schools, and all accommodation universal. By that I mean that the lock-step, highly graded and hierarchical organisational structure of conventional schools doesn't really suit anyone, let alone students with disabilities. 

Schools should be ultimately flexible, and organised around the learning needs of the enrolment, not the classroom spaces and timetable. It can be done, and has been successful. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership has released a paper that is well worth a read. 

State governments in this country are generally responsible for schooling, and I can't see any of the current governments with the requisite courage and foresight to change the fundamentals. This is, of course, because governments are run by politicians, not teachers, and education is one of the most politically sensitive aspects of government. It was ever thus...

*Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

 

Comments closed.

Groundhog Day - Consultants on the Taxpayer's Dollar

 

Image courtesy Australian Financial Review

We're reading and watching plenty of media about the big four consulting firms. 

My brief experience as a school principal with consultancies was an eye opener, and showed just how much of a scam many of their operations were. Nothing has changed.

Back in the late nineties, I was principal of a large regional special school. There was a department supplied special bus supplied as part of the infrastructure. It was equipped with a wheelchair hoist which allowed children with physical impairments to attend excursions along with their able-bodied peers. The previous three special schools I had led were similarly equipped, as were all other Queensland special schools at the time.

Apparently, providing kids with disabilities equity of access had become a low priority and Treasury had decided that supplying these buses on the taxpayer dollar was a bridge too far, even though the real cost was slight.  They were replaced every five years, by which time the Q-Fleet leases resulted in an almost cost neutral exercise. They were traded at a price about the same as they were purchased tax-free by Q-fleet.

The decision had to be justified, of course, so Education Queensland commissioned a firm of consultants to come up with a rationale. The first I knew was when I received a phone call from someone senior in resources branch in head office saying that I would get a visit from a representative of the firm to assess the way in which the bus was being used. Half a dozen other schools statewide were also being investigated.

The consultant turned up shortly afterward armed with copious supplies of paperwork. He explained that he had a range of data collection documents, conveniently mounted on clipboards, that staff would be required to complete every time they used the bus. Information requested included destination, distance, reason for the journey including the educational aims of the excursion, name and role of the driver, and an approximation of the cost of the fuel involved. 

Once completed, the documents were to be forwarded by post to the consultancy. I asked him what would be done with the information. He replied that it would be collated and sent to Treasury. I asked what the firm was being paid for the exercise, but he wouldn't tell me, claiming "commercial in confidence".

Off he went, back to Brisbane. After considering what my already overworked teachers were being asked to do, I phoned a few of my principal colleagues, who  expressed reservations similar to mine. Eventually, we agreed that this task was beyond the role of our teachers, and one by one, phoned central office to break the sad news that we wouldn't cooperate. All the consultants were being paid for was to enter information into a database, summarise it, and forward it to central office. This information was not received with enthusiasm by head office, and comments were made about the career damaging possibilities of this non-cooperation. 

The Union became involved, and that was the end of the exercise. Treasury pulled the pin.

Looking back on it, the episode was emblematic of how the use of consultants, on taxpayers' funds, has crept into public institutions. The current malfeasance exhibited by the big four is simply a sophisticated evolution of the process.

It's gratifying to see it called out at last, but great damage has been done to what used to be a frank and fearless public service. Between this and Robodebt, it's time for public service reform.

Unfortunately, the wound will take years to heal.    

Comments closed.

A Common and Consistent Thread

Image courtesy The Mandarin

 The consequences of the botched Robodebt scheme are beginning to rattle through the ranks of senior public servants and ex-ministers in the previous Coalition administration.

The debacle was driven by a toxic combination of populist virtue-signalling, public service cowardice, and the raw application of coercive power. 

The fact that there was never any legal basis for the process was completely ignored by those who knew that it was on shaky ground because they were afraid of telling the ministers and their staff something they didn't want to hear.

It killed people, but those people were unemployed, so there wasn't much attention paid.

The most disgraceful aspect of the whole deal was the populist dismissal of people on welfare as having little or no worth, and an attempt to appeal to voters through demonising them. The Coalition apparently believed that there was a vote or two in it. 

It has, for me, a familiar ring.

Back in 2014 I was phoned by someone from DVA at 8:30 one night. She opened the conversation with the words "How does it feel to be defrauding the taxpayer?". I probably should have hung up then and there, but was so flabbergasted that I simply listened as she went on about what a nasty individual I was. Back then I was receiving a part pension through DVA predicated on the amount I was earning as an itinerant consultant. The amount varied, as some weeks I worked two days, some three, and others not at all. 

Because of the varying nature of my employment I was diligent when it came to reporting my earnings. The issue arose because they were using averaging to determine income, and when it was far from average, as mine was, the system fell in a heap.

The scheme that developed into Robodebt was being rolled out, and it was not dealing with reality.

To cut a long story short, I requested my file under the Freedom of Information statute, and began a process with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It turned out that my reports of my income had been filed, but nobody had read them, and I had indeed been overpaid the part service pension.

Problem was, I was not responsible for the error, but was threatened with debt recovery straight away without any consideration of how the overpayment came about. 

The Ombudsman found that I did have an obligation to return the funds (although one legal friend advised me that I should take the agency to court because the evidence of their oversight was on file) and that I should pay the money back at the same rate at which the debt was incurred. Spread out like that, it was not an issue, so that was what I did, but at no time was there any acknowledgement of the error, or anything resembling an apology.

The timing of this incident was interesting. It happened immediately following the 2014 Coalition budget, which was also the springboard for the development of Robodebt.

The political culture of a party that has always treated voters as collateral was evident between 1965 and 1972 when it conscripted one in twelve young men to fight overseas in a civil war in peacetime to hold on to DLP preferences. That little frolic killed about two hundred. That same culture was evident between 2014 and 2018 when welfare recipients were demonised in an appeal to redneck voters. That killed a number which is unclear, but many were classified as "vulnerable".

It has come back to bite the Liberals and Nationals on the bum, but I doubt that it will make any difference to their political value system. 

Power for power's sake is a common and consistent thread right through from 1965 until 2022. Appealing to fear and loathing has also been completely consistent during this period. 

Comments closed.

Rupert Gets Clobbered

Image courtesy LA Times

If you have followed the history of the Murdoch media empire, you will note that it has always made money - lots of it.

It is often touted as "conservative" media, but it really is a conglomerate without genuine political affiliations or values. Rupert has only one talisman, and that is, and always has been, the almighty dollar.

Put simply, Murdoch's papers and television channels supply biased and misleading coverage to support his business interests. This is, and has been, his business model for about fifty years, as demonstrated by his support of politicians as different in their values as Sir John McEwen, Gough Whitlam, and the UK's David Cameron.

Apart from the phone hacking scandal of 2011, Murdoch's relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar has worked well for his corporation. News Limited packages and sells news, they do not report it. The "news" they sell can best be described as what they believe their audiences want to hear or read, or watch. Much of it walks a wobbly line between news, salacious gossip, stories designed to generate outrage, and total rubbish.

Hence Fox News' enthusiastic reporting of conspiracy theories about the "stolen" 2020 presidential election. The corporation knew that this would attract an audience, and would improve ratings and profit. The fact that the Fox hosts knew that they were repeating lies, was neither here nor there.

Now, as the cliche goes, this practice has come back to bite Fox News (and Rupert) on the backside. The recent Dominion settlement is unprecedented in both value and consequence.

Whether this makes any difference to the media landscape, especially in the USA, remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that the legal precedent it has set will resonate across boardrooms all over the country, and may encourage a slightly more respectful attitude towards both the truth and consumers of corporate media. 

Robodeath

Pic courtesy Kindpng

The title, gentle reader, is not a typo. Robodebt was implicated in seven suicides.

Whether the failed and unlawful scheme caused suicides or not, it has permanently stained the previous government, and the public servants who implemented it.

That's ignoring the fact that it cost the Australian taxpayer $1.76 billion in settlements, without counting $112 million in interest.

Think about it. A computer algorithm demanded refunds from people who had been paid social security payments. These refunds were based on income averaging, which apart from being unlawful, was based on a dodgy mathematical theory.

I've had some personal experience of dealing with the public service (in this case DVA) when it comes to demands for refunds. I retired in 2005, but was asked to return to work in an advisory position between 2006 and 2017. As an ex-serviceman (I don't much like the American inspired "veteran" term, so don't use it), I was drawing the old age pension from DVA earlier than my peers, and was obliged to report my financial circumstances to ensure I was receiving the correct amount.

I did so religiously, and because I wasn't always employed for the same fraction annually, my reporting was quite frequent. I probably should have smelled a rat when the pension didn't seem to change with my hours, but I kept reporting nevertheless.

Late in 2014, after two years in receipt of these regular payments, I was working in Goondiwindi when my mobile rang at 9:30 pm displaying a "private number" on the screen. I answered, and a woman introduced herself as a DVA agent working on a debt recovery team.

She began the conversation by saying "How do you feel about defrauding the Australian taxpayer?" After I'd picked myself up from the floor, I asked her to identify herself by name, but she refused. She told me that action would be taken to recover the debt ($16000) immediately.

When I got home, I went into the local DVA office (since closed) to try to work out what exactly was going on. They were courteous, but seemed to have little knowledge of the unit doing the recoveries, so gave me a number to phone whilst I was in the office. I was assigned a person who promised to follow up and get back in contact.

Thus began a series of conversations, and a flow of correspondence which lasted three years. It quickly became apparent that I had been overpaid, but the overpayments were not as a result of my failure to report, but of DVA's failure to adjust the payments. I needed evidence to show this, and requested a Freedom of Information disclosure of my file, which arrived as a CD.

This documentation showed my reports, but also included information from another file. It became obvious that they had me mixed up with someone else, whose wife or partner was also working and receiving an income. At this time my wife had been retired (without an income) for a couple of years. Eventually, I sent the material to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office.

The upshot was an apology from DVA, and approval for me to repay the debt in instalments at the same rate that it had been accumulated. This was fair, although I had an advocate tell me that if I had insisted, the debt would probably have been waived.

The timing of this is interesting, and has a connection with Robodebt. Abbott's 2014 budget was a shocker, and Treasury made demands on a range of agencies (DVA and Centrelink) amongst them, to recover debts. This action was trumpeted by the Coalition government at the time as a way of fixing the debt problems it had inherited. It was political, not financial, in the same way that our commitment to Vietnam was political, and had nothing to do with national security.

Bashing Centrelink recipients in 2014 played well with some, as did fear of Communism with the same group in the sixties and seventies. Robodebt was the bureaucracy's answer to the political demand.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the politicians who introduced the scheme will be held accountable by the Commission when the report is published.

I won't be holding my breath.... 

 

 

Media Bias

The Victorian state election has been and gone, and the ALP has been returned with Daniel Andrews as Premier.

As a Queenslander, this event is of peripheral interest to me, but there is one aspect of the campaign and the result that is more than remarkable.

Elements of the Victorian media ran a sustained and relentless campaign against his re-election. It was characterised by the introduction into the discussion of events that had absolutely nothing to do with Andrew's policies, but focused on two fairly recent events involving himself and his family.

The first was a motor accident that involved a collision between Andrew's Ford Territory and a cyclist on 7th January 2013. The cyclist was badly injured, but did recover, losing his spleen. The police took no action after an investigation and statements describing the incident as - 

Cyclist was travelling along the unpaved surface road and crossed Ridley Street into the vehicle as it turned right. Cyclist collided with the front drivers side of the vehicle, causing the cyclist to be ejected onto the windscreen, causing it to smash. 

Photographs of the vehicle published by the Sun Herald show damage to the area in front of, but to the side of the vehicle's mudguard, and the smashed windscreen. This is consistent with statements given to the police by Mrs Andrews.

The accident happened in 2013, nine years ago, and after the initial reports had largely been forgotten. It is then resurrected two weeks before the election together with lurid claims of a police cover-up.

The Sun-Herald produced front page coverage for a number of days, and the outrage was picked up by Melbourne shock jocks who dined out on it right up until the eve of the election.

Then there was the story of an accident on 9th March 2021 when Andrews fell on wet stairs whilst on holiday on the Mornington Peninsula. He was placed in intensive care after this incident which caused several broken ribs and a broken vertebra. Andrews took four months to recover from this incident, which generated all manner of conspiracy theories on social media, and generated front page coverage (again by the Sun Herald) on Sunday, November 6th, a few weeks before the election. 

Again, this accident happened over a year ago.

Herald Sun November 6th 2022

This accident had absolutely nothing to do with the election campaign, but was used in a clumsy attempt to smear Andrews.

Now these media organisations have to make money, but the issue of ethics of how this is done seem somehow to have vanished into the ether. There appears to be no real accountability, and the Press Council (as I learned many years ago) is a toothless tiger.

And of course, media can publish opinion, but when they actively campaign (rather than report) in the lead up to an election, they should at least be honest enough to inform their readers.

In the end, none of this seems to have influenced Victorian voters. A Royal Commission into media ownership and bias is beginning to look like a pretty good idea.

The Politics of Fear (Reprised)

Image courtesy Delaware Online

I have clear memories of the sixties and seventies and the culture of fear that was evident at the time.

The cold war was at its height, McCarthyism had been and gone, and we were assailed in the media daily and from the pulpit weekly with horror stories about the evils of Communism, the domino theory, and how we would have to "fight them there" (SE Asia) so we didn't have to "fight them here" (Australia).

The prophets of doom never really defined who "they" were, or what their ways and means of invasion and domination were, but that didn't really count. 

It was enough just to be afraid. Thank the good Lord that we didn't have social media back then.

None of this would have mattered that much to me, a bush kid growing up in Queensland, except that in 1965, Bob Menzies introduced a significant amendment to the National Service Act, and it wasn't very long before I was patrolling the jungles of Phuoc Tuy province with an SLR and in the company of good men caught up in the same boondoggle.

This was an outcome of that climate of fear that had kept a Coalition government (with the help of DLP preferences) in power since 1949.

I can't help but look at the climate of fear and loathing that has developed in the USA since the advent of the Tea Party movement, and draw the parallels between that phenomenon and events across the Pacific (and to a lesser extent in this country) since.

There are a number of core components of this climate that were evident in the fifties and sixties, and are once again obvious now. They include denouncements, outrage, branding, and conspiracy theories. These days, they can be harnessed by media that thrives on that same outrage, hate, fear and anger, and harnesses these base aspects of human nature to make money and build corporate empires.

Infowars and Breitbart are great examples.

Politicians interested in making a dollar out of the phenomenon include John Bannon, Newt Gingrich, and of course, Donald Trump. Bannon and Gingrich may, to some extent believe in the philosophies driving these movement, but Trump is a different animal entirely.

If you follow his trajectory, it becomes completely obvious that he has no love of country or political philosophy that can be identified, but possesses a bloated ego, and a belief that there are only winners and losers, rather than "people". People are to be used and discarded when they are no longer useful. 

An examination of his married life is best evidence of that, as well as the unbelievable rate of turnover in his 2016-2020 administration.

The fact that he has, in sequence, lost the popular presidential vote (2016), the 2018 midterms, the 2020 presidential election, and most recently, contributed to an historically poor showing in the 2022 midterms doesn't seem to have sunk in. 

Or perhaps, the experience he most fears (losing) is haunting him to such an extent that he continues to attempt to lay the ghost.

All of this has some significance for Australians (as I learned in 1969/70), but the most frightening element is the seepage across the Pacific of some of the trends we're seeing now.

I find the social media conspiracies about our very efficient and independent AEC the most disturbing.  I take solace in the fact that it doesn't seem to have penetrated beyond the lunatic fringe.

As we used to say (about the Yanks) when I was in Vietnam - 

"You can tell them anything - sell them anything". 

Now that is a vast over generalisation, but Australians tend to be far more pragmatic and less naive as a bunch than our transpacific friends.

Let's hope it stays that way.

Education's Groundhog Day

                                                      Pic courtesy Learners' Edge

No doubt, gentle reader, you've read reports of a teacher shortage, and a meeting held yesterday to address it. Teacher shortages are nothing new, but the current situation is alarming.

The pandemic has brought it to a head, but these issues have been floating around for decades.

I spent four years in the nineties in a job where I was responsible (amongst other things) for recruiting teachers to work with students with disabilities in remote schools in the then North Western Region. Regional office was based in Mount Isa, and the region covered an area twice the size of Victoria and Tasmania combined.

The majority of the schools in the region were small, all were remote, and over two-thirds had majority Aboriginal enrolments. They were challenging environments and recruiting always a challenge. The Statewide Human Resource branch  made concessions to remote regions which helped. These included allowing us to contact newly-graduated teachers first, and offering positions which hopefully would be taken up by the graduates before they were offered something less remote. I was the person making the offers on the phone, and was frequently surprised by the ignorance of the geography of Queensland demonstrated by the graduate teachers.

I remember offering a job at Cloncurry to a young woman who asked - "That's somewhere on the Sunshine Coast, isn't it?". I suggested she consult a map, and her enthusiasm diminished rapidly. She was confusing Cloncurry with Caloundra.

We were successful in attracting graduates who grew up in the region and were familiar with it, but there weren't many of those. There was (and it remains) a remote area scheme based on a system which awarded transfer points to teachers in remote locations. This meant that two or three years' service in a remote school earned a posting to a favourable area, usually coastal South-east.

The upshot was a constant battle to fill positions, and quite obviously, that situation continues, and apparently is now beginning to affect less remote regions. Hence, yesterday's conference.

What I found supremely ironic were the recommendations tabled from the meeting. They include the establishment of paid internships, recruitment of teachers from overseas, and proposals to pay highly accomplished teachers salaries of more than $110000 p.a.

The irony in situation lies in the fact that the first two are resurrections of strategies used when I began working in Special Education in the seventies post Vietnam. I was a beneficiary of the internship strategy in that I was granted a twelve month post graduate programme that provided training in my speciality which was Physical Impairment. These internships were offered in Vision Impairment (which my wife completed), Intellectual Impairment and Hearing Impairment. They offered experienced teachers either six or twelfth month study secondments which up-skilled them and prepared them for leadership positions in their specialities.  

Even the proposals to pay higher salaries to accomplished teachers are not really novel. The Senior Teacher programme that operated in Queensland in the early 2000s was not a great success. This is hardly surprising. Cherry-picking "accomplished" teachers and paying them higher salaries simply doesn't work. Teaching is a collaborative activity, and competition for higher pay essentially kills collaboration. It's way past time that politicians began listening to teachers, rather than looking for political brownie points with silver bullet solutions.

There may actually be a silver bullet. Paying all teachers what they are worth, accomplished or otherwise would be a good start. 

Another silver bullet might be quarantining teachers from data collection, NAPLAN administration and other non-teaching (and unproductive) activity. 

This works in countries such as Finland, where marketplace competition is completely absent.