Category Archives: Politics

What A Waste!

Posted on by
Reply

Local government is like the unwanted stepchild (or even bastard) of Australian politics – not formally recognised by the Constitution, but expected to provide all the services that neither the Commonwealth nor the States want to deliver. So they get delegated with roads and recreation, planning, libraries, waste management and other more esoteric activities.

Most of their funding comes from Federal and State coffers, plus property rates, permit fees and income from sundry services, but they have limited discretion as to how and where to allocate their resources since local by-laws must be consistent with State legislation.

So when it comes to the straightforward provision of rubbish collection and waste recycling, it’s quite amazing how inconsistent these services are from once council to the next.

In the case of my own local authority, we now have four different waste bins, one each for: glass; recycling; organic; and general (i.e., pretty much anything else that does not belong in the other three bins).

In addition to having to remember which bins get collected each week, residents also have to interpret what items can actually go in each bin. For example, “glass” really means only bottles and jars – so no cookware, drinking vessels or other glass products. “Recycling” only covers paper, cardboard, metal cans and lids, foil, and a few categories of plastic bottles and containers (and only as long as the lids have been removed and placed in the “general” waste). Soft plastics such as food packaging are not accepted, nor are Tetra Paks (one of the most common forms of beverage containers). As for the “organic” bin (or FOGO – “food and garden organic”), while this is no doubt a helpful solution to separate valuable compostable materials from general waste, our local council will not allow us to use bio-degradable bags, so the FOGO is thrown straight into the bin (nice in the height of summer!). Yet my friends and neighbours who live in other local council areas are able to use these convenient bags to manage their organic waste. Go figure why there is this difference!

On the question of recycling drink containers, things get even more confusing when looking at the Victorian government’s Container Deposit Scheme (CDS). First, the CDS collection points, despite there being over 600 across the State, are still quite limited (by location and operating hours). Second, the list of eligible categories is shorter than the types of ineligible items (5 vs 7). Third, it seems that unlike local council waste collection, the CDS will accept container lids, and even Tetra Paks (but the latter only applies to flavoured milks, not plain or plant-based milks). Fourth, while my council is willing to accept any glass bottle that has contained alcohol, the CDS only accepts beer and cider bottles. Why do they have to make it so confusing and complicated?

I know that there have been huge problems with the collection and recycling of soft plastics. For a few years, it was possible to return most plastic food packaging (bags and wrappers) to local supermarkets for recycling. But whoever signed off on those service contracts forgot to check what was actually happening to these materials, until there were a series of warehouse fires and other problems. Yet, this reverse supply chain model would be a logical way to manage the CDS – we buy most of our drinks from bottle shops and supermarkets, so why not encourage us to take back the empties to the point of sale? When my family lived in South Australia in the early 1970s, there was already a CDS scheme for bottles, and I remember as kids we would collect the empties and take them back to the local milk bar and use the deposit refunds towards our next purchases. Made sense then, should make even more sense now?

Finally, another example of how inconsistent my local authority is when it comes to waste management: the council operates a depot where local residents can take a range of household items for recycling and disposal, including hard and soft plastics, batteries, electrical goods, computers and peripherals, and larger items that won’t fit in the domestic bins. I took a large plastic item all the way to the depot in person, only to be told I would have to book a hard waste collection service so it could be picked up when they next sent out a truck. Surely I was saving them time and resources by dropping it off at the depot myself?

 

And the public gets what the public wants?*

Posted on by
Reply

Another Australian General Election comes and goes – although with a mere 3 years between federal polls, our politicians and their parties seem to be in constant campaign mode. Certainly, the formal election campaign lacked any significant new policies, so it felt like the leadership “debates” were simply a continuation of the stale language, petty point-scoring and tedious soundbites we hear day in, day out.

Cue the constant and familiar references to crises in housing, the cost of living and climate change. Both major parties tried to build platforms promising financial incentives for first-time home owners, with policies that were expensive, ill-conceived (albeit well intentioned), and with little regard for the consequences on the housing market or the broader economy. There was a failed attempt to have an informed debate about nuclear power, and tons of the usual pork-barrelling for pet industries and favoured constituencies. Even a major credit rating agency suggested that the Commonwealth’s coveted AAA status could be at risk as a result of all the campaign largesse. And of course, any lowering of the AAA rating would likely see an increase in interest rates, which would largely defeat the object of the first-time home owner policies.

At the time of writing, the Australian Labor Party has retained power with a significantly increased parliamentary majority, based on the projected number of seats it will win. But while the seats total may look like a landslide, it’s clear that a significant portion of the electorate voted tactically to either: a) keep the Liberal Coalition out of power; b) increase the chance of a minority Government and/or hung Parliament; or c) maintain the current status quo in a turbulent and uncertain world.

Based on the counts so far, both the ALP and Liberals have each only managed to garner about one-third of the total primary votes (4,678,061 – 34.81% and 4,315,961 – 32.1% respectively). While the national swing to Labor was around 2.3% since 2022 (with the Liberals seeing an opposite swing of -3.6%), this is enough to give them a large majority in the House of Representatives, thanks to the preferential voting system.

By contrast, in 2022, the ALP secured fewer primary votes than the Liberals (4,776,030 – 32.58% and 5,233,334 – 35.70% respectively), but managed to secure government with a slim majority. The point is, that the two major parties combined face a continued decline in their share of the primary vote. Given the performances by the Greens and Independents in recent elections, there could be a case for adjusting the current system of preferences to include a weighting or allocation based on the total primary vote by party. This might seem fairer in those constituencies with very marginal results, or where parties draw a significant share of primary votes nationally, but not enough to win (m)any seats, even with preferences. But given that most independent candidates (by their very nature) are not affiliated to any party, and usually focus on local issues (and often on single policy platforms), that allocation would be very difficult to calculate on a federal scale.

Meanwhile, it felt like the number of early-voting facilities was limited compared to previous elections, and there was little or no promotion of postal vote applications. This could have been due to the relatively short campaign period (although it always feels much longer…) combined with the large number of public holidays during that time. Cynics might suggest that this was a deliberate tactic by the incumbent government as early voting and postal votes are traditionally considered to favour the Liberal Coalition. I can’t find any compelling evidence for this theory. Partly, I suspect, because the major parties recognise that undecided, wavering and swing voters make a huge difference to the final results, so encouraging people to cast their ballot on election day helps them in that regard, even though more and more voters opt to vote before the big day itself. Whether the promise of an election sausage is sufficient incentive, I’d rather not speculate!

I experienced a huge feeling of disengagement with this latest election, mainly because I didn’t identify with any policies, parties or candidates that I could really get behind. When it came to voting for the Senate, I couldn’t see 6 parties (above the line) let alone 12 candidates (below the line) that I considered deserving of my vote. But we are forced to express our preferences for a minimum number of parties/candidates, hence the candidate lists are usually very long. I always think the large Senate voting slips are problematic, especially if you want to complete the full “below the line” choices, as we don’t really know what preference deals have been done behind the scenes.

Like many voters, I had issues with the unsolicited text messages I received, on behalf of candidates and/or parties. Apart from not disclosing how they obtained my number, some of the SMS did not carry the relevant authorisation statement; the sender’s number was anonymous (presumably they use automated systems); and blocking the sender had little or no effect – they still kept sending them! Since political parties are deliberately exempt from complying with laws against spam and invasion of privacy, the Australian Electoral Commission is relatively powerless to act. Presumably it’s in the parties’ interests to keep the status quo?

I was also surprised that polling stations still use a paper-based system to tick off who has turned up to vote. (I was using the same system when I was a polling clerk back in the 1980s in London.) Although the polling officers are required to ask me if I have already voted in another location, there is no immediate way to cross-check the electoral rolls. Surely an electronic tracking system would be a better solution? And on that note, I’ll end with a suggestion that it’s about time we put voter registration, voting and campaign donations on a blockchain to support voter ID and verification with privacy, secure proof of polling and force campaign funding transparency… as well as a speedier vote count!

*(with apologies to The Jam)

Same old economic crises?

Posted on by
Reply

Amid the current turmoil surrounding tariffs and trade wars, I have been re-reading “Economics: The User’s Guide” by Ha-Joon Chang.

First published in 2014, this highly accessible introduction to economic theory and practice was written in the wake of the GFC, and the fallout that ensued from the US housing bubble and the consequential collapse (and public bailout) of major banks and financial institutions. The US bubble was largely caused by an imbalance in housing supply, poor lending standards, and over-engineering of mortgage-backed securities that quickly unraveled when banks lost confidence in each other, causing a major credit crunch and a lack of market liquidity.

Chang couldn’t have foreseen COVID and the knock-on effect on global supply chains and the impact of lock-down policies on overall productivity. He overlooks (ignores?) Bitcoin, a key ideological and technological response to the GFC, and he downplays the role of innovation in economic growth. However, his historical survey, his analysis of major economic theories (or “schools”) and his explanation of the roles that governments and the private sector play are all spot on and serve as a great resource for anyone wanting to try and make sense of the world.

Given the credit crunch at the heart of the GFC, the recent sell-off in the US bond markets reminds us that:

1. History repeats itself time and time again (albeit for different reasons)

2. Global markets are deeply interconnected, despite various attempts at de-coupling and policies designed to challenge globalisation and bring about increased protectionism

3. The US housing market is heavily reliant upon foreign investors since US treasuries both create market liquidity for new mortgage lending, and set key interest rates for borrowers – and major holders of US treasuries are foreign governments and institutional investors

The US mortgage market is underpinned by a near-socialist funding model (in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), a propensity for long-term fixed rate loans, and a significant volume of non-recourse mortgages.

If a global trade war results in higher cost of goods for US consumers, and a bond sell-off results in higher interest rates, could we see a repeat of the GFC but driven by different causes?

The wrong end of the stick!

Posted on by
Reply

In a typical knee-jerk and censorial reaction, Australia’s Federal Parliament has recently approved legislation that will attempt to ban anyone under the age of 16 from accessing social media.

Knee-jerk, because the legislative process was rushed, with barely a 24 hour public consultation period. The policy itself was only aired less than 6 months earlier, and was not part of the Labor Government’s election manifesto in 2022.

Censorial, because Australia has a long history of heavy-handed censorship. I still recall when I lived in Adelaide in 1970 (aged 10), broadcasts of the children’s TV series, “Do Not Adjust Your Set” were accompanied by a “Mature Audience” rating – the same series which I had watched when it was first broadcast in the UK in 1967 during the tea-time slot!

As yet another example of government not understanding technology, the implementation details have been left deliberately vague. At its simplest, the technology companies behind the world’s most popular social media platforms (to be defined) will be responsible for compliance, while enforcement will likely come from the eSafety Commissioner (to be confirmed).

The Commissioner herself was somewhat critical of the new policy on its announcement, but has since “welcomed” the legislation, albeit with significant caveats.

From the perspective of both technology and privacy, the legislation is a joke. Whatever tools are going to be used, there will be ways around them (VPN, AI image filters…) And if tech companies are going to be required to hold yet more of our personal data, they just become a target for hackers and other malicious actors (cf. the great Optus data breach of 2022).

Even the Australian Human Rights Commission has been equivocal in showing any support for (or criticism of) the new law. While the “pros” may seem laudable, they are very generic and can be achieved by other, more specific and less onerous means. As for the “cons”, they are very significant, with serious implications and unintended consequences for personal privacy and individual freedoms.

Of course, domestic and international news media are taking a keen interest in Australia’s policy. The Federal Government is used to picking fights with social media companies (on paying for news content), tobacco giants (on plain packaging) and the vaping industry (restricting sales via pharmacies only), so is probably unconcerned about its public image abroad. And while some of this interest attempts to understand the ban and its implications (here and overseas), others such as Amnesty International, have been more critical. If anything, the ban will likely have a negative impact on Australia’s score for internet freedom, as assessed by Freedom House.

The aim of reducing, mitigating or removing “harm” experienced on-line is no doubt an admirable cause. But let’s consider the following:

  • On-line platforms such as social media are simply reflections of the society we live in. Such ills are not unique or limited to Facebook and others. Surely it would be far better to examine and address the root causes of such harms (and their real-world manifestations) rather than some of the on-line outcomes? This feels like a band-aid solution – totally inappropriate, based on the wrong diagnosis.
  • When it comes to addressing on-line abuse and bullying, our politicians need to think about their own behaviour. Their Orwellian use of language, their Parliamentary performances, their manipulation of the media for personal grandstanding, and their “calling out” of anything that does not accord with their own political dogma (while downplaying the numerous rorts, murky back-room deals and factional conflicts that pass for “party politics”). I can’t help thinking that the social media ban is either a deflection from their own failings, or a weird mea culpa where everyone else is having to pay the price for Parliamentary indiscretions.
  • A blanket “one size fits all” ban fails to recognise that children and young people mature and develop at different rates. Why is 16 seen as the magic age? (There are plenty of “dick heads” in their 20s, 30s, 40s etc. who get to vote, drive, reproduce and stand for public office, as well as post on social media…) From about the age of 12, I started reading books that would probably be deemed beyond my years. As a consequence, I by-passed young adult fiction, because much of it was naff in my opinion. Novels such as “Decline and Fall”, “A Clockwork Orange” or “The Drowned World” were essential parts of my formative reading. And let’s remember that as highly critical and critically acclaimed works of fiction, they should neither be regarded as the individual views of their authors, nor should they serve as life manuals for their readers. The clue is in the word “fiction”.
  • Children and young people can gain enormous benefits from using social media – connecting with family and friends, finding people with like-minded interests, getting tips on hobbies and sports, researching ideas and information for their school projects, learning about other communities and countries, even getting their daily news. Why deny them access to these rich resources, just because the Federal Government has a dearth of effective policies on digital platforms, and can’t figure a way of curbing the harms without taking away the benefits (or imposing more restrictions) for everyone else?
  • In another area of social policy designed to address personal harm, Governments are engaging with strategies such as pill-testing at music festivals, because in that example, they know that an outright ban on recreational drugs is increasingly ineffective. Likewise, wider sex, drug and alcohol education for children and young people. Draconian laws like the under-16 social media ban can end up absolving parents, teachers and other community leaders from their own responsibilities for parenting, education, civic guidance and instilling a sense of individual accountability. So perhaps more effort needs to go into helping minors in how they navigate social media, and improving their resilience levels when dealing with unpleasant stuff they are bound to encounter. Plus, making all social media users aware that they are personally responsible for what they post, share and like. Just as we shouldn’t allow our kids to cycle out on the street without undertaking some basic road safety education, I’d rather see children becoming internet savvy from an early age – not just against on-line bullying, but to be alert to financial scams and other consumer traps.
  • Finally, the new Australian legislation was introduced by the Labor Government, and had support from the Liberal Opposition, but not much from the cross-benches in the Senate. So it’s hardly a multi-partisan Act despite the alleged amount of public support expressed. It may even be pandering to the more reactionary elements in our society – such as religious fundamentalists and social conservatives. For example, banning under-16s from using social media could prevent them from seeking help and advice on things like health and reproductive rights, forced marriage, wage theft, coercive relationships and domestic violence. Just some of the unintended consequences likely to come as a result of this ill-considered and hastily assembled piece of legislation.