June 2007 Archives

Q. What's a Victorian footy fan's fantasy?

A. Chris Judd in a Victorian jersey.

Or so it seems, as this scenario recently came up several times in the media on the subject of the possible resurrection of AFL State of Origin games. (Feel free to suggest others. There's lots!)

I've only been to one State game and it certainly wasn't State of Origin. It was NSW vs Vic at the SCG in the late 1980s. To bolster the home team, the AFL allowed any player who'd ever played for the Swans to participate. It was memorable for several reasons. The whole game was played in a torrential downpour. The four Daniher brothers competed. NSW won. From memory, Ted Whitten (there as head of the Vic selectors) was heckled from the member's stand and was in tears! Memories ...

My late father, being Western Australian, liked the old State competition. In the days of the VFL, state games were the only time that WA (and SA) fans could watch home grown talent that usually competed in far away Victoria. State games were the pinnacle of a competition that lacked an international dimension.

The advent of the AFL saw the concept wither. Interstate fans can now watch their compatriots at their home grounds. The clubs weren't keen. The last attempt was in 1999.

Now the AFL is now talking about bringing them back. I suppose they'd like to have something that approaches the ARL version, but they'd have to invent a way to make players want to participate. Rugby League doesn't have that problem as players aren't likely to qualify for internationals without being first being selected for SoO. Historically, there's been no similar incentive for AFL players to risk injury and their club's chances at a flag.

To be successful, the AFL will have to persuade (read 'coerce') players to participate. Perhaps make SoO participation a pre-requisite for playing the Irish* in the International Rules hybrid game, or perhaps to be eligible for a Brownlow, or even AFL All Australian selection.

I like to see them back as a one week, mid season event, but only if the best players play. Otherwise, the regular 'home and away' will do nicely.

*If they ever talk to each other again!

"You've thrown technology down the drain which Australia could have used," he said.

"As an Australian I feel very sad that that thing goes on, not because the technology wasn't good enough, or anything but for political reasons, ideological reasons."

The statement above could be about a number of technologies invented in Australia over the past 60 years. In this case, the quote is from nuclear scientist Don Mercer, lamenting that the Hawke government shut down research on uranium enrichment during the mid 1980s, leaving the process to be perfected by others.

It's ironic, because that's exactly what the present government is doing to research for renewable energy. Forcing it offshore through a lack of funds and commitment. Purely for ideological and political reasons.

Like the uranium enrichment technology of 20 years ago, renewable energy research will be a lost opportunity if the technology is perfected offshore.

Dr Clarence Hardy worked for 20 years at Lucas Heights and says Australia was at the forefront of nuclear technology.

"I don't think anyone at the really high level in the Government understood what we were trying to do, to preserve this technology for the good of the country," he said.

Dr Hardy is now a director of the company Nuclear Fuel Australia and is planning to put a proposal to the Federal Government to build an enrichment plan in Australia.

Yes, planning to put a proposal for technology developed and imported from overseas.

I wouldn't be surprised in another 20 years or so, Australian scientists will be lamenting lost opportunities as we cough up large amounts of money to import renewable energy technologies that could have been perfected here.

Update: Ken L has a different slant on the same thing here.

It's a pity that Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Miranda Divine don't know the difference.

Labor leader Mr Rudd said the way individual NSW MPs reacted to the cardinal was a matter for them but the Sydney Catholic leader had every right to speak out on behalf of the church.

Mr Abbott said he had enormous affection and respect for the cardinal. "He was forcefully restating the standard church teaching and saying, 'This is what we expect Catholics to think about this. If this is not their view they need to think about what that implies,' " he said. "I didn't think it was an unreasonable thing for him to say."

In this brave new world of biotechnology, church leaders have a special obligation to unequivocally state church teachings on confusing moral issues. Pell is one of the admirable few who stand up for moral absolutes.

Bollocks to all of them!

The church, or any other interest group, has the right to comment on issues, and attempt to persuade or lobby parliamentarians to vote a particular way. However, in this case, Pell issued a threat. It was totally out of order.

It was also stupid and counter productive. His comment overshadowed the subject he was trying to influence.

The upside of this tawdry attempt to influence parliament was that it failed. The correct outcome in a secular society.

I stayed up late on Thursday night to watch Paul Keating interviewed on Lateline. I wasn't disappointed.

Keating's discourse was somewhat rambling and egotistical, but he hasn't lost the art of producing the 'quotable quote.' Here's some lifted from the transcripts.

On the effect of Work Choices on productivity ...

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.

And this in the same vein ...

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.

On using the Corporations Powers to regulate IR ...

Let me make this clear, the Liberals decided that they wouldn't use the conciliation and arbitration power.

Under that power of the constitution you always needed a commission who tested capacity to pay and comparative wage justice. They've now used the corporations power and the High Court for the first time as validated its use. That means a Federal Government can now legislate the wage and the conditions.

On the real reason why the economy has boomed without the traditional wage blowout ...

Everything in those national accounts yesterday, everything, that is the growth in the economy and the low unemployment, the reason the system is not blowing, the tinder box has not taken off is because of the float, because of the tariff changes and because of [the previous Labor government's] IR changes, structural changes. That's why they're there. Not because of any superior management by Mr Costello. You know this pat line tonight about you wouldn't put an L plater. God, he's the greatest L plater of all time.

And finally, best til last. This on poll based policy. Could be true for any political organisation these days ...

The Labor Party is not going to profit from having these proven unsuccessful people around who are frightened of their own shadow and won't get out of bed in the morning unless they've had a focus group report to tell them which side of bed to get out.

Keating makes the current pollies we're lumbered with these days look very bland. I look forward to his next media forray.

One of my pet hates is reading something like this ...

Australia produces only about 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, a proportion that is declining as emissions from the developing nations like China and India soar.

... as an argument that we don't really need to do anything soon about climate change.

Like all disingenuous arguments, the statement is true, but doesn't tell the whole story. Australia has one of the highest per capita green house gas emissions, a consequence of a high standard of living, powered by electricity generated from burning coal.

China's and India's per capita production of greenhouse gasses is tiny by comparison. Although developing quickly, they are still third world economies. They just happen to have lots of people who, unsurprisingly, wouldn't mind having our standard of living.

To suggest that onus is on these countries to limit their emissions, rather than us, is to tell them that they can't aspire to our level of economic development. It's an argument they are likely to ignore, to everyone's detriment.

Most of the man made CO2 floating around in the atmosphere today was produced by developed nations. It's our problem. We have the knowledge and resources to develop new energy technologies, and the responsibility to reduce our emissions while providing the means to allow the developing nations reduce theirs as they grow their economies.

We can't expect them to limit their standard of living to allow us to retain ours.