August 2007 Archives

And that reason's called "Value Adding."

Australia has an appalling record at adding value to it's primary exports. From wool exported decades ago, to present day minerals and, in this case, trees. Just load it on a ship, wave it goodbye and receive a fraction of its processed value.

I know there are issues with the mill regarding its siting, pollution and the source of its raw material. If all those meet acceptable standards, then the thing should go ahead.

If the trees are going to be cut down regardless, then we should ensure we get the maximum value for them.

You have to hand it to Kevin Rudd. He's brilliantly wedged the government on the issue of States' rights.

Not so long ago (say, the beginning of this year) no Labor opposition in its right mind would have threatened to transfer a state responsibility to the Commonwealth. Especially one as sensitive as Public Hospitals. To announce such an intention would have been political suicide.

Hard to believe that "States Rights" was once a conservative holy grail.

You could feel the government's frustration as they held back from attacking Rudd after his announcement. That they couldn't is solely due to Howard's latest reelection strategy of attacking the states on just about any populist issue he can think of.

So now we have both parties lining up to kick states' heads!

My natural instinct is that this would be unpopular with the electorate. My instincts are obviously wrong. No party makes this sort of statement without the backup of opinion polling.

Howard has stated his frustration, and Rudd is spinning it as a virtue, that all State governments are Labor. The interesting thing is, if Rudd does get in it's likely that some of those Labor governments, voted in partly as a check against the Feds, will fall to the conservatives.

Rudd's going to have a hard time getting consensus from a mixed bag of state governments.

I wonder how the conservative historians will view Howard when a Labor Federal government uses Howard's newly utilised powers against newly elected Conservative states?

I reckon Kev won't be too concerned as he lays the boot in.

The announcement that Australia is going to sell uranium to India in contravention of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has received little comment in the media. This is surprising as in my mind it's a first class scandal.

It comes at the same time as the US is planning to provide nuclear technology to India. Hardly a coincidence.

Whether Australia can keep track of uranium once it enters the closed Indian nuclear industry is a moot point. If the Indian industry is that accountable then they should sign the NPT.

Ignoring this major international convention will damage Australia's reputation. It will be difficult to complain about others flouting agreements when we conveniently ignore this one.

Perhaps our limp, morally feeble Labor Party should take a stand on this issue. Don't hold your breath, though.

I couple of years ago I wrote about (arguably) the worst ever example of a Private / Public infrastructure project, Sydney's Airport Rail Link. The only positive thing I can say about the debacle is that it was signed off by a Conservative government.

A quick recap ... the government built a railway from the city to the airport, and contracted a private consortium build the airport stations, to be paid for by adding a surcharge on top of the price of the ticket. Our great conservative economic managers wrote into the contract that if passenger numbers didn't allow the consortium to make a profit, the government would stump up millions to pay them out.

With the surcharge at a level that made a taxi fare competitive, it wasn't surprising that passenger numbers never approached the predicted levels. The consortium collapsed, leaving the government holding the debt.

The government recently sold the stations to a new consortium for an unknown amount. Where it was expected that the new owners would reduce the fares to increase patronage, they've done the opposite.

You can only assume that the new owners bought the asset for a song. They know that the core users are mainly wealthy or expense subsidised individuals who don't care about the cost, and will keep using it regardless of the price.

By not taking control of the facility, the government has ensured that motor vehicles will remain the primary method of traveling to the airport, and that an expensive public transport asset will remain under utilised.

Total stupidity.