Kevin Rudd's great big deceit

On International Women's Day, Tony Abbott announced a new Coalition policy pertaining to paid parental leave scheme. This scheme would provide mothers with six months of paid maternity leave at their normal salaries up to $150,000. The scheme appears to have been concocted without much support from big businesses or from the Liberal party itself. On the face, the policy does not appear to conform to traditional conservative and liberal policy. 

However, debate about the paid maternity leave policy can be seen as a success from Labor's point of view. Lest we forget, two years ago Kevin Rudd described climate change as the "greatest moral challenge" of our time. The Government has attempted to divert attention away from the failures of Copenhagen and its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) by announcing new policies on health reforms and paid maternity leave.

Kevin Rudd's popularity with the Australian public has fallen significantly since the days of Kevin '07, with the Prime Minister becoming better known for being "all hat and no cowboy". Kevin Rudd has failed to deliver upon numerous election promises including the CPRS and hospital reforms. Peter Garrett was "demoted" after the national insulation scheme debacle which further dented the public perception of the government. Finally, KRudd has failed to handle contemporary issues such as rising national debt levels arising from "excessive" economic stimulus and asylum seekers.

In fact, in a recent Q&A program on ABC, when questioned on his handling of the health system Mr Rudd blamed the delay on his predecessors for "ripp[ing] a billion dollars out of the public hospital system". In response, one member of the audience remarked that:

"Didn't you say when you were going to reform the health system that the buck would stop with you, yet you've made two references to the previous government's decisions, and I note you didn't reference the previous government's surplus they left you in terms of the economic crisis. But you said the buck would stop with you, so will it, or are we going to keep hearing that the previous government did this, the previous government did that?"

Mr Rudd was not able to respond coherently to that question. Similarly, Climate Change minister Penny Wong's interview on ABC's Lateline could be described as nothing less than "excruciating". The Federal Minister refused to answer questions put to her by Tony Jones regarding the increased electricity costs to the Australian public which would result through the implementation of the CPRS. The questions put forward include:

TONY JONES: The Prime Minister has spelled out that in the first two years of your emissions trading scheme, electricity prices would rise by 7 and then by 12 per cent in the second year; a total of 19 per cent by 2013. What happens after 2013?

TONY JONES: I’ll just interrupt there because you put out some of the modelling. There’s no modelling, is there, that we’ve seen or that I’ve seen beyond 2013?

TONY JONES: Yes, understood. That’s the difference as you paint it. But let me ask you this: you say that the big question is about the two schemes, but actually one of the big questions is about the costs. So what happens after 2013? What does Treasury model tell you? For example, if your targets go from 5 to 10 per cent, does that mean automatically and exponentially you get a doubling in the cost of electricity from 20 per cent increases to 40 per cent increases?

TONY JONES: Yes, but the open question is: how much will you have to increase? You must have Treasury modelling which tells you what a 10 per cent reduction would be, a 15 per cent reduction, a 20 per cent, or even a 25 per cent reduction in emissions would cost in terms of cost-of-living increases. Do you have that modelling?

TONY JONES: That’s not the only policy question. The policy question that is on a lot of people’s minds at the moment is what this is going to cost. And so I’m asking you: do you have Treasury modelling that tells you what the additional costs will be to electricity and cost of living if your targets increase from 5 to 10 per cent, from 10 to 15, or even to 25 per cent, as you’ve canvassed, if the rest of the world moves?

TONY JONES: Alright, but before the voters go to an election with an emissions trading scheme, potentially, as a virtual referendum on how to deal with climate change - before the voters go to election, are they entitled to know what your modelling is telling you about what different targets would do to the cost of electricity and the cost of living?

TONY JONES: OK, but what happens? Is there an exponential change to the cost of electricity? Does it double from a 20 per cent increase with a 5 per cent reduction in emissions trading to a 40 per cent increase in electricity costs with a 10 per cent and so on, up to 80 per cent with 20 per cent reductions? Does it work like that, or is it somehow different? What does the modelling tell you?

TONY JONES: OK. But before people vote for this in an election, as they are likely to do this year, do you commit to giving the complete Treasury modelling to the public so they can see what happens at the different targets that you’ve proposed?

TONY JONES: Will you release the full Treasury modelling about the potential cost to electricity and cost of living with the different targets?

TONY JONES: But they won’t know prior to the election, based on what you’ve just said, what the potential economic impact is of higher targets.

TONY JONES: Yes, but you’ve already told the rest of the world that you’re prepared to go to 25 per cent if the rest of the world moves. You’ve also set a target for 2050 of 60 per cent, so there has to be large reductions over time, and don’t the public have the right to know what the cost of those increases will be?

TONY JONES: Well, no, we don’t have to, I was just trying to get to the bottom of whether you’re prepared to release that modelling. I think the answer is no.

TONY JONES: If that is the issue, let me ask you this: is it now standard practice to pass confidential departmental briefing documents to the press, or to sections of the press, I should say, as part of a media strategy to undermine the Opposition’s position?

TONY JONES: No, no, I’m not talking about honesty. I’m talking about the way in which this information was released. And isn’t it precisely the sort of thing that infuriated you about the previous government: the use of confidential departmental material to undermine the Opposition’s case?

What we have is a Government who is deceitful and cannot deliver on its promises to our nation. Mr Rudd has purported to paint himself as a contemporary leader, one who is in touch with the younger generation of voters. He has failed, and is now attempting to divert the public's attention away from his failings by announcing new policies.

Rudd versus Asylum Seekers, Asylum Seekers Win

The average Australian earning over $35,000 a year is taxed at a rate of 30 to 45% by the Australian Tax Office each year. This money is used to fund, amongst other things, the Christmas Island detention centre to process asylum-seekers seeking refuge in Australia. It was estimated in 2004 that each detainee was costing the Australian people up to $725 per day. More recently, it has been revealed that the Christmas Island detention facilities had cost the Federal Government $45 million  more than it had budgeted for this year. More taxpayer money is being pumped into the centre to boost its capacity.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has previously stated that the Christmas Island detention facility was bad policy and that it was a "white elephant". He is now being forced to pump more taxpayer money, money which the taxpayers have had to work hard to earn, to support a bunch of asylum seekers who have not followed the proper policies laid down by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In fact, the recent standoff by the Oceanic Viking and the subsequent granting of asylum to two Sri Lankans demonstrates Mr Rudd's inability to defend the sovereignty of Australia.

One of the most fundamental rights of a Sovereign State since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) is the right exercise supreme authority over all subjects within its territory, including the power to make and enforce its laws. While the issue of asylum seekers is a global issue, Mr Rudd's lack of a coherent policy to tackle this problem has exaggerated the issue for Australia. As Opposition Leader Tony Abbott aptly described it:

"[This] shows that Mr Rudd was blackmailed ... effectively blackmailed, into giving people what they wanted ... they held that ship for about a month and that shouldn't have happened. It seems every day another boat (carrying asylum seekers) arrives". 

Furthermore, Mr Rudd's policy of redirecting the boats to Indonesia creates two problems. Indonesia is apparently justified in processing these asylum seekers because of the monetary assistance Australia has provided to fund its detention centres. This doesn't solve any problems, it is merely passing on the issue to Indonesia. It also strains relations Indo-Australian relations. Secondly, as Mr Abbott rightly points out, it sends the wrong message to asylum seekers that "if you get to Indonesia you also get to Australia, because of the deal that Mr Rudd did with the people on the Oceanic Viking".

Kevin Rudd is "pretty smart"

Here is some good advice for all history students, memorise your American history and in particular, George Washington's strategy to defend New York from the British in the American War for Independence. The easier alternative is to simply visit wikipedia before having breakfast with Bill Clinton. These skills will hold you in good stead in the off-chance that you meet Mr Clinton. Kevin Rudd's ability to describe the American War for Independence in "excruciating detail" has led Mr Clinton to describe the Australian Prime Minister as being "pretty smart" and "one of the most well-informed, well-read, intelligent leaders in the world today." 

We in Australia have no such history, no wars fought for independence,  no tea parties where we proclaim, "no taxation without representation!" Australian's enjoy their tea too much to throw it into the sea, we do however, have a well publicised apology  made to the indigenous people of Australia (made by KRudd). But Mr Rudd is the Australian Prime Minister, not the US President, yet he was described by Mr Clinton as an Australian who "knows more about America than they know about Australia". 

Perhaps a contextual interpretation should be afforded for Mr Clinton's statements; that is, Mr Rudd is well-informed and well-read on American history. The critical question, however, is how will Mr Rudd's knowledge of American history benefit Australia? It won't, but it will promote Mr Rudd's image in the US after relations were strained when a sensitive phone call between Mr Rudd and the then US President George W Bush was leaked to the media where Mr Bush purportedly said, "whats the G20?".

Tony Abbott (a Rhodes Scholar and arguably more intelligent than Mr Rudd) cannot claim to have received the Clinton stamp of approval as one of the world's most intelligent and well-read politicians. Mr Abbott gave credit where credit was due yesterday and agreed that Rudd was indeed a smart person. He said,

"No one's ever criticised Kevin Rudd for being unintelligent. Dull? Yes. At times incapable of expressing himself clearly? Yes. But no one's ever said that he's not smart."

This is unlike the current Labor federal government, who only recognises and promotes their achievements, but does not give credit to achievements by other political parties. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard's recent statements suggesting that the Howard-Costello governments played no part in the development of Australian economic policy of the last decade are the best examples of our government's lack of humility.

Public servants going above and beyond their duties

Adair Turner, Baron of Ecchinswell, an academic and chair of the United Kingdom's Financial Services Authority (regulator) has made the headlines again, this time propounding that banks should use their profits to strengthen their finances as opposed to paying out lavish bonuses or stock dividends. These comments are very noble coming from someone who was once part of the banking profession himself. Amongst other thing, he has proposed that taxes be increased on financial transactions and increase that the capital requirements of banks, thus shrinking the financial industry in the UK. He said:

"[Banks] need to be willing, like the regulator, to recognize that there are some profitable activities so unlikely to have a social benefit, direct or indirect, that they should voluntarily walk away from them.”

Mr Turner has also proposed a Tobin tax; a tax intended to put a penalty on short-term speculation in currencies. It is difficult to understand why Mr Turner has suggested that banks should not profit from activities that have no social benefit. A fellow student suggested to me that this meant that pharmaceutical companies should not make abortion pills and should voluntarily walk away from these activities. Mr Turner's suggestions go against the most fundamental reasons of incorporation; limited liability and the enterprise and risk taking it encourages. 

Of course there is little chance that tax or proposals will receive any international support.  The power of banks was well demonstrated by the limited restrictions placed on recent bailout funds as the banks regarded themselves as being "too big to fail". So this begs the question as to why Mr Turner made these comments; the NY Times reported that Mr Turner was probably more interested in the reaction and "outroar" that these comments may incite. Mr Turner's comments make little sense and have even been described as "stupid", but this is precisely what Mr Turner anticipated when he made these comments. He is trying to venture into the area of politics.


This was also seen by Ken Henry, Australia's Treasury Secretary, who has been described as an "ambassador" for the Rudd government following comments defending the government's decision to impose economic stimulus. More recently, he has reject calls from the Opposition for these stimulus measures to be withdrawn, notwithstanding that these stimulus measures would impose dangerous debt burdens on future generations and deficits for at least six years. However, is it really a public servant's best interest to make these sorts of comments in public?

Public servants like Ken Henry or Adair Turner venture into dangerous territory when they assume the roles of politicians and espouse ideas or opinions such as describing recent stimulus packages as "the most effective use of fiscal policy we've seen in our lifetimes". Former Treasurer Peter Costello lay the blame back on the Rudd government for bringing Ken Henry into the political arena. He wrote that the government had attempted to "capture some economic shine from Henry" and therefore was inevitable that they would face political questioning. Very aptly, he stated that

 "Public servants are there to advise; politicians are there to make decisions."

Perhaps both Ken Henry and Adair Turner could learn from Mr Costello's wise advice. Stick to your own jobs of providing advice to politicians, and refrain from taking their ideas or recommendations to the public arena. Leave the difficult decisions to the politicians. 

The noble art of the physician: Hippocratic or hypocritical oath?

The legal and medical professions often do not see eye to eye. In university, they argue over who has to work harder. When they graduate, the argument pertains to who earns more money, or who has the higher societal standing. Given my background in law, it would be prudent for me to refrain from expressing my opinion on the matter. So one can imagine the doctors' disgust at frivolous lawsuits brought about by lawyers seeking an outcome for their clients. "These lawsuits are unethical!" the doctors cry. We all know that doctors take what is called a hippocratic oath to always practice medicine ethically. Many people don't know that lawyers are bound by strict rules of professionalism and actually face disbarment should they contravene these sets of ethical rules.

It came as a surprise to me when I was referred to a New York Times article suggesting an overhaul of the malpractice system in the US. President Obama famously appeared five times on different broadcasting stations on a Sunday to further his push for Health Care reforms in the US. Studies have shown that the malpractice system had imposed additional costs on medical treatment because of doctors' fears of being held accountable in malpractice suits. The result is additional and unnecessary tests being ordered to cover their bases, and thus higher health costs for the American people. This is more commonly known as 'defensive medicine' and is estimated to cost the American people in the region of US$60 billion a year.

But would an overhaul of the medical malpractice system reduce these costs? Doctors are paid more when they do more. Of course the extra tests and procedures are good for their patients but it is also good for the doctors. Furthermore, it will help protect doctors from lawsuits. If doctors are negligent then they should be held accountable for their actions. In any case, it is their insurance companies which bear the costs of any settlements or damages imposed by courts. Who says these extra tests and procedures are unethical? It is in the patient's well being and it helps protects doctors from lawsuits, never mind that it also earns the doctors significant amounts of money. Doctors took an oath to act ethically at all times, a tradition that goes back to the 400BC, they would never act unethically.

So what is there to complain about malpractice suits? When a doctor is negligent and causes injury to a patient, lawyers are brought in to obtain reasonable outcomes for their client. If a doctor is not negligent, then there are no suits. It isn't the lawyers and medical malpractice lawsuits that impose the costs on the health care system, it is the incompetence of doctors who are unable to uphold their duty of care to their patients. The predicament was well summed up by the NY Times which wrote, "The goal, remember, isn’t just to reduce malpractice lawsuits. It’s also to reduce malpractice."

The situation is no different in Western Australia. Last month it was revealed that many doctors and nurses had exploited a salary packaging system aimed directly at benefiting health care providers. It was reported that several workers had claimed up to $100,000 from birthday parties, weddings and barbecues as entertainment expenses. Of course the hippocratic oath only applies exclusively to medical practice. Nevertheless, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) had the nerve to ask for an 'amnesty' to avoid harm to the Western Australian health system in general. That is, these health care workers should not be held accountable for their deliberate tax fraud (which in certain cases may be criminal) because it is in the general good for Western Australia.

The Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) was "appalled" by subsequent sackings that came as a result of these tax frauds. ANF State secretary Mark Olson said, "I know that in many cases with these nurses we're only talking a couple of thousand dollars." Only a few thousand? No apologies have been proffered by either the AMA or the ANF, in fact, it wasn't the doctors or nurses fault at all. AMA State president Gary Geelhoed said that people were not clear about what the rules were, and thus did not knowingly breach those rules. I beg your pardon? What about the person who claimed his/her entire income as a meal allowance? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

What we have are health care workers intentionally exploiting systems created for the benefit (in the case of salary sacrifice tax systems) and accountability (medical negligence laws) of health care workers. Who bears the cost of their exploits? The tax-payers, higher medical costs, higher medical insurance fees and ultimately, less resources available for the development of infrastructure for the greater economy (which I might add, is facing the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression).