2013/03/15
14:58
by: Matthew

Mate, People Can See You

I’m often loathed to see random people on Twitter be given a publicity beyond their own followers – especially when their tweets make them seem to be little more than a party hack or fringe lunatic. But for some reason I saw this tweet float through my stream a couple of times today and I feel it’s a pretty apt demonstration of what’s wrong with people who criticise people just for having the gall to disagree with them and worthy of having a closer look at.

There are two main issues I have.

Firstly, what Malcolm Turnbull does with his own money on his own time is really no one’s business other than Malcolm Turnbull’s – unless, of course, he’s making investments similar to those that were popular amongst NSW ALP members during the 1990s.  But even then, he’s currently not a government minister, so the rules are probably different for him.

Secondly, Malcolm Turnbull is a person who believes that a

free market can often provide a better level of service in a given area than a government monopoly.  If the government provides a base and a framework for private enterprise within, then free market competition will see a level of service delivered that is of a higher quality and lower price for consumers than what would be offered, compared to what could be achieved by a government monopoly attempting to do exactly the same thing.

Now, you may or may not believe with this line of thinking, however bearing that in mind, it is completely consistent with those beliefs for Mr Turnbull to be investing in a private enterprise that is providing fibre optic internet services directly to a premises.  It makes no differences to his complaints about the operations of NBN Co and the direction the ALP federal government has chosen to take the rollout of the National Broadband Network.

So, to summarise, criticising someone for holding true to their stated political ideology does not do anything to further your arguments against them.  In fact, it just makes you look like you’re the unhinged nutcase who is just looking for an argument and not interested in an informed debate about how the government should best go about serving the interests of the Australian population.

But what do I know? I’m just another random internet bloguer myself.

Posted in General Tagged , , ,

2013/03/11
17:12
by: Matthew

My Say, My Way: Newcastle's Transport

I was going to do a long, snarky blogue making fun of the comments in this Newcastle Herald story about transport in Newcastle because they’re mostly terrible; either in spelling and grammar or their general grasp of how transport works and where money for transport programs comes from.

You can read their comments by following the link above. More importantly, my thoughts on the questions posed by my favourite local publication, are:

What priorities should guide a transport masterplan?

The general priority of a master plan is to strike balance between the existing needs of all the relevant stakeholders whilst at the same time providing a pragmatic plan for the future that can be evolved as time, circumstances and demand changes.

Specifically for the Lower Hunter/Newcastle, a transport master plan needs to consider where people live now, where they will live in the future, where they are likely to want to go and what the best way of getting them there is.

How can transport be provided for growing areas?

See previous paragraph. The biggest obstacle to clear, when it comes to transport planning like this, is working out how you can provide adequate yet cost-effective public transport to vast swathes of urban crawl.  For mine, some rethinking about how we live is key to working out a more sustainable public transport solution.

How can public transport use be encouraged?

By making services regular, accessible and having it take me to places I actually want to go within a reasonable amount of time.

How can transport be improved to the airport, the port and major centres?

There is a valid argument to providing some sort of rail service to Newcastle Airport, however the viability of such a scheme would likely hinge on an expansion of civilian operations, which is unlikely in the current joint partnership with RAAF Williamtown as they are apparently looking to expand air force operations at the site and don’t really want to share anyway. The best solution, for the immediate future, would be a better road and improved bus services from the airport into Newcastle.

For the major centres (Charlestown, Glendale, Kotara), more frequent bus services running shorter, local routes directly to these areas would help. Any talk of light rail or trams is a complete waste of time.

Until the future of the Port of Newcastle is determined (e.g., construction of a permanent, international cruise terminal), there is really not a lot to talk about there.

How can quality transport be maintained to the Newcastle CBD?

By actually working out who goes into the CBD, why they go there and where they come from. Constantly having this question involve only discussion about a certain 2km of railway is, as I have previously and on numerous occasions in other forums, completely missing the point.

How can walking and cycling be promoted?

Refer to previous points about urban sprawl. If everything is too far away to make walking, riding practical then it is simply not going happen.

You can, however, combine more effective public transport (refer all previous questions) and combine this with facilities at outlying hubs to store bicycles, if that’s what you want

to do.  For example, if you live at Morpeth you can ride your bike into Maitland, store it at the station before catching a train into your job in Newcastle.

In short, what you need to solve the “issue” of transport in Newcastle is to first get over the bloody rail line. It’s not the important bit and, secondly, be a bit more pragmatic in your approach and think a bit more critically about what “Newcastle” actually means. A solution can be found that is both effective and practical. All you need to do is be a bit less blinkered in your thinking.

Posted in General Tagged , , , , , ,

2013/03/07
17:33
by: Matthew

Hope. Reward. Opportunity. Feelings. Nonsense. Mathematics. Words.

The problem with living in one of the safer ALP seats in the country is that we tend not to get too much electoral propaganda through the letterbox during the campaign.  The ALP don’t really bother because they know they’re safe, the LNP don’t bother because they know they won’t get up and the Greens…well…it’d be a bit against their general message if they were to spam an electorate’s mailboxes with pieces of paper that no one really wants.

This year, however, I get the feeling that things in the Division of Shortland may be a little different.  For the September election the Liberal Party is fielding a candidate that may actually stand a chance. Standing for them is former NBN (the television station, not the broadband network) newsreader turned marketing company owner, John Church.

This is the second NBN newsreader turned marking person to go into the politics.  The first was one term wonder Jody McKay who ran for the ALP in the state seat of Newcastle in 2007 before being ousted in the Great Labor Rout that was the 2011 election.  Is this a trend? I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing Ray Dinneen giving it a shot, if only for the amazing levels of entertainment such a campaign would provide.

Anyway, yesterday I received the first piece of election propaganda from Mr Church’s campaign and decided that instead of just lobbing it straight into the recycling bin, I might give it a look as it outlines what Mr Church alleges he will do for the Division of Shortland should he be elected on September 14.

According to Mr Church’s propaganda, there are four main points to his campaign that will deliver “real solutions for Shortland”.

The first is “our [the Liberal’s] plan to reduce your cost of living”.  Under this Mr Church says that he will “stop Labor’s new taxes that will drive up prices even further”. That’s awesome John, but what taxes? The carbon price isn’t a tax (it’s just not) and the Mining Resources Rent Tax isn’t sending the mining companies broke. So I’m struggling to see what you mean by this.

Mr Church also promises to “end government waste and reckless spending”, something that no government – ever- has ever followed through on; “reduce our national debt”, because I assume all members of the electorate in Shortland are being kept awake at night by our nation’s bugger-all-percentage-of-GDP debt; and “take the pressure off interest rates”, even though at 3 per cent there

isn’t a lot of room to lower the rate any further.

We’re then promised a “genuine paid parental leave scheme” and that he will “restore the private health rebate…to keep costs of health care down”, even though Mr Church has just promised us a reduction in government revenue.  I am not an economist, but that seems like a collection of ideas that won’t end particularly well for the Budget’s bottom line.

As an aside, the private health rebate will be introduced “as soon as we practically can” which means, surprise, they won’t.

The final point under Mr Church’s “plan to reduce your cost of living” is to order a “Productivity Commission review to make child care more accessible, flexible and affordable”.  A review that will produce a report that will be discussed and debated and not really dealt with until at least a second term of a Liberal government. Way to tackle that issue head on.

Second main point on Mr Church’s list is the always-vague promise to make “a stronger local economy”, which he says he can accomplish by “getting government out of the way, reducing regulation and removing barriers to employing staff”. That’s mostly meaningless except for the last point.  The barriers he’s talking about are the ones where a business is required to pay an employee a wage that is above subsistence.  Having to pay minimum wage is such a burden.

Mr Church’s third main point is an election favourite – “making our community safer”.  Not an election goes by where Laura Norder* gets dragged out as a sweet, delicious carrot for the voters.  The more humorous aspect of this point is that not two days earlier, I received a newsletter from the local community group with a section written by a member of the local constabulary that stated crime in my suburb was basically non-existent.  So I can only assume that Mr Church will have to first introduce crime into my area so he can then reduce it. I look forward to that.

The fourth, and final, main point of Mr Church’s campaign is “stopping the carbon tax” even though it is not a tax. “Despite many families finding it harder and harder to pay their bills,” his propaganda leaflet says, “Labor and the Greens introduced their carbon tax that is driving up prices further”.  Firstly, further than what? If you’re going to use a comparative term you have to give me the other thing you’re comparing it to.  Secondly, I’m curious as to just how many families there are that are finding it hard to pay their bills.  The other week the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal released their audit of NSW’s utilities providers that disclosed eight per cent of Hunter Water customers were on payment plans to help them pay their water bill. Is that many?  Short of living in a socialist utopia, is that about as good as we can reasonably expect? Also, did I mention that it’s not a tax?

I have to say, I hope the other candidates for this seat start sending me through things to read.  With Shortland’s northern electoral neighbour, Newcastle MP Sharon Grierson (ALP) not recontesting her seat this election and Craig Thomson’s electorate of Dobell to the south, there may be a chance that momentum could see some changes taking place in one of last real ALP-held areas.

* “Law and order”. Geddit? (HT @SnarkyPlatypus for being the first to bring that turn of phrase to my attention). If you’re after some other reading on what the whole “tough on crime” narrative comes down to, I recommend this excellent piece by Dan Nolan.

Posted in General Tagged , , ,

2013/02/26
19:21
by: Matthew

On the Newcastle Herald

I want to like the Newcastle Herald. I do, really.  Look, I’m aware that may not seem to be the case if you’re a regular reader of this blogue.

(For you first timers, I have previously said some fairly critical things about the Herald with regards to what they have published about the heavy rail line and a few other things)

The problem is, as time goes on they seem to be getting more and more terrible at what they are supposed to be doing; keeping us informed.  And that makes it quite a challenge to support them the precarious financial position of Fairfax Media results in substantial staff cuts.

I mean, look at this.

On 12 February, Penelope Green attended a Newcastle Business Club luncheon at which the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, Jeff McCloy, have the keynote address.  Her article, “McCloy says rail must go” features an overview of what went down.

NEWCASTLE’s ‘‘dying’’ centre could be revived in less than five years if the rail line and ‘‘dingo fence’’ separating the city and harbour were removed quickly to allow private enterprise to flourish, lord mayor Jeff McCloy told business leaders on Tuesday.

How, exactly? Did the Lord Mayor offer any evidence to support this assertion?  Does he have a plan to facilitate such renewal if/when the rail line gets removed? Did he explain just how a piece of infrastructure is actually stopping investment in the Newcastle CBD?

We’re not told. Why? Did he not take questions or did our journalist not bother asking?

A couple of days later, on 17 February, they published, “Facebook may cost you a job” by Jason Gordon and I find it strange that for an article with a headline that lends itself towards a scary tale of people’s employment prospects being jeopardised by their use of social media (along with a sizeable image of the Facebook logo), the social network in question is mentioned only briefly in the opening paragraph and then again in the closing paragraph.

The rest of the article seems to be about how some employers are doing credit checks of potential employees and using that information to help them determine how suitable a candidate might be for the position they have applied for.

What business does an employer have to look into someone’s financial history? Well, we don’t know because our intrepid reporter doesn’t seem to bother asking that question.  Instead, we get a couple of quotes from a company that provides such checks advising that businesses should “be careful”.

Well that’s great. Thanks Jason.

But Mr Gordon wasn’t finished.

“Water costs drain wallets” was the headline of his piece examining the contents of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s (IPART) performance report of Hunter Water, (PDF) which was offered up the next day, 18 February.

The IPART report states that 17,946 customers of Hunter Water entered into payment plans so as to avoid going into debt with the utility provider.

Throughout the piece, our intrepid journalist insists that every single one of those 17,946 payment plans are for “households”, even though the IPART report makes no mention of this.  Further to this, Hunter Water’s 2011/12 annual report states that they have 9,068 commercial customers, 985 industrial customers, two bulk supply customers and 5,738 “other” customers who receive water and sewerage services.  This equates to 6.8 per cent of the customer base and you cannot assume that none of these customers are not also recipients of a Hunter Water payment plan – especially if small businesses are constantly telling us how hard their lives are and how on the edge they live.

In fact, commercial and industrial customers don’t even count when it comes to the Herald’s editorial on the same subject. Only residential customers matter, apparently.

It’s also worth pointing out that the 17,946 customers who entered into payment plans with Hunter Water equals 7.80 per cent of their 230,140 total customers.

Is that bad? Well, it’s hard to tell. I cannot find the number of customer accounts that Sydney Water has, although their 2012 annual report states they have 4.6 million people served by their water supply. But using some educated guesses, I’d say that their 156,502 customers who have gone onto payment plans represent about the same percentage compared

to the Hunter Water result, and given that, according to the ABS about 20% of the population are receiving some sort of government benefit, that all does not sound too out of sorts.

It’s also worth pointing out that these plans basically allow customers to pay their quarterly water bill in instalments, rather than as a lump sum every three months.  So they’re not even really falling behind, just better managing their own cash flows.  The IPART report does not include statistics on the number of customers who have not been able to meet the requirement of their payment plan.

So this seems more like a storm in a tea cup than anything worthy of a great moral panic about the government forcing people to live on the streets because they can’t pay their water bill.

Then, just this weekend, Lake Macquarie Reporter, Damon Cronshaw offers up what is probably the most nonsensical thing I’ve ever read in our beloved local rag.

“Lake resident wants nuclear power” is the headline, and the copy that follows is nothing short of spectacular.

MORISSET Park resident Albert Morgan knows a thing or two about air pollution.

Does he? Is he an expert in the field? What, Damon?

His waterfront property looks directly across the lake to Vales Point coal-fired power station.

I live just down the road from the ocean. That doesn’t make me a marine biologist.

‘‘It’s not a thing of great beauty, is it?’’ he said of the plant.

Because all industrial buildings are works of art…

Mr Morgan has lived in the suburb for more than 50 years.

‘‘I lived here before the power station was built,’’ he said.

Ahhh, he has “experience”. Right. Gotcha.

In a sou-easter, pollution from the plant blows across the lake and covers his property.

‘‘We get a lot of dust fallout,’’ he said.

He believes the pollution poses a health threat to susceptible people and counts himself lucky he hasn’t had any health problems.

Valid point. Coal dust isn’t exactly beneficial for ones health.

‘‘I’m almost 78 and it hasn’t killed me,’’ he said.

So it has caused you no direct harm? Not even a cough? Snotty nose? You’re saying that the power station causes a health risk yet can’t even provide anecdotal evidence that this is the case?

Mr Cronshaw, can you provide any research to support this claim? A link, perhaps, to a crusade started by your very own publication earlier in the year with regards to coal dust and residential areas?

He reckons coal-fired power will be a thing of the past in the near future.

You don’t say.

‘‘I reckon we’ve got to go nuclear,’’ he said.

Because…. feel free to jump in any time…

Oh? That’s it? No reasons why? This Albert Morgan, alleged expert on air pollution, reckons we should go nuclear and we’re supposed to just go “oh, well, I guess we should”?

What purpose does this story serve?

This is just shit reporting. No matter which way you cut it.  Did Mr Cronshaw just write up a conversation he had with a bar fly down at his local on Sunday afternoon after a couple of crisp, refreshing beverages?

I just cannot see one single reason why this was worthy of being published.

So come on guys. You can do better than this. Do journalism. Ask questions. Put things into context. Inform the population.

Stop writing crap and stop insisting that I really should check out photos of people enjoying themselves at parties I wasn’t invited to.

Posted in General Tagged , , ,

2013/02/19
08:30
by: Matthew

The Canberra Derp Gallery

Journalists working out of our nation’s capital do understand that when their type words into their publication’s CMSs and press “upload” that the rest of us can see what they wrote, right?

Because, if I were getting paid a nice wage to sit around at some outlet’s bureau inside Parliament House and make words about what happens inside that building, I don’t think I’d be showing anyone the stuff I’d written that resembles those stories featured on the front pages of Fairfax and News Limited websites today.

“Beware the knives of March,” exclaims Mark Kenny (any relation to He Who Invokes Edict 9?), senior political correspondent for Fairfax.

“LABOR MPs say a showdown between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd is inevitable,” he says to start with and immediately I’m wondering who these Labor MPs are and what evidence Mr Kenny plans to offer to support this plainly put assertion.

“Some [MPs] are grimly accepting that the leadership question may again have to be visited.”

Oh yes? Which ones?

“Most

senior ministers contacted on Monday appeared to be sticking with the Prime Minister,” Mr Kenny reveals. No idea what the qualifications are for “most” or “senior” in this case. No names are offered.

”It’s simple arithmetic,” said one. ”We can’t go to an election with these numbers.”

Asked if the situation would come to a head when Parliament resumed, one minister responded: ”I don’t see how it can’t”.

He said he remained loyal to Ms Gillard but conceded there had been a discernible shift in momentum towards Mr Rudd in the past fortnight.

However, he also said Mr Rudd’s case for the leadership had been undermined as MPs in marginal seats recognised his public utterances as self-serving and destructive.

Oh, really? Did we ask MPs in marginal seats about how they “recognise” Rudd’s “public utterances”?

Also, I’d love to know who this seemingly authoritative person is. Surely if they’re so confident and “don’t see how” any current issues with regards to the leadership of the ALP can be resolved any other way, surely they wouldn’t mind putting their name of those comments so we can slap them on the back and buy them a beer when their predications turn out to be correct.

No? Damn.

“Senior Liberals welcomed the poll findings just months before the election,” Mr Kenny notes in what I can only assume is the tone of voice that is associated with one’s Completely Unsurprised Face.

The Opposition welcomes something that says the ALP is bad? You’re kidding. I would never have seen that coming.

“The manager of opposition business, Christopher Pyne, said the Coalition’s 17-point lead on primary votes showed Mr Abbott had what voters want,” Mr Kenny concludes apparently having not bothered to ask Pyne just what exactly he thinks it is that Abbott has that voters so obviously want – because it’s not costed policies, that’s for sure.

Meanwhile, at News Limited, “Political Editor Tory Shepherd” (she must have had a rough time at school. Who gives their child the name “Political Editor”?) of the Adelaide Advertiser offers up “Kevin Rudd’s the man who won’t go away for Labor”.

“Prime Minister-in-exile,” Shepherd calls Rudd. Tony Abbott must be upset at that. He’s had the whole government-in-exile attitude going ever since he couldn’t bribe the Members for Lyon and New England to form an illegitimate government with him following the 2010 federal election.

Shepherd does make an interesting observation about Rudd’s comments on Sky News about the ALP leadership and cryogenic storage.

“It’s a way of snap freezing something so that it can be restored, revived, at a later date,” she says. Which, while true, is probably not what Rudd was thinking off when he was looking to extend his cold shower/ice bath metaphor.

So does Mr Rudd fancy himself, Han Solo-like, coming out of deep freeze to rescue Labor?

That was Carbonite. If you’re going to go the Star Wars reference, get it right.

Does he have the patience to wait until they ask him?

Or will he just white-ant away in the background while Prime Minister Julia Gillard tries to soldier her way through to the next election?”

Can I think up any more hypothetical questions to pose?

Or are all these anonymous sources just messing around with journalists’ minds?

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Sadly, Shepherd doesn’t dwell on this point too much. Having to explain how the press gallery is just regurgitating whatever they’re told by people too scared to put their name to their words is just frightening, I’d imagine.

It may seem at this point that anything could happen. There’s plenty of chatter, lots of “backgrounding” going on. Lots of people with vested interests.

So maybe this point would be a good time to delve into that, pull it all apart and explain it to us, the all important reader, so that we may then place all this rumour and conjecture in context?

Nope.

 

So let’s peer into the election crystal ball and try to discern the shape of things to come.

Fuck it. Let’s just make shit up.

And I haven’t even bothered to open The Conversation to see what Michelle Grattan has decided to bestow upon us today.

Seven. More. Months.

Posted in General Tagged , , , ,