Ruddonomics

By Sinclair Davidson And Alex Robson

Wall Street Journal Asia – 23 October 2007

It looks like Australia may have lost its nerve for economic liberalism. In Sunday’s nationally televised debate, Prime Minister John Howard touted his vision: a "new society" based on entrepreneurialism and individualism. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd a self-proclaimed Christian socialist, backed bigger government and expanded social spending. Yet immediately following the debate, Mr Rudd. was declared the winner by most of the popular media.

Next month’s national election result could have significant implications for Australia, the world’s 15th-largest economy and a key U.S. ally in Asia. Over the past two decades, successive Labor and Liberal governments have ripped down trade barriers, privatized industries, floated the Australian dollar and opened the country to international capital flows. The economy is in its 16th year of uninterrupted economic growth, free of public debt, and enjoying low inflation and the lowest level of unemployment in 33 years.

Mr Rudd, a 50-year-old former bureaucrat, has cleverly mimicked the government’s record, even labeling himself an "economic conservative." That tack has apparently won him support among Australia’s middle classes, who have benefited most strongly from the economic boom and don’t want to see a change in economic strategy. He’s now leading Mr. Howard by about 10 percentage points in most national polls. But a closer look at Mr Rudd’s. record reveals that he’s not a reformer, but rather an unreconstructed interventionist masquerading as a free market conservative. Call it "Ruddonomics."

Take his parliamentary record, for a start. Since coming into the Parliament in 1998, Mr.Rudd has toed the party line and opposed most efforts to further reform the economy. The Australian Labor Party opposed the privatization of Australia’s government-owned telecommunications provider, Telstra; strongly protested industrial relations reform, including Mr. Howard’s recent efforts to reduce union power and abolish unfair dismissal laws; and, most importantly, opposed all significant tax reform over Mr. Howard’s tenure, including cuts in income taxes. Mr. Rudd’s economic philosophy isn’t a secret. In a speech to the free market Center for Independent Studies in Sydney last year, he openly attacked the free market ideas of Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, branding him a "market fundamentalist." In Mr Rudd’s. mind, it’s okay to accept "the economic logic of markets but . . . these must be properly regulated and that the social havoc they cause must be addressed by state intervention." He also argued that public policy should deliver long-term market-friendly reform tempered by "social responsibility."

In practice, a Labor government under Mr. Rudd would re-regulate economic life. Over the past year he has promised to set up no fewer than 68 new bureaucracies and establish 96 reviews if elected. He promises to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and commit Australia to a costly program of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 60% of 2000 levels by 2050. His proposed industry policy—constructed by Kim Carr, a declared socialist—would create an uberbureaucracy of 12 Industry Innovation Councils. The goal, it seems, is to promote manufacturing by "picking winners"—a policy with an appalling track record of failure both in Australia and elsewhere. To round things off, Mr. Rudd’s labor-market policy promises to abolish individual workplace agreements and to restore union power over policy making to its former glory.

Given the Howard government’s record of economic success, Mr Rudd’s dominant lead this far into the electoral cycle is a remarkable achievement. But it’s also not without precedent. Australia has been through this kind of economic soul-searching before, with an eerily similar Labor campaign pitch—and a disastrous outcome.

In 1972, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam led Labor out of a 23-year-long electoral hiatus by running the most comprehensive negative campaign in Australia’s history. His "It’s Time" platform emphasized the Liberal Party’s long stint in power without laying out a coherent alternate economic vision. He then embarked on a disastrous three-year premiership, during which time he socialized Australia’s health and education systems and unapologetically increased the size of government. Inflation soared, as did the levels of national debt. Today,
Australia is still living with many of Mr. Whitlam’s mistakes.

Mr Rudd’s 2007 campaign strikes a similar tone. His slogan—"New Leadership"—is aimed squarely at Mr. Howard’s political longevity, rather than any apparent policy differences. Indeed, an integral part of Mr.Rudd’s strategy is to mimic everything his opponent says on monetary and fiscal policy, including keeping a budget surplus and an independent central bank. Even Mr. Rudd’s Labor Party colleagues—many of whom are closely affiliated with left-wing labor unions—now cloak themselves in the jargon of economic conservatism, while touting big government platforms such as a federal government takeover of the nation’s hospital system.

At the same time, Mr. Rudd has judiciously employed the "It’s Time" strategy, carefully pointing out that his opponent has been around for an awfully long time, and is "old," "stale" and "out of ideas." To top it all off, he often cautions voters about the evils of negative campaigning, and reprimands Mr. Howard for directing any criticism at him, no matter how minor.

We’ll soon know if Australian voters will repeat their 1972 mistake, and go with a candidate who promises bigger government. When asked whom they want to run the economy, voters overwhelmingly favor Mr. Howard. Yet betting markets, which have a good track record of predicting voting outcomes, show that Mr. Howard only has a 40% chance of holding on to power. That most voters do not seem to know or care about any of this speaks volumes about Mr. Rudd’s campaign strategy and Mr. Howard’s inability to cut through the spin. For the most part, Australians do not seem to recognize that good economic policy does not require "new leadership" or "new ideas." The current economic boom has lasted so long that most citizens— including Mr Rudd, it seems— have forgotten the three main ingredients of policy success: minimal intervention, transparent regulation and broad economic liberalization.

Mr Rudd has done well to convince voters he represents new leadership, as the results of Sunday’s debate show. Yet it isn’t clear which aspect of his election platform is new. If Ruddonomics wins the day, Australia could find itself back in a 1970s mindset, with bigger government and a less competitive economy. In a modern, rapidly globalizing world, that’s not a vision for the future— that’s a vision for the past.

Mr. Davidson is a professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University in Melbourne. Mr. Robson is a lecturer in the department of economics at the Australian National University in Canberra.

Not till you see the whites of their eyes

I think John Howard should wait a while before calling the election.

A section of Australian voters are still infatuated with Kevin ("me-too") Rudd, who seems anxious to get this election in the bag while he still has a large lead in the polls.

The next few weeks will increase in intensity, and show up flaws in the conga-line of "wannabes" that are following Kev around. See for example Robert McLelland's gaffe on going easy on terrorists, or Peter Garret's hypocrisy about the Tasmanian Pulp Mill. In fact if you scratch more closely at any of the Labor front bench, it's easy to see the amateurish cracks in the facade that is "Kev 07".

John Howard should take a leaf out of Neville Wran's book, who espoused the idea of applying the "blowtorch to the belly" of his oponents - keeping the heat on them to really see what they're made of.

It's only when the heat is on, when the pressure is unbearable, when they wish the blowtorch would go away, that you really get to see what someone is made of.

Take your time, Mr Howard. Keep the heat on. The Rudd facade will slowly melt away, until it's pretty obvious to everyone that Emporer Kev isn't really wearing any new clothes at all.

WYSIWYG

WYSIWYG or "What you see is what you get" is an important attribute in politics.

Why vote for someone who appears to support one thing, only to find that after they get elected they're totally different to what you expected? That would be a disaster.

I will be voting for John Howard at the next election because he is definately WYSIWYG. You definately know where this man stands. He is predictable. You know what he's going to do.

I don't agree with everything he's done, but I know when he says he's going to do something, he'll do it.

Kevin Rudd is the opposite. He's Mr "Me too", presenting himself as a clayton's opposition leader. Mimicking the Prime Minister on vital issues like Economy ("Echo-Nomics"), Foreign Policy, Taxation and Indiginous Affairs, he tries to present a "not too scarey" version of the Labor Party that isn't going to frighen the voters, while placating the left with platitudes about Climate Change, Iraq, and (of course) Industrial Relations.

I.e. they dont' really stand for anything (especially if it's unpopular). All they want to do is get elected.

But ask yourself this. Why would the Labor Party want to get into office if they were just going to mimick the Liberals?

There's only one answer - they're definately NOT WYSIWYG. They want your vote, and they'll dress up in sheeps clothing so you can't see the wolf.

If you're not convinced, check out the conga line behind Kevin Rudd - the ones who he wants to make ministers in his government:

Deputy prime Minister and Minister for Industrial relations: Julia Gillard, former student radical and AUS president
Treasurer: Wayne Swan, former ALP state secretary
Attorney general: Joe Ludwig, former AWU official
Minister for Trade: Simon Crean, former president, ACTU
Minister for Transport and Tourism: Martin Ferguson, former president, ACTU
Minister for Finance: Lindsay Tanner, former state secretary, Federated Clerk's Union
Minister for Environment and the Arts: Peter Garrett, lifelong anti-American activist
Minister for Infrastructure and Water: Anthony Albanese. Former assistant general secretary, NSW ALP
Minister for Human Services: Tanya Plibersek, former student union official, UTS
Minister for Immigration: Tony Burke, former official Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Union
Minister for Resources: Chris Evans, former official Miscellaneous Workers' Union
Minister for Veterans' Affairs: Alan Griffin, former official Federated Clerks Union
Minister for Primary Industry: Kerry O'Brien, former official Miscellaneous Workers' Union
Minister for Superannuation: Nick Sherry, former state secretary, Federated Liquor and Allied Trades Union
Minister for Sport: Kate Lundy, former official CFMEU.

And waiting in the wings are:

Greg Combet, candidate for Charlton and former ACTU president
Doug Cameron, NSW Senate candidate and secretary of Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union
Bill Shorten: candidate for Maribyrnong and national secretary, Australian Workers' Union
Richard Marles: candidate for Corio and former assistant secretary, Transport Workers Union.

Get the idea?

A vote for Kevvie is a vote for the ACTU - government of the People, for the Unions, by the Unions.

That's what you get - but it's not what you saw. Sort of like the opposite of WYSIWYG.

Kev07? Not bloody likely.

Grubby and heartless in the local rag

I hate grubby journalism.

Here's some photos, and the text of an article in our local rag, "The Northern Times".

The full text of the article can be viewed at http://www.questnews.com.au/article/2007/08/23/19859_nt_news.html (unless they delete it).

Click on the photos for larger versions. The text of my letter to the editor follows the article.

The Northern Times 24 August 2007.
AUGUST 24: The controversy surrounding campers pitching tents in Wyllie Park looks set to continue until the future management of the reserve is finalised.Residents have called for action to be taken against people camping in the park, in defiance of signposted rules governing the use of the green space.They say people camping in tents should be moved on, while campers themselves say they are doing no harm and just want to enjoy a peaceful stay before moving on in their travels.One resident, who asked not to be named, said the rules of the park were clear and should be enforced by council officers.

``We're not saying everyone who camps down there is a troublemaker, but there are clear rules about who can and can't stay overnight at the park and we just want the rules to be enforced,'' the resident said.

``And it clearly says that camping in tents is not allowed.

''Pine Rivers Shire Council CEO Ray Burton said the land the park was located on belonged to the Queensland Department of Main Roads.

He said council did not have any power to take action in relation to camping on state-controlled land.``The legal tenure of Wyllie Park is declared as state-controlled road, however, council is currently negotiating with Main Roads to gain legal control of the park,'' Mr Burton said.

``Council will continue to maintain the facilities within Wyllie Park
which includes the collection of rubbish, cleaning of toilets and showers and
also regular mowing.``This is part of an historical agreement.''

Here's the letter I sent on 29 August 2007.

Dear Editor

Your front page story, "Our Tent Ghetto" (NT 24 Aug 2007), is an indictment on the standard of journalism of your paper, and the level of heartlessness that exists in our community.

With no by-line, your anonymous reporter claimed that tensions had "again surfaced between residents living near Petrie's Whllie Park and people erecting tents within the grounds".

"Residents"? Which residents? You only quoted one nameless resident. Was there anyone else? One anonymous undated quote does not demonstrate that the community has "called for action to be taken". If the claims are true, surely someone (even your reporter) would have the courage to pin their colours to the mast and speak without the shroud of anonymity?

You claim these residents live "near Petrie's Wyllie Park". Have a look on a map. Wyllie park is triangular, bounded on one side by the North Pine River, beyond which is yet another park. On the other side it is bounded by Gympie Road, beyond which is a cricket field and a paper recycling plant. On the third side it is bounded by a railway line, beyond which is a football field. The nearest houses are several hundred metres away in Mundin Street on the other side of the railway line and embankment.

In the middle of winter, during one of the wettest weeks of the year, your photos show large tracts of water on the ground in what is supposed to be a camping ground. Several unfortunate people found it necessary to live in the middle of this flood in tents. A nameless journalist, and an anonymous resident claiming to live nearby (in a warm dry house, no doubt) want "the rules to be enforced". The council, who claims to be powerless to do anything about it simply turned off the hot water.

That's the real story.

How unkind.

By the way - feel free to publish my name.

Neil Ennis
Lawnton

More than Mutual Media Masturbation

http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1896028.htm

Kevin Rudd and Channel Seven's "Sunrise" have been caught red handed telling porkie pies about their plans to stage a fake "dawn service" at Long Tan in Vietnam on Anzac Day to fit in with prime time TV slots in Australia.

While Kevvie and Kochie might be permitted a bit of mutual ego stroking on prime-time, the problem is the mess they've made while they were doing it:

Rudd tried to convince us he knew nothing of his discussions with "Sunrise" to stage the fake service. Emails then came to light which proved Rudd's claims to be false.

He then tried shift the blame to his staff for the "oversight" - grossly hypocritical in the light of the charges of "Sergeant Schultz" behavior that he leveled at the Government over AWB ("know nothing, see nothing, ask nothing").

Most Australians have to put up with wankers from time to time, but it's a bit much to expect us to tolerate hypocritical, lying little wankers.

Makes you wonder what he'll come up with next.