Ponying up...

Having yesterday criticised Howard's government for its disengenuous politics regarding the, now-cancelled, cricket tour of Zimbabwe, I should at least note that AusAid have increased funding to Zimbabwe.

I still wonder whether the decision to intervene would have occurred were it not for the proximity of the federal election, however this additional funding is significant. Interestingly, although the DFAT release claims Australia funding around $6 million (AUD) in 06/07, the UN's reliefweb database records only $3M (AUD), only $500,000 of which has in fact been paid.

By contrast, NZ's contribution in the same period was nil although I suspect this is incorrect having looked at NZ Aid's Fact Sheet on aid funding for Africa (perhaps this is a quirk of the reporting and Australian funding is direct whereas NZ's funding is via international bodies such as Unicef?).

Its worth having a look at norightturn's comments on Zimbabwe which, amongst other things, deals with the NZ parliament's equivocation about the 2005 Cricket NZ tour.

Minsterial infallibility

A colleague of mine is having a frustrating time at the moment as she wrestles with the implementation a decision her Minister has recently, and very publicly, made. Such is the life of officials but it made me think about one of the fundamentals of working with government: Ministerial infallibility.

Ministerial infalliability requires that once Ministers have taken a decision, that decision must be (a) implemented (b) successful and (c) popular.

Anyone of these requirements can cause officials headaches. In my colleague's situation, the challenge is (a) and (b). Popular is why it was approved regardless of the fact that the original advice to the Minister recommended against it and it's an election year and Ministers need to open, announce, expand etc so mere logistical challenges must be overcome. As is often the case in this kind of situation, the difficult parts of the program have been shifted well past the election so that any problems do not wind up in the press on the eve of the poll.

In my experience, smart Ministers ask for advice and mostly take it. It's risky to make a decision that goes against the advice not least of all because it exposes the Minister to far greater criticism. Better to not ask for advice if you think you'll not like it - at least then you can then spin that officials never advised you...

Occassionally, officials mistakenly believe that there advice must be followed and that reluctant Ministers simply haven't understood well enough. That can be the case, however most of the politicans that I've worked for have pretty extensive networks and are much closer to the electorate than is recognised. Desk research and journal subscriptions can't provide the insight of endless bowling club BBQs, rotary meetings and the experience of sitting in at the local community law centre.

The progam in question will be successful, eventually - it's been rushed which is the problem and will not produce the desired impact in the time available. If there's a change in Minister, odds are that it'll be quietly cut after 6 months to be rebadged and relaunched as the new Minister's program. If the same Minister survives the election and Cabinet, officials will find a way to reframe the project just before it fails and, in doing so, remind the Minister of their original insight.

Corporate espionage

I've always assumed that there's a degree of espionage that occurs in political campaigning; by both the left and right. I assume that the bigger the stakes, the more likely but also the more sophisticated and, possibly, defensible (maybe I mean defended rather than defensible, defended rather than denied?). So, at the risk of becoming a Four Corners junky/flunky/groupie, they've done it again... producing a compelling hour of television during which AMCOR subversives (I don't think the word is misused in this instance) confess to all manner of under-handed tactics in order to maintain their business chipping native forests.

A transcript of the full show will no doubt be posted - I hope Kakariki saw it in Melbourne.

IT, globalisation and immigration

Qantas have announced they'll be sending 300 jobs offshore to India. Their rational is about the limited availability of skilled workers but I'm not at all convinced.

The federal Department of Work and Employment closely tracks* the IT labour market - it is an incredibly volatile market because the industry is so dynamic and globalised - and as at September 2006 reports that though demand has increased this year, it is still considerably lower than in 2000 reflecting changes in the industry as well as the impact of various measures developed to improve the skill base. Also, although forecasts predict stronger growth in demand for IT employment, changes to the skilled migration scheme and a renewed focus on training for skill shortages may be sufficient to fill any gap.

As an aside, some work I did a while ago showed that the NSW training system is incredibly attuned to changes in the IT industry with enrolments closely tracking vacancy trends with very little lag time.

Qantas is relocating these jobs to save on wage costs - exploiting the low wage economy of India compared with the high wages paid in Australia. This is the price of global labour markets, we need to accept it and plan accordingly.

*DEWR tracks skilled vacancies and reports on trends. It's important not to conflate the existence of persistent vacancies with skill shortages. Skilled workers may choose to not apply for work because they can get more money elsewhere or because they don't like the work. Nursing is an example of an industry where there is a labour, not a skill shortage. There are plenty of trained nurses, more than enough to fill reported vacancies, however they choose alternative employment for numerous reasons (see the report Stop Telling Us To Cope on this page).

Disappearing military blog

I recently stumbled across the blog of an Australian, Ben Dullroy, serving with the ADF in Iraq which, though I only read a few posts, was pretty interesting reading. I subscribed to the rss feed but didn't check back for a while. On noticing a new post, I was disappointed to discover that the new post simply announced that the blog had been deleted.

The story appears to be that Dullroy was advised against continuing his blog as the ADF had no policy governing military blogs (this being gleaned from another blogger, Mike Fitz, who re-registered the blog name to avoid squatters).

I guess, at one level, this is a pretty extreme form of censorship however, I avoid blogging on issues related to my work because, as a public servant, I realise I have access to information that the public don't (some of which is sensitive and not within my discretion to disclose). I guess Dullroy's blog has the potential to compromise military or civilian safety or could provide a clue about the ADF's strategy. This being the case, the ADF need to update their policies to reflect the potential for near immediate and uncensored publishing... but does this mean no room for personal military blogs? As Mike Fitz notes, consider "how letters from Gallipoli are revered by today’s historians."

Interestingly, comments on the (in)actions of the ADF are mixed with at least one commentator, Colleague in Army, criticising Dullroy's actions stating "You should have known better. It took you four years to get a deployment and you did this". Ouch!

I'm ok, the Brethren are too

Unsurprisingly, the most conservative leader in the First World does not have a problem with the Exclusive Brethren. Money laundering, child abuse, institutionalised sexism and technophobia... what the hey, they apparently funnel money into Johnny Howard's campaign so live-and-let-live he says:

"I did make the observation that I've met a lot more fanatical people in my life than the Exclusive Brethren. They have a different, a more disciplined, perhaps some would say a more narrow interpretation of the Christian religion than others, but I respect their right to have it."

Sure they do John, however it's not their beliefs that cause concern, it's their actions not only in terms of how they treat their members and ex-members, but also their shadowy forays into politics - how would Howard react if an Imam surreptitiously produced attack advertising targeting the Liberals? I think we know, he'd reconsier their right to be citizens.

Tragedy of Cults: Exclusive Brethren

ABC's Four Corners documentary on the Exclusive Brethren disturbingly chronicled four or five cases of families cleft apart by fear, threats of divine retribution, as well as allegations of alcoholism, infidelity, child abuse and illegal financial activities. The documentary didn't deal much with the recent political activity in NZ, Australia and in Canada and elsewhere.

A number of cases of families in NZ and Australia were examined, all of which cohered to the same pattern of abuse where fear, financing and family were used by church leaders against recalcitrant members to first bring them back into line or, failing that, to permanently exclude them from the church and from access to family within the church.

In one case, a member was excluded and offered the rights to a business as a trade for his two sons whom the church wanted to retain. In another, a mother was counselled against leaving to be with her excluded husband and provided with cash as inducements to stay. In a third, a family that left the church was told that God would punish them by taking one of their children - when their eldest son died in his sleep many years later, the parents struggled with the guilt that perhaps God was vengeful afterall?

The documentary also examined the behaviour of the church leaders, including the leader of the Chuch in the '50s, Jim Taylor who entrenched their isolation by banning members from eating or socialising with anyone who wasn't a member of the church. Allegations against Taylor included infidelity and alcoholism, as well as allegations of tax avoidance. A head of the Australian Church in the '80s, Ron Fawkes, claims that he personally illegally transported "tens and tens and tens of thousands of dollars in cash" to the US for then leader, James Symington, and that the Exclusive Brethren have hundreds of millions of dollars in assets.

A full transcript from the documentary is available here and an online forum can be viewed here.

More training but who should pay?

Today's Australian Financial Review (offline only) covers the argument over who should pay for increased vocational training. What's unusual about the story is that the argument isn't between the Commonwealth and the States, but instead between the three leading national business organisations.

On the one hand the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry argue for income-contingent loans (i.e. individuals should pay more) on the other, the Australian Industry Group, with muted support from the Business Council of Australia, argue that industry, governments, and individuals all need to pony up. As an aside, the Australian Industry Group back up their claim with this excellent research.

Unsurprisingly, I'm in the latter camp although I think it is increasingly difficult for TAFE to argue against fees while at the same time providing more and more higher level qualifications.

It is now a near universal consensus that more training is vital to support continued economic growth (this is a variation on the 2002 federal Treasury's Intergenerational Report), however it is good to see some of the more ludicrous statements challenged in the media.

World Bank ranks the NZ economy second most business friendly

Well, I've no idea how the right wing blogosphere in NZ will try to discredit it, but NZ has again received a very high ranking as a great place to do business.

The World Bank report, summary here, awards NZ second place overall (last year NZ was first, this time Singapore is) compared with 175 other nations and measured against 10 criteria. NZ achieves the top mark for the registering property and protecting investors criteria and has improved its ranking for paying taxes, enforcing contracts and starting a business. NZ has however, gone down in rankings against licences, employing workers and closing a business.

I'm picking the right will ignore that NZ has ranked in the top two for two years running and will instead decry the negative indicators.

Bush assassinated: documentary

Those Brits sure now how to get a laugh. Apparently, More4, a digital channel in the UK is going to screen a mock documentary that deals with the fictional assassination of President Bush. According to the Guardian:

The drama takes the form of a fictional documentary looking back at the assassination of Mr Bush in October 2007, after he has delivered a speech to business leaders in Chicago. When Mr Bush arrives in the city he is confronted by a massive demonstration against the Iraq war and is gunned down by a sniper as he leaves the venue. The hunt for Mr Bush's killer focuses on a Syrian-born man, Jamal Abu Zikri.

Hat tip: browncardigan