SATURDAYs GOOD READING AND LISTENING FOR THE WEEKEND
April 5, 2019
A regular collection of links to writings and broadcasts in other media
ABCs Saturday Extra with Geraldine Doogue (from 0730 to 0900 or on their website in case you miss it).
Geraldine talks with Mohamed Beavogui, Director-General of African Risk Capacityon how theyre trying to mitigate the risks of natural disasters in Africa;
David Thodey, former CEO of Telstra and Chair of CSIRO, is in charge of the review of the public service. He talks about their interim report;
Head of Australian intelligence Nick Warner discusses how intelligence security has changed and what some of the major risk areas are;
Its 25 years since the Rwanda genocide in which the media played a vital role in inciting violence. First there is an interview with Stephen Raff, former co-ordinator of prosecutions, international criminal tribunal for Rwanda and then with Arthur Asiimwe, Director-General of the Rwanda Broadcasting Agency.
Other commentary
The budget and the budget reply there really is a difference
As usual, in the week of the budget the media is overloaded with detail of whats in it for me and news about appropriations (or more likely vague promises) for local projects. But what has emerged is a clear difference in economic policy between the Coalition and Labor.
In fact the Coalition doesnt really have an economic policy. What they call an economic policy is really an obsession with the governments fiscal balance, while they largely ignore issues to do with economic structure.
The Australia Institute has produced what is perhaps the most comprehensive analysisof the governments budget proposals. Matt Grundnoff shows how the governments tax changes would flow disproportionately to the well-off; David Richardson takes us through the accounting tricks behind the fiscal figures; Anna Chang analyses the absurdity of the governments arbitrary revenue cap. Others dissect specific policies including funding for the ABC, foreign aid, education and energy (that is, if they have an energy policy).
With a focus on distributional issues in the budget, writing in The ConversationRobert Taunton, Hai Anh La and Jinjing Li, of the University of Canberra, show that while in the short term the Coalitions proposals would give tax breaks to younger taxpayers with moderate incomes (subsequently matched by Labor), over the medium term the benefits would flow to the well-off, and that their budget proposals would widen the gap between rich and poor.
Labors economic policy as outlined in Shortens budget reply speechis on a different tack to the Coalitions. Much media attention has focussed on Labors plans to fund cancer diagnosis and treatment. Its a worthwhile focus on a high-cost aspect of our health care, but its an overstatement to call it the most important investment in Medicare since Bob Hawke created it. The substance of Labors economic policy is a rejection of the neoliberal idea of what is known as supply side economics, or more accurately as trickle-down economics. Labor, unlike the Coalition, is committed to progressive income taxation and to action on climate change that goes beyond tokenism. Unlike the Coalition, Labor sees high-cost housing as a problem for the young rather than as a benefit for speculators. Unlike the Coalition, Labor recognises the public sector as an important and productive part of the Australian economy.
If we have any doubt about the capacity of the well-off to pull their weight by paying taxes, writing in The Guardian Greg Jericho draws on the latest taxation statistics and points out that in 2016-17 the top 10% of taxpayers paid their lowest share of tax since 2005-06 and that the number of millionaires avoiding tax continues to rise.
Commenting on the politics of the Coalitions budget, Laura Tinglesays it seems to reflect a government that has collapsed, exhausted, in on itself. She also points out that, because of the fall in consumer spending, there will be less GST collected to distribute to the states. (State governments will also be suffering a hit to their revenue base as the housing market comes off the boil.)
Perhaps the last word on the budget is by The Shovel: Low-income Australians to receive one-off lump of coal, to help offset threat of renewables.
Make-believe spending and real waste
The ultimate manifestation of the moral void of postmodernism is the notion that ultimately there is no reality. If there is to be a prize for postmodernism in action, Chris Crewther, the Liberal Member for Dunkley on the Mornington Peninsula, must be a front runner. The ABCs Elise Scott reportsthat in several social media posts in March he announced grants of between $7500 and $20000 under the Community Environment Program. His posts even included videos of Environment Minister Melissa Price.
The only trouble is that the program does not start until next financial year: in fact the guidelines are yet to be written. In a clarification Minister Price has had to correct her hyper-imaginative colleague.
There was nothing unreal, however, about Scott Morrisons announcement, in the wake of passage of the Medevac bill, that the Government intended to spend $1.4 billion on re-opening the Christmas Island detention centre. In the less prominent pages of the budget is the announcement that the centre will be closed in July, after $180 million has been spent on security and other services at the site. Writing in _The Guardian_former Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says we paid $180m for Scott Morrison to have a press conference on Christmas Island. Also writing in _The Guardian_Helen Davidson points out that on Christmas Island more than 150 staff are guarding zero detainees.
While on the topic of grants and handouts, Cathy McGowan, retiring independent MP for Indi, in an ABC Breakfast Show interview with Fran Kelly, modestly describes her success as an independent in getting things done for her electorate, and her role in pushing the agenda on a national integrity commission. She also describes the governments ill-mannered behaviour when she was deliberately shut outof a public presentation ceremony announcing a government grant from the Building Better Regions fund in her electorate a ceremony attended by the National Party candidate for her seat. McGowan sees the issue not in terms of a personal slight, but as an offence to the whole electorate, and as symbolic of the contempt which the Coalition, particularly the National Party, shows to rural communities. (It is also symbolic of the disrespect Executive Government shows to Parliament. It is Parliament, not Executive Government, that authorises appropriations under the Building Better Regions Fund.)
Breaking news: Economists sometimes get it wrong
Anyone who has endured undergraduate classes in economics, or has witnessed the failures of neoliberalism, will realise that much of economic theory and therefore public policy is based on simplified models, which fail to incorporate the interactive complexity of real-world systems. In what could pass as a collective confession by the discipline, _The Economist_has an article Simple interactions can have unpredictable consequences. Its a report of a forum on economics after neoliberalism, describing more complex and realistic models that show, for example, how seemingly stable systems can flip from one state to an entirely different one: from stasis to industrialisation, say, or from placid financial markets to crisis. Engineers and others who deal with the real world will be wondering why it has taken so long for economists to realise this.
While were on the subject of simplification
Rodney Tiffen of the University of Sydney has a Conversation article about the rise and fall of traditional bad-tempered tabloid newspapers. They have always brought a simplified and stereotyped presentation of events, and have always been somewhat to the right of centre. They have changed, however. Their editorial outlook used to be one of smug conservatism and a certain irreverence, but that has given way to the outrage of right-wing culture warriors. They are suffering not only from the general decline of print media, but also from a detachment from their own readers. Politically their coverage is full of sound and fury, but signifying almost nothing of electoral relevance.
Simplifying democracy
Budget week is an ideal time for a government to put out a report which it hopes will get little attention, such as the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Telling Australias Story and why its important. Much of the report is about administrative matters and the need for coordination between Canberras cultural institutions. But there is also a recommendation that the Museum of Australian Democracy should be appropriately focused on its core responsibilities. This is supported by a finding:
The Committee has concerns about the disconnect between MoADs fundamental strategic role, and the direction of some of its engagement with the public. MoADs scope has crept from its core focus and role. Its current and emerging focus on critical debates and discourse about democracy is best left to academic, think tank or media analysis.
Is it that the authors of the report see only one model of democracy the model that has served conservative powers so well over our 118 year history as a federation? As reported by Steve Evans in the Canberra Times, museum director Daryl Karp diplomatically said I was quite surprised by some of the things they said about us. It was very, very strange.
Booze myths
We may have learned at school that humans, in the Neolithic transition 12000 years ago, cultivated cereal crops in order to produce food (and ultimately to provide an electoral base for the National Party). But in The Atlantic is an excerpt from the forthcoming work by David Courtwright The Age of Addiction: How Bad Habits Became Big Business. It turns out that our ancestors priority was beer, not bread.
We probably carry around political stereotypes about those who drink chardonnay and caf latte. Research by the Australia Institutefinds that latte drinkers vote Liberal/National more than any other party. James Ashby may have us believe that One Nation makes its policies in a haze of beer and whisky inebriation on trips to Washington, but the survey reveals that One Nation voters are on a par with Green voters on their chardonnay consumption.
_Saturdays Good Reading and Listening_is compiled by Ian McAuley
Watch out tomorrow, Sunday, for Peter Sainsburys Sunday environment round up

Ian McAuley
Ian McAuley is a retired lecturer in public finance at the University of Canberra. He can be contacted at “ian" at the domain “ianmcauley.com” .