Australian Experiential Learning Centre

The opposition started screaming ‘class warfare’ the minute the federal budget was brought down and it is one of the saddest examples of the pathetic level of public discourse in Australia.

The 20011-12 budget brought with it very modest reforms to the extensive system of middle class welfare in Australia. It put in place some measures that would freeze family payments to couples earning over $150,000. Opposition leader Tony Abbott said:

“People who want to get ahead are being screwed over by the Government. It’s a class-war Budget in that sense, and these are class-war cuts that the Government is inflicting on people.”

The way that the opposition carried on you would think that the government was proposing to turn off the lights!

Andrew Robb, the Coalition’s finance spokesman told The Weekend Australian:

“The cost (of cuts to family payments) happens to equate to the blowout in border protection. If you didn’t have this waste and if you took better decisions, then you’ve got more discretion about how you can spend the money you have got.”

This is farcical.

If the amount is so small that it can be found from other public programs then why complain about it? I know, it makes political sense to make a case about it – but any family earning $150,000 should not be getting funding from the government! It fundamentally misrepresents the purpose of the government and means that the funds are not available for those in true need.

The government, in a modern society, can play an important role for helping its citizenry deal with extreme events (like major floods or terrible sickness).

It is simply not possible for every person to receive a cheque from the government. Someone is paying for it!

Malcolm Turnbull, please his political deafness, said at a post-budget lunch in Sydney on the 13^th May:

“We cannot continue to indefinitely expand the welfare burden and the welfare net, if you like, in government.”

Turnbull’s far better approach is to adopt income-splitting.

“That’s why I’ve always been an advocate…of income-splitting, rather than directed payments and the reason for that is you can say the net position is the same, but there is a profound behavioural difference, a psychological difference between saying to someone because you’ve got a bunch of dependents, a lot of children and so forth, you will pay less tax.”

Unfortunately that is never going to happen in Australia. Even the modest freeze (the ‘reform’ was simply not to index the payments! How pathetic can you get?) announced in the Budget have been dropped by a government running scared. The Prime Minister now says:

The government says under its measures, the maximum rate of family tax benefits will be fixed at $726.35 for Part A and $354.05 for Part B until July 2014.

The $150,000 income test on the Family Tax Benefit Part B, the baby bonus and paid parental leave, will also be fixed until July 2014 instead of increasing with CPI.

The Prime Minister went on to say:

“So the family payment system (will) go back to the normal indexation arrangements after that.”

My response is to quote that fine example of a public servant, Sir Humphrey, and say: “Very courageous Prime Minister.”

There is a tendency to make important decisions on the basis of a strong narrative of events. For instance, ‘house prices only go up’.

Take this quiz and see what I mean from a trivial (but illuminating) perspective.

Is Western Australia going the same way? Given the role of the mining sector in the State’s economic performance, and the dominance of China, it is worth questioning some of the underlying assumptions of this view. Centre for Independent Studies Research Fellow, John Lee has an excellent article on China’s growth that is well worth considering.

Lee’s main argument is that:

1. China’s demand for commodities is being driven by property speculation; and
2. As a consequence, China has major ‘ghost cities’ that are being built and are sitting vacant.

The money quotes from his excellent article are:

“Let’s look at the argument that urbanisation is the primary driver of growth in Chinese demand for commodities such as iron ore. We often hear the mind-boggling figure that around 15 million rural Chinese are moving to cities every year. But the urbanisation rate is only slightly above 1 per cent each year. Yet, Chinese consumption of iron ore has increased by 80 per cent since 2003. China’s own economic and social planners estimate that they can reduce steel production by one third and still meet demand resulting from ongoing industrialisation and urbanisation.”

The reason for the gap?

“In the first half of 2010, a Chinese report revealed that 64.6 million urban electricity meters registered no electricity usage. This amounts to unused housing that could accommodate 200 million people. Andy Xie, the former chief economist for Asia at Morgan Stanley, crunched his own numbers and estimated that residential vacancies for commercial housing is around 30 per cent. Speak to Chinese middle class property investors and they will tell you that they buy property not to rent but to hoard as assets – in the same way one buys gold.”

Lee’s basic point is that investors are ‘hoarding’ property and that Chinas voracious demand for commodities is a result of internal policy failings and is not viable in the long term.

I’d highly recommend looking at the entire article.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that the Chinese industrialisation is powering the HUGE build up in commodity prices. This, in turn, is spurring on business investment and the extraordinary growth of the WA economy. However, it is always worth entertaining contrary views to make valid decisions. To ensure you are not caught up with the herd, ask yourself the following questions:

• What impact would a Chinese economic collapse have on your business? Your personal finances?

From expensive personal experience I’ve found it is always better to ‘measure twice and cut once’ when it comes to major financial decisions. This means, when you hear a narrative gaining traction, always look for the Jeremiah crying it is a fraud. They will generally be wrong, but it will make your decisions that much stronger.

Michael Stutchbury has an excellent article on the ‘failure’ of China. His principal argument is that Australia is failing to capitalise on the current boom, and the nation has grown complacent. We are becoming lazy in our expectations of future wealth.

Recent policy decisions at the Federal and various State levels are absolutely appalling. From the in-conceived minerals tax, poor investments ranging from the ‘education revolution’ through to the NBN, and changes in labour agreement arrangements, Australia has become a less productive place to work.

The consequence will be felt by business first (think Green to understand what I mean) but, inevitably, by households. The day of reckoning can be delayed (thank you China!) but it will happen.

#Queensland #Nurses #Nursing | For an economist, the answer is rather simple. Its stupidity to have a challenging and dangerous role that is not being appropriately compensated! Queensland health should remove all requirements for dealing with dangerous and violent patients and make it a discrete area to work in. Then they should pay wages that are sufficient to draw in suitable workers.

This may result in nurses dealing with aggressive patients being paid considerably more than other nurses – but shouldn’t they be compensated for doing more disagreeable work? The fact that a male nurse was stabbed to death looking after such a patient indicates the challenges associated with the role.

Pay them more and ensure whoever volunteers to do the work can do the work. This will involve both males and females (probably more males but not exclusively so). It may result in these nurses being paid a lot more than other nurses – but then they are doing a very difficult job.

Not differentiating pay for much harder work is stupidity.

#Queensland Health is once again mired in controversy. This time it is about whether male nurses should respond exclusively to violent patients or whether that is sexual discrimination.

The case ignited when a male nurse complained to management that he was being discriminated against when he was forced to deal with aggressive patients. It had been the formal operating procedure in many hospitals for male nurses to deal with dangerous patients rather than their female counterparts.

The state bureaucrats have attempted to stop the practice as it is against antidiscrimination laws. In December 13, Darling Downs-West Moreton Health Services District mental health executive director Shirley Wigan told staff:

”There may be instances of directions being provided around managing . . . aggressive behaviour which suggest that some managers prefer male nurses over female nurses. ‘There should not be a standing order in any facility that female nurses should not respond to aggressive patient situations. This must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

In response, a female nurse (women make up the majority of nursing staff) stated that the above memo was in breach of occupational health and safety regulations. These antidiscrimination act regulations require employers to work to ensure a safe environment and allow clear exemptions in order to do so.

The complaint read:

”The number of vicious assaults has increased due to the negligence of management and senior medical staff to provide a safe working environment.”

Don’t be mistaken. It is still dangerous for male nuses to look after dangerous patients. They just have (on average) a biological edge.

So: Is it sexism to have force male nurses to deal with dangerous patients OR is it stupidity to not have them do so?