Canberra Bureaucrat

Drugonomics

2009-04-11T21:53:00.002+10:00

Apparently police feel they are winning the drug war in Canberra (http://the-riotact.com/?p=11633).

Drugonomics 101: reduce supply and price goes up. Price goes up, and
a) users have to find extra money (e.g. buy less food, more burglaries, etc)
b) buyers are more willing to purchase alternatives (legal and not so legal). Sales volumes and prices for those then go up.
c) with high prices, there are better margins for dealers and other nefarious characters much worse than the druggies themselves. So we get more dealers attracted to the market.

I suspect drug enforcement and supply reduction will therefore increase the impact on us all (i.e. a larger ‘externality’). I’m sure studies have been done on it, but for them I have not searched.
Prohibition and vigorous drug law enforcement are a waste of tax payers money. There are better ways to change druggies’ behaviour that would cost us all less $ and harm in the end.

A possible solution is have some discretion in drug law enforcement. Police do currently exercise discretion with many laws, so I’m sure laws could be designed to give the right sort of discretion (I’m no expert of course). Wikipedia has a stub on the concept - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement

Political reality is that (now at least) the people wouldn’t accept ’soft’ solutions to drug use, so a pragmatic approach may be better than hard enforcement. This probably goes on a fair bit in reality anyway.

(this is an edited version of my comments on RiotACT)

"Government created the recession"

2009-03-05T21:08:00.002+11:00

Alan Kohler has found the bad guys:

In other words, and to sum up: the December quarter recession was, in fact, the
government’s fault and was all a statistical discrepancy anyway.

Essentially he is saying that the numbers are so close that you can't actually know whether the economy contracted or not, and in any case it was spending by the public sector that reduced (whereas household and private sector spending was up).

I would be interested to know which level of government was most responsible...

Press freedom, and Australia's Right to Know

2009-02-15T14:29:00.005+11:00

The argument for press freedom in a functional democracy is well put here.

These quotes from the article capture the argument reasonably well:

"The media remains our primary source of information about decisions that
politicians make on our behalf, how governments spend our taxes and how courts
operate and deliver us justice."

"Without journalists, there would be plenty of information, as there is
now. Governments, big business and political organisations would continue to
churn out their press releases, putting most of it on the web for all to see,
but there's the rub. When organisations self-publish, they release only what
they want you to see. A democracy requires that someone independent can
challenge that information to test that it's right, find the missing bits,
unearth the things they're hiding, tell everyone what's really going on. If the
media doesn't shine a bright light on those dark corners where corruption and
wrongdoing might otherwise fester, who will?"

It rightly points out some of the challenges for public servants, but doesn't examine the rationale for government secrecy in any detail. This would be illuminating as there are good reasons for it, and perhaps valid criticisms of shortcomings that could be improved.

Package passes, with tables turned

2009-02-13T15:15:00.003+11:00

The stimulus package has passed the Senate. Listening to the live broadcast of the Senate debate yesterday, I was transported back to a previous Government and WorkChoices debate. Yesterday the then Government, now opposition (and 'cross-benchers') were protesting, claiming contempt for the parliamentary process and suggesting a Government filibuster over the stimulus package.

The tables have turned - back then then Government, now opposition, used their Senate control to have their way with WorkChoices. Ahhh politics.

Evidence based policy?

2009-02-11T14:44:00.002+11:00

The Productivity Commission Chairman comments on Evidence based policy, and the lack thereof in some cases. The link gives you a summary by Australian Policy Online.

Rural Australia a failed state?

2008-09-19T20:19:00.003+10:00

A recent report by "remoteFOCUS" concludes there is "clear evidence that there is a 'failed state' at the heart of our nation". Harsh words, and perhaps they are true.

The reports suggestion of government policy failure raises a fraught question of what we, the nation, should do about such situations. Is the public role limited to just helping communities access the inherent economic value of a region? Perhaps the public should support communities or culture fundamental to the national character (regardless of economic value)?

We need some such principle for our government to act on, as we can't fix every problem with a limited public purse. Either of these principles above, not to mention other possible options, would have major implications for public policy that need public debate.

Rising Cost of Childcare

2008-07-25T21:53:00.008+10:00

Childcare has been near the top of the consumer price index in Australia for many years. A study out this week examines the link between childcare costs, government subsidies and female labour supply.

With price rising so dramatically, one has to ask why and what our government can do about it. The study notes that "the real cost of child care is likely to continue to grow...mostly due to increases in salaries in the child-care industry", and "the current strategy of increasing government subsidies while failing to investigate the factors generating the need for increased subsidies is an imprudent use of public funds."

Childcare has become a necessity for our modern economy, and most would warmly welcome increased salaries for those who look after their children daily. But someone has to pay for it. If we don't pay from our taxes, those who could afford it would pay at the daycare centre. Those who couldn't would miss out. Is that what we want?

Climate Change and Economists

2008-07-18T21:42:00.002+10:00

Clearly climate change is a significant economic issue. Recent policy debate such as that surrounding the Garnaut report has had much input from economists, some critical and citing uncertainties, the need for cost estimation, and various technical economic challenges.

While such valid concerns need to be considered, we must remember that economics is "just one input" into climate change policy consideration (to paraphrase Rudd). On this diabolical policy challenge, we can't let uncertainty and difficulty be a reason to delay. Nor can we let one way of thinking and seeing the world (economics), constrain our options.

Biofuels cause 75% of food price rise

2008-07-07T21:55:00.002+10:00

Are you surprised? We are reminded regularly that recent food price rises are caused by a multitude of factors. This complexity is used by many to highlight that their pet cause is/is not behind the price rises (a skeptic might say).

Now Reuters cite a confidential World Bank report that biofuels (and by implication biofuel policies) are largely to blame. Thus the decision by G8 leaders to increase food aid today would appear to be paying a second time for their biofuels policy.

With such globalised food markets we need an international approach. Only then can action by one nation make global sense and benefit all concerned.

Diabolical Policy Challenge: Garnaut Climate Change report

2008-07-04T21:36:00.003+10:00

The tension was building this week with the imminent release of the Climate Change report by Ross Garnaut today.

Although Garnaut urges rapid implementation of an Emissions Trading Scheme, apparently half the country doesn't know what that is. This is alarming, given the common view that public support for climate change measures will be a major challenge. Polls show that the public understand that there will be impacts such as price rises, but flinched when they realised this also meant fuel.

This is a major political and policy challenge. The policy grindstone is in full swing, but the political selling has been minimal. Some media activity a week before the reports release is hardly enough to convince the public. A longer term political assault is needed, but who is selling the vision to the nation?

Captain Chaos and the 28 year olds

2008-06-27T19:57:00.006+10:00

They say that Captain Chaos and the 28 year olds are in charge of the country. To be more precise, The Australian suggests that the PMs two young advisers (28 years old) are having undue influence on running of the country.

This raises the perennial question of the accountability of ministerial advisers. It is often said they aren't accountable for their actions, but in a major corporation is the CEO's executive assistant accountable for the CEO's decisions? In reality the CEO (or by analogy minister) is accountable for their action, and they take the advice of staff at their own risk.

A critical issue is transparency. We need to be able to see the influence that ministerial advisers have on public policy. The Australian has provided a view of ministerial staff (and the PM) and holds them to account for the way they are running the country. However this was just a once-off ambush by a bunch of journalists, and it won't be so easy next time. We need something more reliable than this.

Policy Implications of Facebook

2008-05-23T20:38:00.011+10:00

Given the excitement about facebook, myspace etc, one might think it will change our way of life. Think about how things have changed since email became common place in the 90's. The social networking sites may change our social interactions, but are there public policy issues?

The Australian Communications and Media Authority have turned their minds to just that question in their paper on trends in communication (pages 15-16). They identify issues of data ownership (who owns my facebook site?), privacy (of course) and even suggest emergency services notifications by social networking sites.

But is there anything fundamentally new about these issues? Social neworking sites are a new way to do an old thing (i.e. a new process [facebook] to achieve the same outcome [electronic communication]). The challenging policy issues will be those we cannot predict, and will probably come from doing new things rather than new ways to do old things.

For now, facebook is just a neat way to do an old trick.

Food for Fuel

2008-04-26T21:58:00.012+10:00

It seemed like a good idea at the time. What could be greener than fuel made from farm leftovers? Global food prices are now spiralling and the blame is aimed at biofuel. The risks are hard to ignore - the threat of major political instability and environmental damage in an interconnected world.

Depending on who you talk to, there are different causes, including increasing demand - more people, more people eating meat (that eats grain) and of course biofuel. A variety of supply factors are cited - drought and weather patterns in major grain producing areas (e.g. Australia), declining grain stocks globally, rising costs of farming inputs (fertilisers, fuel, labour etc), and financial market "speculators" (who we love to hate). This week on the BBC, Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz cited evidence that demand for biofuel is the major factor (based on comparison with past price spikes). And he is not the only one suggesting this.

Demand on food reserves for biofuel has significant policy implications. Fundamentally, food and energy security should be disentangled. If this policy goal is agreed, it can and must be achieved is various ways. Numerous examples come to mind: create disincentives for using staple crops in biofuel (e.g. remove subsidies) and create incentives to use non-food materials. Productive agricultural land shouldn't be used for biofuel production (but otherwise non-productive land should). There should be priority investment in research in energy technologies that will avoid the need for food crops going into our fuel tank (biofuels are but one of many solutions to our energy requirements).

It seems simple, but we didn't talk much about the destination when we began the biofuel journey.

Links: IFPRI, Farm Policy, ABC, The Australian

2020 Vision

2008-04-04T21:28:00.006+11:00

A thousand people developing long term policy options (2020)? It is easy to caricature as a talkfest, and hard to imagine useful outcomes. However in practical terms it wouldn't be that hard to get useful policy input (ten groups of one hundred people could be managed fairly easily).

Jenny Lewis is more concerned that they don't have the 'normal' (unknown) people, though I have comfort that those with useful ideas are those who are known. Obtaining broad input into long term policy issues is always a good idea, but I will be surprised if new ideas emerge (even with Jenny's useful suggestions to tackle the wild ideas). Don't get me wrong, they should still have a crack at it. But these issues get reviewed time and time again, and there must be a mind boggling thicket of recommendations, if only you knew where to look.

Some new ideas may arise, but the summit's real value may be as a mini-snapshot on the nations thinking. If an overarching 'people's policy' emerges from this exercise, who could really complain?

Sorry, bipartisan policy in progress...

2008-02-16T21:24:00.006+11:00

The traffic ground to a halt as hordes travelled to the Parliamentary triangle for the apology to the Stolen Generation. It was History in the making, as they say. PM Kevin Rudd ranged from the emotional to the practical. A recognition of the past, a look to the future. And he concluded with his policy wonk hat firmly on, detailing specific, practical and bipartisan initiatives.

His "kind of war cabinet" - the joint policy commission - will be one to watch. It is great policy: political point scoring could retard progress on this issue, and a joint commission could allow forging of sensible policies both sides of politics could live with. But is it good politics? If it is good politics (for Rudd) it won't work, as it won't be bipartisan and divisive political brawling will ensue. See that not even a week has passed and opposition leader Brendan Nelson is coming under fire for being co-opted into the governments agenda.

There is so much that could be done on the policy front, but the key will be ensuring the joint commission has political points in it for both sides. If any one party wins or loses politically, the whole thing will crumble to dust and the apology will have failed indigenous Australians.

Environmental Stewardship - Don't Just Do It!

2008-02-08T20:06:00.000+11:00

The Natural Heritage Trust is a widely popular program in Australia, and has been a significant way for rural communities to manage and improve their local environment. However it has copped continued flack from the national audit office for not properly measuring performance (see also ABC Rural News).

An interesing point not made in media coverage was the challenging arrangements between national and state governments and the numerous regional bodies involved. The governance arrangements were characterised as "complex and challenging" (what a surprise!) - for example Commonwealth funding being forwarded to the state government, then being approved by that government and a separate committee. One wonders how many layers are really needed.

A dose of Kevin Rudd Federalism might help here to reduce some overlap to get more funding where it is needed - literally to the grass roots. We cannot afford inefficiencies, this program is a major element of rural environmental stewardship in Australia. Primary producers, rural communities and the environment shouldn't be short changed.

Public accountability, Mick Keelty style

2008-02-03T13:53:00.001+11:00

Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty hasn't had much luck with his suggestion to restrict press coverage of terrorism cases. And rightly so. There was the flat rejection by the Prime Minister, and the response from others citing preservation of freedoms and the public interest.

But there was little talk about why we have these freedoms. In this case, a cynic might say that a media blackout would be convenient for the AFP. However press freedom is the main way our government is held to account. The increasing public overload of information and professional publicity machines makes this even more important. Public agencies, especially law enforcement agencies, should not escape this public accountability except in the most necessary situations.

We need to remind Mick, and ourselves, that the inconvenience of public accountability is the pre-condition for being in charge of maintaing public order and security, not to mention use of a pile of taxpayers cash. It is the price we pay to know our interests are being served.

Crikey Kevin, the cost of houses

2008-01-25T16:20:00.001+11:00

Dear Kevin

It is fair to sat that I am not an economist. But the Productivity Commission has a few, and in 2004 they gave their diagnosis on housing affordability, saying that declining affordability in Australia was a result of:

increasingly easy access to cheap finance
slow market response to increased demand
investors who expect never-ending capital gains
taxation incentive structures

They felt public policy measures were required to improve affordability, yet apparently we now have the world's least affordable housing.

Whatever your predecessor did, does not appear to have worked. Instead do we need more direct subsidies to home buyers (perhaps less)? Do we need to fix structural problems (e.g. tax incentives, supply constraints)? Or just focus on reducing social ills from declining affordability? Perhaps the 'credit crunch' will make this question purely academic, and we will see housing prices 'adjust' to become more affordable.

Where to from here Mr Rudd?

The New Agriculture

2007-12-07T21:26:00.000+11:00

Our new agriculture minister is rather suburban. Tony Bourke MP is the member for Watson, a seat in suburban Sydney. He is no doubt a worthy and capable bloke, with a presumably successful background in small business. There is an interesting symbolism in this choice of minister: Australia is increasingly urban, but perceives itself nested in the rural outback.

Presumably to head-off concerns about a city lad in the agriculture portfolio, Mr Bourke has been bathing in the aromas of the land. At a recent visit to a feedlot in Glenn Innes (NSW) he indicated his approach has been "to spend as much time as I can actually out there talking face to face with stakeholders and farmers themselves".

It will be interesting to see whether urban or Left-Labour values influence future agricultural policy. Particularly interesting will be international trends such as concerns about biotechnology, the rise of organic food and marketing of "food miles". In my mind these are driven by the morals of a comfortable urban society. And should we expect a returned focus to multilateral trading (i.e. WTO) rather than the bilateral trade deals common in recent times? We should probably also read the greens agricultural policy, given their increasing influence after the last election.