Abbott's election raises more unanswered questions about the opposition than actually answering any existing ones! Just ask the fly on the wall!

Tony Abbott, the polarising ultra conservative worrier, the abrasive politician with a likable personality according to those who know him on a personal level, the Minister with a short span of attention for details according to those who dealt with him during his time in Government, and the ideological son of Bronwyn Bishop & John Howard according to himself is now our new opposition leader.

If Tony Abbott thinks he can justify or legitimise his 41 to 42 election by quoting an old LABOUR politician saying "One vote is a landslide", then he has already displayed his naivety as he embarks on the rough road ahead.

And a rough road ahead it will be! Simply because Abbott's election today, not only does not put an end to division in the party, it in fact polarises the Liberal Party more than ever before, with the worse possible scenario similar to what has happened to the Republican Party since the election of George Bush in 2000.

The main reason for this claim is due to the fact that Abbott's election in fact raises more unanswered questions about the opposition than actually answering any existing ones! Having said that, let's leave the political analysis to the so called media experts & political reporters, the same experts who had told us Hockey was going to win the spill comfortably!

Instead, let's imagine being a fly on the wall this morning & listening to the reaction to the news! I am sure some of the following comments were floating around today, some of which raise valid questions about the opposition & Mr Abbott & some which, in the great Australian tradition, would take the mickey out of them!

"Abbott claims he would be the ideological love child of Bronwyn Bishop & John Howard! How relevant are those to the young people in the 21st century in Australia?...and who is Bronwyn Bishop?!"

" Let's assume the opposition sends the ETS to a Senate Committee (Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister fame would have been proud because he would have done exactly the same about a policy which needed to be delayed!), the question remains: What is their policy going to be in February 2010? Are they really suggesting they will have a cohesive, credible policy by Feb 2010 i.e. in less than 2 months?"

" If Abbott claims "One vote is a landslide!", what makes him think he won't be challenged soon? Another spill, and only one vote would need to be reversed & he will be toppled!"

"Will this mean that after years of being ignored by all leaders, Bronwyn Bishop will get herself a decent hairdo before coming back to the front bench?"

"Since Abbott won the leadership by 41 to 42 votes, how strong will his leadership be & how much authority will he have? Would he have to accommodate every one of the 42 who voted for him?"

" How do the "Powers That be" in the Party propose to sell a polarising personality to the electorate when they have been claiming Malcolm Turnbull was polarising?"

"Are the "Climate Sceptics" conservative mob any better than the "former Union Officials" infested Rudd Government? probably not! Just as pig headed & self centred"

"All Abbott & Minchin have achieved today is letting Rudd look decisive & credible on climate change without having to explain his policy to the public!"

"What's the difference between the ruthless union aligned powerbrokers in the Labour Party & how they disregard & sacrifice the Party's best interest to protect their own power base, and the likes of Nick Minchin in the Liberal party!...NOTHING!"

"Doesn't Tony Abbott realise that Rudd & Labour Party will easily make him & his backers an election subject? ...as evident by the TV ads which were obviously produced earlier and went to air this afternoon?""Would Peter Costello be sad, or smirking today?"

"Will Minchin, Abbott & the rest of the conservative powerbrokers now attempt to finish off the bloodletting by getting rid of the talented moderate frontbenchers who backed Malcolm Turbull & instill more right wing climate sceptics in the shadow cabinet?"

"They would have been a lot more credible in the eyes of the public if they had a viable easier alternative like a carbon Tax and then attempted to block the ETS!"

"Will his spin doctors teach him to drop that constant annoying "Urrrr .......Ummmm.." after every 3rd word he utters?"

But the winning remark has to go an actual interview with Bob Hawke! When asked today what kind of leader will Tony Abbott make, he said..... "Temporary!"

More questions for Mr Abbott & his team later!

Spin at its lowest form: Liberal rebels opposing the ETS as a matter of "Policy"!

Where were these so called loyal Liberal Party soldiers of integrity, who are prepared to resign their "shadow" positions as a matter of "Principal stance on a policy issue", when they were actually needed in early 2007 to tell PM Howard about Work Choices?

Mr Abbott? Senator Minchin? Mr Andrews? Mr Robb? All those backbenchers who got their 15 minutes of fame in the media in the past 24 hours but still nobody knows their names or cares who they are? Why didn't any of you have the courage to stand as a matter of principal & difference in policy issues & tell the PM his Work Choices was unpopular when you were in Government?

Mr Howard was a great PM, a strong leader & resided over the most prosperous period of our nation's history. Despite his failing to sense the deep seated resentment towards Work Choices, he at least sensed the importance of Climate Change in the eyes of the public and announced the first steps towards an ETS in 2007.

But Mr Howard's legacy is in danger of being seriously tarnished simply because he failed to address the succession planning in the Party. Mr Costello & Mr Turnbull aside, there is not a single opposition personality who has either the credibility or the broad appeal to lead the Party! And even if the likes of Mr Abbott think they do have credibility, they are forgetting that they have lost most of that credibility in the last 24 hours!

Perhaps Mr Howard failed in his succession planning because in his final term he started to believe that the people of Australia wanted him to be their PM indefinitely! Or perhaps his failure arose from his fear of the moderate forces of Costello or Turnbull making the Liberal Party relevant to the 21st century issues? Or as some commentators are suggesting, should Mr Costello shoulder some blame for the current mess? Afterall, he would have been able to lead the Party with authority & kept its policy front moderate?

Therefore, whilst Mr Howard is correct in demanding rightful credit for his part (and his team''s) in leaving Mr Rudd a healthy economy as the global financial crisis started, he must also shoulder some responsibility for the mess the Liberal Party finds itself in at the moment.

Now, the myopic right wing behaviour of the conservative rebels and aapparent personal ambitions are creating a perception of an irrelevant and out of touch party which is playing lip service to the energy sector & other big business!

I am not saying this is the case! But generally voters' perception will be the reality in their minds on election day!

Like many moderate Liberal Party supporters, I do not subscribe to Kevin Rudd's policy on ETS & find both the global initiatives as well as our Government's strategy too complex & expensive.

But like many other humble voters I appreciate two clear issues:

1. Mr Turnbull's endeavour to position the Liberal Party as an active participant in the ETS debate is imperative in the sense that

a) If the Party does not actively participate in design & implementation of solutions to the apparent global warming problem, the Government & the Greens will be given a free hand in shaping the perception of the voters, in particular young voters who booted the Party out of office in 2007. And who can blame them for taking advantage of the opportunity when they find their opposition with their heads in the sand?

b) Unlike what the right wing spin wants everyone to believe, the majority of scientists who support the evidence suggesting global warming are neither right or left wing, or politically motivated for that matter. The propaganda suggesting climate change is the "new left wing religion" is at best similar to the days of Herbert Hoover & Joseph McCarthy in the USA when all left wing voices were deemed to be communists!

2. The Government is taking full political advantage of the infighting in order to hide the clear deficiencies & flaws in its ETS policy. But at least in the eyes of the public, the Government's intentions are clearly positive & proactive.

Therefore, the so called gate keepers of the Liberal Party's principals: History will judge you harshly for taking the Party to the extreme right!

Voters, on the other hand, labour,green & moderate liberal, will neither forget your treachery today towards your leader nor your unwillingless to act on a matter of great importance to them.

Rebel Nationals & Liberals risk pushing conservative politics in Australia too far to the right

Watch out the rebel Nationals & Liberals, the so called climate sceptics!

Give the moderates led by Malcolm Turnbull a chance to negotiate amendments on ETS or you will be heading to oblivion by being portrayed as a bunch of ignorant rednecks who are simply "Big Business" stooges.

It's ok to argue for your electorate & oppose the Government's policy on how to tackle it! It's ok to raise your concerns in the party room!

But don't deny the fact that Climate Change is an urgent issue which needs to be dealt with!

Even worse, don't simply deny it without presenting a viable, credible & workable alternative solution!


 By simply denying climate change, you sound like a bunch of out of touch redneck peasants who have never left their small towns in the bush before! No different to the gun carrying small town rednecks in the USA!


Keep acting with your heads in the sand & you will risk everything:

Alienate the younger more environmentally conscience voters.

• Make yourselves look like a bunch of out of touch redneck fools 
• But most importantly, you will hand deliver the Liberal Party to the arms of the religious right factions waiting to take the Party to the same dungeon that the Republican Party in the USA has been taken to. The party will be hijacked by redneck ill informed ignorant right wing! 
  

The current refugee boats debate in Australia:Is Kevin Rudd more concerned about the welfare of the refugees or his own popularity?

I will keep my post on this complex & gut wrenching subject short and simple:

I was never a supporter of Howard Government's harsh stance on refugees & the disasterous detention centres policy. Like many others, I was appalled by Howard's political exploitation of public mood at the time at the expense of desperate refugees. However, Howard was at least upfront with the public about his tough policy on boat refugees.

I am now even more appalled by PM Rudd disingenuous attempt in trying to make the problem disappear, & more importantly it seems, to protect his "teflon popularity" by shifting the refugees to Indonesia & their much harsher camps.

In my opinion, both PMs have brought shame to Australia & its proud history of compassion & fair go. However, Howard was at least upfront about his shameful policy whilst Rudd is trying to hide his in order to portray himself as a humanitarian!

Should Thomas Dux Grocer customers be told that all Thomas Dux stores are fully owned & operated by Woolworths?

In May this year, Woolworths bought Macro Wholefoods, an organic food supermarket chain of 9 stores for a repoted $30m from Brett Blundy's Retail Group, which had previously sunk millions of dollars into the stores and was happy to sell its loss making venture to Woolworths (although this was denied by co owner Pierce Cody)

As reported at the time in the financial media, Woolworths were interested in Macro stores for two primary reasons:

1. Macro had more than 100 organic private label products.



2. The acquisition of the 9 Macro stores would fast track Woolworths' entry to the high margin upmarket gourmet food market as the stores would be rebranded under the newly established "Thomas Dux Grocer" division of Woolworths. Thomas Dux was already operating and would have 11 stores in Sydney & Melbourne after the rebranding of the 9 Macro stores.

Macro wholefoods was the first large scale attempt by any food retailer in Australia to duplicate the likes of the impressive"Whole Foods Market" chain in the USA. These business models attempt to sell high quality organic and/or naturally grown fresh & packaged food products at higher margins.

Macro's business model did not manage to achieve the widespread reputation or get close to the high benchmark standrads of the "Whole Foods Market" and as mentioned earlier was rumoured to have always been a loss making venture for the astude Brett Blundy (in partnership with the founder Pierce Cody).

Woolworths have always been wary of the commercial fragility of a purely organic products based food retailing business model in Australia. Generally speaking, there is an immediate & direct negative effect on retail sales of organic food products when there is pressure on discretionary income.

Therefore the "Thomas Dux Grocer" employs a different business strategy altogether. On the official website, thomasdux.com the stores are promoted as being all about rediscovering all that is good & exciting about food, with fresh fruits, vegetables & deli products as well as speciality foods from around the globe.

The Thomas Dux format has the potential to introduce an innovative, exciting & much needed retailing format to the deprived consumers in Australia (compared to the USA), and it will most probably thrive considering that the business model has been designed & implemented by Woolworths, the most capable food retailer in Australia.

Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of the way the brand is being promoted which are rather disturbing.

Thomas Dux Grocer is being promoted to consumers as (quoted from the official website & full page ads in local papers):

"We're the local store: it's the place for people who love good food to shop every day. It's a meeting place that reflects the communities we serve. .....................Thomas Dux is about being 'just around the corner'."

The wording of the description of the business on the website, and design & wording of the advertisement in the local papers the emphasis on the "Local" aspect of the business are cunningly structured to promote the business and give the impression that Thomas Dux Grocer is like a "Small local family owned start up that is now expanding!". Not surprisingly, there is no mention of "Woolworths" in any of the promotions, on the website or (I suspect, although I am yet to inspect the stores closely) at any of the stores.

I acknowledge that not promoting or revealing the parent company is not an unusal business practice, is not necessarily a deceptive or misleading practice and in fact occurs in many industries to various degrees.

In case of the Thomas Dux stores, it is the "local, small, family feel" aspect of the promotional strategy that I take exception to.

Whilst I am sure Graham "Woolworths(!) Practices Act" & ACCC would not see any contravention of the relevant sections of the Trade Practices Act with the issue in my point, I am still of the opinion that the public must be informed when a local "Small Business" they shop at and perceive as an independent operator is in fact owned by a giant corporation with a massive market share and influence. I have also made this point about the many bottle shops and pubs that are owned by Woolworths & Coles (Westfarmers) in the past.

But none of the cases have seemed to be as belatently veiled as the Thomas Dux.

In many instances, consumers continue to support small local (& family owned) businesses even though they (at times incorrectly) perceive theses businesses as being more expensive to shop at compared to larger operators.

The Thomas Dux model & image fits both of the above. It looks like a local small business start up that is expanding, and it is more expensive than many other outlets with a similar or competing offer.

Should consumers be explicity told that in case of Thomas Dux Stores, they are dealing with Woolworths as the parent company and the full owner of the business? Your comments are welcome & encouraged.

Myer Share Offer: What is the big fuss about a bunch of tired looking stores with no staff and dismal range of stock?

(An edited version of this post was published as the "Letter of the Week" in BRW Wed 8th Oct 2009)

Can Department Stores survive without customer service? Can they be attractive to investors even though all over the world Department Stores have been consistently losing retail market share to Speciality Stores over the past 20 or odd years? And more to the point, can Myer sell its story successfully to investors by improving financial performance & bottom line by reducing staff levels in most stores? Also, how about Customer Service? Does it count for anything at all in Myer's retail strategy into the future? I guess speciality retailers must be rejoicing the opportunity that Myer is creating by not offering any service or advice in most of the departments in Myer stores.

Don't get me wrong! Myer share offer has been a great marketing exercise! Jennifer Hawkins can make any campaign interesting, whether it is about Myer or Rent A Loo! Investors will take notice and listen. Bernie Brookes and his team are doing a great job to get the attention of the investors they are after!

On a closer look (at Myer's share offer, not Jennifer Hawkins!), will Myer be a good investment in a retailing era that has seen department store business models progressively lose a substantial portion of their market share to speciality stores in most developed countries over the past 20 or odd years? And is eliminating customer service a clever medium to long term strategy for a department store business model?

Myer's CEO, Bernie Brookes and his team have been working very hard to get to the current stage of the process and get the business to at last after many years start to show some healthy profit.

But what has been the cost of achieving this? Most experienced and loyal Myer employees have either been made redundant or sacked (admittedly some were not the most productive). This of course is the classic razor gang corporate cost cutting strategy and once concluded will make the bottom line look healthier by simple accounting default, and a great way of making it look as though the business is performing much better financially due to productivity gains! Great and simple idea if the intention is to sell the business!
Go to any Myer department store and the level of service is non existent or at best as good as discount variety stores' such as Big W & K Mart' level of service.

in my unsuccessful attempt to purchase a new model iPod touch from a Myer store the other day, after having taken an eternity walking around the store to find someone to help me with my enquiry, the staff admitted to me that:
1. The entire Electronics Department (TVs, DVDs, iPods, Cameras & Computers) no longer had a single specifically allocated specialist staff member
2. Myer had not offered to train one of the other staff to at least enable them to provide basic advice on e.g. the differences between different models!
3. And then they informed me that the store did not have the new iPod and the next order would take up to 4 weeks to arrive!
4. On top of this, it was suggested to me that minimum staffing levels are making Myer stores prime shoplifting targets. I am sure shrinkage catches up with accounting results sooner than later!

I look at my most recent shopping experience in Myer and don't like what I see. Poor range of products & tired looking stores in most suburban locations, next to zero customer service and in many cases demoralised staff! I am not sure these non tangible factors are indicative of a Rosy retailing future for Myer!

But as worrying as the above is, the greedy way the financial media is hyping up the Myer share offer is even more astonishing & sickening. The media are acting as irresponsibly as they did in the few years prior to the beginning of the current financial mess. Not many commentators have made much reference to the above intangible factors I and I am sure many others, are trying to raise.
Is this the same media that cheered the listing of business models such as ABC Childcare & Babcock & Brown to no end?

RBA must not hike the official interest rates in Australia before Christmas!

RBA would surely know that lower interest rates have helped many businesses to cope with the downturn. Due to lower interest costs businesses have not had to resort to mass sackings and in turn lower than expected unemployment has kept consumer confidence high.

Start to hike interest rates at anytime in the next few months or so, and everything will crash like a house of cards. In accordance with all the hype about performance based executive pay, if RBS causes massive unemployment and dip in consumer sentiment as a result of interest rate hikes, can we demand the RBA Board to be sacked or will they resign gracefully themselves?

No matter what the indicators are showing, any hike no matter how small, in official interest rates in Australia in October (or the rest of 2009) will shatter consumer confidence, crash the badly needed Christmas trade in the retail sector, and cause a massive spike in unemployment rate.

Inflation rate is simmering below the 2-3% target and whilst retail trade figures in August were above July and higher than August 2008, retail generally is fragile.

Just try my litmus test in trade and see for yourself: Major shopping centre car parks should be full around lunchtime 7 days a week with cars queuing up for the chance to steal the odd available parking space. Go to any shopping centre and you will see this is currently not the case!

A prime example of the inflexibility of the Westminster system of Government failing the people it is designed to serve.

The inflexibility of the Westminster political system can be as harmful as the laxity of the US system!

Criticism of The shortcomings of the "lobbyist infested" USA political system is a favourite past time in here in Australia and also in Brittan.

It is correctly suggested that Presidents in the USA system of government are hostage to the the lobbying influence of political donors to their party and political campaign, as are most members of the Congress and Senate on both sides of the politics. In fact most members of the Congress and Senate vote based on the lobby pressure of their backers rather than their support or opposition to Presidents and their policy initiatives. Therefore it is quite common in the USA for members to cross the floor

The Westminster system of majority rule in the lower house on the surface does give Prime Ministers more flexibility than their US counterparts, saving the problems of getting through the Senate.

But, there is ONE major aspect of the US political system which encourages good policy initiatives and easier path to implementation, which the inflexibility of the Westminster system on the other hand prevents!

The President in the US system has the flexibility to choose his/her own Cabinet members from all walks of life without having to play the vicious "factions games" of the Westminster system. Of course I am not suggesting that the usual backroom political maneuvering does not take place in the process; because it definitely does! The negotiations in the selection process however take place on a much more broader base than just amongst the factional powerbrokers and the elected members belonging to the different factions as is the case in our system in Australia.

In the USA, the members of the Administration do not even have to be elected members of the Congress or Senate (and if they are at the time of being selected they will have to resign their parliamentary seats).

However, much more importantly, and in fact impressively, and that is the main point of my blog, they do not even necessarily have to be members of the President's own Party! Examples are the former Republican Senator William Cohen who was the Defence Secretary in Clinton's Administration from 1997 till January 2001 (When Bush was sworn in) and most recently President Obama's retention of Bush Administration's Defence Secretory William Gate in his position in the new Obama administration.

And here's my point: Our system of parliamentary majority and the requirement for all Cabinet Ministers to be an elected member of one of the two Houses of the Parliament, and the subsequent factional based selection of Cabinet members can easily prevent and or stifle policy initiatives and/or implementation.

The biggest example in my argument is the CASE FOR NOEL PEARSON to be given the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs, i.e. become the FEDERAL MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS on a permanent basis regardless of the Government in power!

As we all know, this is an impossible suggestion. Noel Pearson is not a member of any of the Parties represented in either House and even if he was he would not toe the party line and probably cross the floor all the time!

But does Noel Pearson qualify for this position? Yes

Does Noel Pearson have the track record of policy implementation in some of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia? Yes

Have successive Governments allocated and subsequently wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money and numerous policy initiatives in this area? Yes

Noel Pearson has just released his selected writings: "Up from the Mission, selected Writings", in my view a must read for all interested on practical solutions to the Aboriginal issues.

In his excellent review of the book on August 1 issue of SMH, Michael Sexton writes "Pearson identifies alcohol and drugs as the most direct causes (of the Aborigines' social plight) but singles out the underlying problem of what he calls the concept of passive welfare, the long term acceptance of government fund without expectation of the situation changing"

Pearson believes the appalling situation in education and health in Aboriginal communities can not be solved with legislation and funding alone, and requires the much harder "Behavioural Change". He stresses the importance of "Social Order" for Aboriginal communities, something that civil libertarians misunderstand in his view. His record in cape York peninsula speaks the practicality of his views, although some Aboriginal identities have accused him and his initiatives as too harsh on aboriginals.

Most significantly, Pearson believes the debate on the future of Aborigines stifled by the "tribalism of Australian politics and cultural life". No wonder he would never make it as a team player in the comp ex world of factional play in the Westminster system!

Yes Minister! A tribute to Sir Humphrey Appleby's famous quotes

This is dedicated to Sir Humphrey Appleby, and to the brilliant late Nigel Hawthorn (who won 4 Baftas in that role). Those of have seen and loved the Yes Minister and Yes Minister series are indeed fortunte to have done so.(in my case 10 times over)

The more intensely I follow politics, the more amazed I am athow well anthony Jay and Jonathan Lynn understood the ins and outs of the public service and Government.
Sir Humphrey has of course become the classic definition of the hard nosed resistant senior public servants.

In this posting, I present some of his most brilliant one liner in "Yes MInister" and some from "Yes Prime MInister". Some quotes, I have paraphrased as my recollection may be different to the actual dialogue, and names in brackets indicate who Sir Humphrey is refering to when making the particular statement:

(Prime Minister) has no business being a politician if can't ignore facts!

Prime MInister! It takes time to get things done now!

Prime Minister, in government, a clarification is not to make things clear. It's to *put* oneself in the clear!

If people don't know what you're doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong.

'The matter is under consideration' means we have lost the file. 'The matter is under active consideration' means we are trying to find the file.

Politicians must be allowed to panic. They need activity. It is their substitute for achievement.

The Prime Minister doesn't want the truth, he wants something he can tell Parliament.

The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials.

The surprising things about academics is not that they have their price, but how low that price is.

It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them!

A good political speech is not one in which you can prove that the man is telling the truth; it is one where no one else can prove he is lying.

Politicians speeches are not written for the audience to which they are delivered. Delivering the speech is merely the formality that has to be gone through in order to get the press release into the newspapers.

Ministers do not believe they exist unless they are reading about themselves in the newspapers.

Too much Civil Service work consists of circulating information that isn't relevant about subjects that don't matter to people who aren't interested!

Government is not about morality, it is about stability; keeping things going, preventing anarchy, stopping society falling to bits. Still being here tomorrow!

Government is about principles. And the principle is, never act on principle!

The first rule of politics: never believe anything until it's been officially denied.

Tell the press a story in two halves - the problem first and the solution later. Then they get a disaster story one day and triumph story the next.

If you do not want Cabinet to spend too long discussing something, make it last on the agenda before lunch

Britain should always be on the side of law and justice, so long as we don't allow it to affect our foreign policy.

Diplomacy is about surviving to the next century. Politics is about surviving until Friday afternoon.

Government is not a team. It is a loose confederation of warring tribes.

You can't put the nation's interest at risk just because of some silly sentimentality about justice.

The Foreign Office are not spineless. It takes a great deal of strength to do nothing all the time.

The Foreign Office aren't there to do things. They're there to explain why things can't be done.

We must get the Government to do what teh Unions want, since teh Government always changes its policies and Unions never do theirs!

A Local Council Mayor referring to the poor and homeless in her Borough:" How would you like to be around smelly, sweaty, drunks all day everyday Sir Humphrey?"
Sir Humphrey: "I don't! That's why I never stood for Parliament!"

Government Policy and political ideas have nothing to do with facts!

(Political) clarification is not about making yourself clear, it's about putting yourself in the clear!
____________________________________________________________

I will be posting more quotes as I come across them

Calling the Federal opposition? Is there anybody out there?

Whilst the Parliament is in recess, Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and the rest of the opposition front bench should undertake a wholesale performance appraisal and reflect on their disastrous performance in the past two months.

Whom were the clever political advisers who decided the opposition could go for a very popular Prime Minister's jugular and finish him off with a knock out punch? Brave, but naive and fool hearty!

Their poor showing and disastrous "Utegate" strategy's opportunity cost was inability to hold the Government accountable on issues which could have been genuinely embarrassing to the Government. As a result, the media, most of which is already pro government, has by now totally lost interest in the opposition and not a single point from the opposition gets any traction.

- The grocery price watch scheme, one of the major Rudd election commitments, was scrapped and the opposition got no traction in the media. This should have been a massive embarrassing back down by the Rudd government.

- The new award modernisation legislation is a clear payback to the Unions and will potentially threaten many small businesses' viability as well as jeopardise thousands of casual jobs. The opposition has not managed to highlight these points in an effective manner.

- The broadband scheme, another major election promise, is still up in the air and the opposition unable to score anything.

Calling the opposition! Is there anybody out there?

How to unlock doors to influencial contacts and make older folks take your maturity and opinion seriously after you turn 40

I was recently invited to my high school mates' 40th Birthday bash.

The following was my off the cuff RSVP response in an email to my mates. Afterwards I thought it would make a good light hearted post on my blog:

Guys,

I'd be delighted to attend. That is of course assuming that the indigestion, haemorrhoids, insomnia, stiff joints and various other minor complaints and ailments one gets once one turns 40 allow me to get out of bed on that particular Sunday morning!

Being the most senior member of the class of 86 (and arguably the wisest, simply because unlike most of our school buddies who either can't read or write properly, I only subjected myself to the permanent psychological trauma and the poor education standards that was "(name withheld) College" for a very short period!), I reached the ripe age of 40 many moons ago. I remember it vividly! The next morning I woke up with severe indigestion and realised the entire content of my birthday celebration dinner was still sitting right on top of my stomach! And that's when all the fun began to unfold!

However, I can assure you that turning 40 has potentially got many advantages too! Most importantly, your opinion and advice will at last start to be noticed by your parents and others in their generation. Remember, I said "noticed", not "accepted"!

The older generation requires "proof" of your maturity after you turn 40. This is in order for them to actually accept or seek your opinion and even act on it. To prove your "maturity" you need to achieve some kind of "older folks" medal of distinction, something that some of the other Crimea boys who have already turned 40 probably have not. I am proud to say however that I seem to have recently achieved that distinction of maturity in the eyes of my proud parents and their friends!

And, ever since they have found out about my achievement, they are so impressed that they seem to be rushing to seek my advice on everything! I am told that apparently my achievement has come at a rather young age, and hence the perception of a "young(ish) genius" in their minds.

My dear friends, as my present to you on your 40th birthday, I will share my secret achievement with you, and encourage you to do this ASAP if you want to have "Boardroom Doors" to open to your careers, and contacts to knock on your door:

Colonoscopy!

Yes! the old folks are impressed with young people who have had this done and see it as a huge sign of both "Maturity" and "Wisdom"!

They will be impressed by this, guaranteed! And they will look up to you and seek your advice in no time!

Happy Birthday Guys! See you all at the Party!

Cheers

Rick Samimi

All the debate in Canberra about the state of Australia's economy and the merits of Government's strategy means very little to the people of NSW!

Is Australia in recession even though it avoided technical recession with the 0.4% growth in the GDP in the March quarter?

Can the Government's stimulus package and other policy initiatives at least take some credit for this, the Prime Minister's uncontrollable smile suggested the other day?

Mr Rudd and his team, as well as our own Sydney politicians such as Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey seem to have no regard for the plight of the people of NSW! Questions like the above, and many others like those simply mean very little to the long suffering people of NSW!

NSW has technically, effectively, mechanically, realistically, electronically and practically (use whatever term you want) been in recession ever since Bob Carr realised it was time to leave the sinking ship and resigned!

After Bob Carr's untimely desertion, there were very few Labour politicians left in town who were prepared to take on the job as a front and simply act as a rubber stamp for the powerful deal makers in the out of control NSW Right.

Morris Iemma eventually did agree to take on the job, and so has Nathan Rees. Both Men did so because they realised the position was well beyond their natural political ability or ambition, and therefore an offer they could not refuse.

There was however a major difference between the two Premiers. Morris Iemma, having won an election on his own, and his ambitious but explosive and unpredictable Treasurer Michael Costa, decided to take on the "Powers that be" in Sussex Street and do something to save NSW (and they were banished as a result). Nathan Rees on the other hand, having witnessed the demise of Iemma and Costa, knows his position is simply too compromised to be able to do anything without his masters' approval.

There is also a distinct intellectual gap developing. Michael Costa was in his own way and relative to most other politicians in the State a revolutionary if not a visionary. He had the intellectual capacity to recognise major problems the state faced and the capability to develop policies to address them. Morris Iemma on the other hand, was supposed to compensate for Costa's lack of pragmatic negotiation skills, and confrontational and abrasive personality in dealing his old mates in Sussex Street. At the end, Iemma's over reliance on his backers and trusting personality gave the deal makers the perfect opportunity to plot and execute his (and Costa's) eventual demise, which started when they blocked the electricity privatisation, and finished with on the surface clean party room rebellion against Iemma and Costa.

The deal makers, knowing that their bloodied hands had made them unelectable then chose various paths. Some took up plum party jobs in Canberra, some took up upper house positions with an eye on the Premier's job, and some continued their back room interference. This time however, they were a lot more calculating in their choices. They killed any chance of political or intellectual rebellion by installing the novice Nathan Rees as the rubber stamp Premier and one of their own as his Treasurer. The state of public hospitals, education, transport and policing are all as poorly managed as they have during the two previous Premiers' governments.

And here we are today! Michael Costa is still the only major public figure who is prepared to raise what he sees as the problems infesting the NSW Government and Labour Party! He still does not suffer fools gladly and shows his abrasive courage in his pungent pen these days.

And as for the others? the backroom power brokers of NSW right have the State and its Premier where it suits them: on their knees. NSW opposition is taking the easy route of riding the public tide to an election victory and is therefore staying out of the way. The politicians in Canberra are obsessed with the merits of the stimulus package, how to define recession and argue about who knows the obvious facts of Economics 1.01 best! ....And the people of NSW are meanwhile dealing with this very long recession in quiet desperation.

Now you see what I mean? Whether Australia avoided recession only in technical terms or not means very little when you live in recession happy NSW and are Governed by the NSW Government.

Does Julia Gillard enjoy going dining and/or shopping?

The answer to the above question in the context of Julia Gillard's proposed changes to the industrial awards system, is most probably a big "NO"!

But let's hope and pray she does! For the sake of anyone who enjoys dining out, meeting over coffee and shopping when time permitting, let's hope her spin doctors and advisers encourage her to do so prior to introducing her highly manipulated legislation on awards and entitlements to the Lower House next week.

Because if she does enjoy shopping and strolling down the road for a quick coffee or lunch on weekends, then she would probably have some understanding of how drastically the retailing and hospitality sectors will be affected by the proposed substantial hikes in the minimum award wages, penalty rates, casual rates, shift loadings and allowances.

Introduction of this legislation will simply take Australia back to the gloomy days of not having any restaurants, cafes or other retail shops open after 5.30pm or on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. Retailers and Cafe/Restaurant owners will simply be unable to operate at a reasonable staffing and service level at the new proposed penalty rates and entitlements. In fact many may simply go out of business.

This legislation has as many debatable issues about its fairness as the Work Choices did. If Work Choices legislation was accused of "Removing Choices", then Julia Gillard's "Award Modernisation" is also ironically termed and a major backward step towards the past! Potential massive job losses amongst casual workers, and shops and cafes going out of business and/or closing after 5.30pm and on weekends and public holidays sound like anything but modernisation.

Julia Gillard's admission this weekend, as quoted in the Australian Newspaper on Saturday 30th May, that restaurants and cafes would have to be dealt with differently, has to be extended to most other retailing sectors such as retail pharmacy. The Minister was quoted in the paper as finally having intervened to help restaurants and cafes by writing to the AIRC (Australian Industrial Relations Commission) to create a new award covering the industry that would offer cheaper rates to the sector. She was also quoted in the same article as ..."specifically requesting the commission to establish a penalty rate and overtime regime that appropriately recognises the restaurant and catering industry's core trading times and the labour intensive nature of work in the industry."

There are many other retail sectors who are also subjected to the same difficult conditions such as what the Minister refers to in her statement above. These sectors must also be granted a more affordable award structure. For example, retail pharmacies are by law required to have at least one fully registered pharmacist present during all opening hours, and if located in shopping centres, which many are, to trade seven days a week. The point is that most successful small business retailers rely on their labour intensive service levels as their main competitive advantage, a point which is in fact essential in case of provision of service in community pharmacy.

Where is the fairness for small business owners? Many (eg pharmacies and hair dressing salons) will still have to rely on labour intensive business structures and will simply be forced to pay the proposed hikes in penalty rates; and stay open and operate seven days a week! Under Julia Gillard's proposals, not only their overhead costs will increase by as much as 20% in some sectors, they won't even have the option of reducing staff levels in order to try to serve their businesses as the new unfair dismissal laws since the last elections are yet to be tested in courts.

But Julia Gillard must not rely on the current unfair dismissal laws as a way of hoping that her legislation does not have the potential to cause a massive wave of unemployment. The inherent nature of the legislation has the potential to force businesses to sack their casual employees and reduce services in order to survive, and in the process disadvantage many younger voters who voted for Gillard and Rudd in the last election.

There's is of course a carefully crafted propaganda turned urban myth that is the cause of all the anxiety about the issue of awards and entitlements amongst workers and labour politicians, and here it is:

Unlike what the unions want everyone to believe, not every employee wants or needs to work Monday to Friday till 5.30pm and be at home every evening and every weekend! Not in the retailing and hospitality sectors anyway! The ACTU and various unions have cleverly and successfully made this perception the minimum benchmark standard of any IR debate! And whilst true in some cases, specially employees with families, it is simply not applicable to the majority of the younger casual workforce in the retailing and hospitality sectors.

These two sectors are the main providers of employment opportunities for many workers who due to their circumstances are considered casual employees. For example, secondary and tertiary students find their best chance of supporting themselves whilst undergoing their studies through casual employment in retail or hospitality sectors.

These employees are more than willing to work when shifts become available regardless of time or day of the week as their availability varies regularly subject to their other engagements. On top of this, the various award systems in both sectors have rigorous casual holiday and sick leave loading provisions for casual rates. Julia Gillard's proposals substantially increase the costs of employment and therefore risk many job losses amongst these casual workers.

Therefore, the opposition has every right to oppose this legislation in the Senate next week and ask Julia Gillard what she actually means by constantly stating that ".....neither employees nor employers should be disadvantaged under this legislation"......?

The good news however, and it must be acknowledged, is that both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have so far demonstrated a pragmatic approach to most of the Government's major policy debates. They are both skillful political negotiators and seem to be willing to listen to concerns of business groups.

And hence my hope, that Julia Gillard does get to spend some time dining or shopping! If she does, I'd welcome her at my store at Macquarie Centre so that I can explain the ramifications from a retailer's point of view.

Neither the Government nor the opposition seem to instill confidence

The Rudd Government's Budget ended up as vague, soft and politically palatable as any crafty political adviser would have dreamed of. That must have irritated the Opposition immensely. Therefore, the spin doctors unnecessarily caused a headache for the Government by advising Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan not to mention the "$300b".

A quick look around most OECD countries (except Germany) provides a disturbing trend. It seems that regardless of political persuasion, most parties in Government are dealing with the finanicial crisis in pretty much the same manner as the Rudd Government is, i.e. with a combination of stimulus packages, infrastructure spending, budget deficits and in some cases tax cuts. And interestingly enough, most opposition parties are screaming and calling these strategies catastrophic and claim superior political management skills! But they are not exactly uttering any numbers when they are asked about how much they would borrow in the short term to stabilise and deal with the current crisis.

Why is this a disturbing trend in my view? Because it demonstrates that neither the sitting governments nor their oppositions are confident in their respective policies in dealing with the situation. To make the matters even more muddled, neither side seems to want or in fact know how to deal with the long term negative effects of their respective and hap hazard policies either. This applies not just to Mr Rudd and his government, but also to the opposition. Otherwise Mr Turnbull and Mr Hockey would come up with properly backed figures themselves rather than pushing the $300b agenda.

Therefore, overall, in the absence of specific and credible policies and figures by the opposition, there can be little criticism of the Government's approach at the moment.

However, the opposition does have a point which merits further debate. The Government has offered very little tax relief for small to medium businesses in the short term. Mr Turnbull at least offered a tax roll back against losses program in his response speech, which Mr Rudd would be wise to take note of. Other than that, life goes on and Kevin Rudd will retain his high popularity rating and Mr Turnbull will comfortably hang on to his leadership position for teh time being.

It seems the only thing that can hurt both sides is in fact a double dissolution election. Surely the electorate would see an early election as a self indulging escape route before the storm for Mr Rudd, and would hold the opposition to task for their stubborn determination to block a popular Prime Minister who claims to have a mandate in several issues.

Will Kevin Rudd's honeymoon finally be over after the release of the May Budget?

Mr Rudd and his Treasurer should be careful! The honeymoon period of making populist gestures, rhetorical statements and giving cash handouts is over!

The May Budget will undoubtedly contain some unpleasant cuts and Mr Rudd will have to start making unpopular decisions for the first time since he came to power in Nov 2007.

Mr Rudd may have won Government at a time when the longest global economic expansion came to a sudden and shuddering halt. But, in fact it is widely noted that in many ways this has turned out to be a massive and lucky political winning ace for him! It's allowed him to get on with his social rhetoric and populist statements, give cash handouts to bribe voters, jet set around the world and enjoy the grandiosity of being a world leader (a lot more than John Howard ever did in his 11 years may I add), and at the same time to blame all the major issues he needs to deal with (and keeps postponing) on the Howard Government's policies and the global financial crisis!

So far, we have not had a Prime Minister who has proven his leadership credentials! All we've had is an astute political operator who's enjoyed a very long honeymoon and used it in the cleverest populist way possible to make his electoral position stronger. (and in the world of politics this is a commendable achievement of course).

Let's just hope Mr Rudd has not started to believe his own speeches! (as Sir Humphrey points out in Yes Minister). Because what is ahead is not as easy to deal with as making populist gestures about issues that play with the electorates' emotions but do not subsequently require substantive policy!

The May Budget will be the first and clearest gauge of the calibre of Mr Rudd's leadership and political skills in dealing with adverse situations, as well as Mr Swan's future as the Treasurer and Mr Tanner's role as the danger man lurking in his shadows waiting for the first viable opportunity to pounce!

The Government inherited a $22b surplus and due to a variety of global financial factors, as well as its own policies, is now left with a very empty pocket, just as the May Budget is due to be presented!

And this is where the key issue lies!

Mr Rudd and Mr Swan must not be allowed to get away with blaming the deficit and any unpopular decisions contained in the Budget on the global financial downturn and the severity of the recession in our major trading partners such as Japan and the USA! They must be held accountable and give a detailed explanation of what they did with the $22b surplus they inherited when they won in November 2007, and to explain how they are going to save jobs with one dimentional policies such as direct cash hand outs!

I am involved in retailing and would be the first to acknowledge that unlike what the opposition mischiefously wants us to believe, the fiscal stimulus has had a reasonable positive effect on retail sales and has managed to maintain the consumer confidence so far. As a result, retailers in Australia are so far in a much better shape than in Japan, UK or the USA. For this, Mr Rudd and his Government must be applauded and the opposition simply ignored!

However, the stimulus could have and should have covered a much wider range of potential factors such as reduction in nonsensical taxes such as Payroll tax and other redtape in order to encourage businesses to keep jobs. On top of this Julia Gillard's job destroying new award system should have been shelved or at least delayed till 2012.

I guess all we can do at this stage is to wait for the May Budget night! I wonder if the TV viewing of the reading of the Budget and subsequent commentary and interviews on the night manages to break all previous rating records on Australian TV!!!

Well, when you think about the perilous position of the immediate economic well being of Australia and the real possibility of 7-8% unemployment in the near future, you'd think it should be the highest TV rating night of all time! :)