July 29, 2009 | Graham

More pressure in the housing bubble



RBA Governor Glen Stevens was widely quoted as warning of a housing “bubble” if we didn’t use the current period of low interest rates to increase housing supply. The word “bubble” appears to be a journalistic embellishment. What he said was:

“Given the circumstances – the economy moving to a position of less than full employment, with labour shortages lessening and reduced pressure on prices for raw material inputs – this ought to be the time when we can add to the dwelling stock without a major run‑up in prices. If we fail to do that – if all we end up with is higher prices and not many more dwellings – then it will be very disappointing, indeed quite disturbing. Not only would it confirm that there are serious supply-side impediments to producing one of the things that previous generations of Australians have taken for granted, namely affordable shelter, it would also pose elevated risks of problems of over‑leverage and asset price deflation down the track.”

The most amazing thing about this statement is that he doesn’t identify the current situation as it is now as being a “bubble”.
He might also have been more definite with his comment that there are serious “supply-side impediments”. Coincidentally with his speech the Queensland government was releasing its SEQ 2009-2031 Regional Plan. The plan sees the need for another 754,000 dwellings in the next 22 years, with half of these to be in-fill or redevelopment.
As anyone who has been in the urban consolidation development market knows, there just aren’t that many sites at an affordable price in existing areas. And there won’t be, because apart from the increasingly rare one-into-two propositions, the cost of buying just an average block of land with a house on it in an appropriately zoned area only to move or demolish the house is prohibitive.
So, while the RBA Governor wasvigorously hand-waving, at least one state government was taking no notice and doing its best to increase the cost and limit the supply of dwellings to help create what any journalist would call a “bubble”.



Posted by Graham at 1:01 pm | Comments (4) |
Filed under: Economics

July 25, 2009 | Ronda Jambe

My digital craft



It’s the weekend! What could be sweeter than two days at home, after five in the office? I’ve never felt good about being enclosed in an office, with no reason to leave my desktop other than for tea and toilet. Even a benign, friendly, non-challenging culture with good kitchen facilities doesn’t set me at ease. Probably most people would prefer a work place more like Google’s, with massage on demand and outdoor couches. But then we aren’t all creaative workers, and the business of government (which includes the governance of business) has to get done by somebody.
But today is playtime, and like any predictable bus driver, my brief holiday is spent with the very technologies that drive me to distraction during the week. More writing, more computers, but also more fun.
No that I don’t enjoy the camraderie and even the gravitas of public sector work. Today’s public sector workplace is more like the private sector than previously, another dimension of convergence. There is much more relaxed interplay with the private sector and other agencies. This surely has to be a sign of maturity, a word I keep putting forward for public communications. And creative people are always close at hand. They just don’t shout about it. I know of one youngish person who is off shortly to LA to get a pilot produced. But there is still much conservatism: imagine rejecting my suggestion to redo the agency web site as a series of haiku? It could have concrete background music and no external links. Wouldn’t that be a pleasant change?
As I mouse around with Photoshop, I muse on the strong differences that still remain between the public and private sectors. These probably revolve around public accountability. When I play around with collage and colour, it matters to no one.
collage old.jpg
As a private citizen or a small business, I can make, sell, trade, invest or go broke. This applies as much to insurance as to art. The aggregate is what matters, not sole companies much less home based businesses or hobbists.
But in the public sector process matters, due diligence and those public sector values that are much more than the bookmarks they are printed onto. Last week I had to sit through a tenancy hearing, where a hard-drinking old codger was being taken to task for public housing lease violations. It was boring and ultimately trivial. What made it worth watching was the decency and respect everyone accorded to each other. Only the codger was a bit rude. But isn’t that the point of good government, that it demonstrates lese majeste to its subjects? I would much rather see time and money spread to manage such people comfortably than hear they had been found dead and homeless in an alleyway. Good government is expensive, bad government is unaffordable. My mantra still.
When the complexities of the policies, the technologies, and the organisational relationship become almost overwhelming, I remind myself that this is not New Jersey, where 40 have been arrested for corruption. (The Sopranos was the sanitised version.) Australia still has a running leap on the possibility of meeting the times to come.
But it will take more than good manners and creative public servants to get us there. In the private sector, big mistakes are quarrantined to those who made them and their investors. For governments and the public servants that advise them, the stakes can be much bigger. When does short term risk averse (ie, immediate revenues) become long term recklessness?
One big decision that could well affect most of us came to my attention through the ever marvellous publicly funded Four Corners. NSW has given BHP and Chinese company Shenhua coal exploration rights under the Liverpool Plains. This very fertile and nearly drought proof area sits above a huge aquifer that feeds the Murray Darling. Even solid Country Party voters are turning to the Greens to stop the even possible contamination of this doubly precious resource: food and water. It doesn’t get anymore basic than that. What will happen?
This weekend I will make time to send off some letters to Ministers on this matter. I hope I am just part on an aggregate on this, and that the collective will be wise. I will hold governments accountable. Meanwhile, I practice my digital craft. Can’t sew, can’t knit, but I can find the right size brush with the right level of opacity to clean up an old collage. Still learning. Time to get out, enjoy the beautiful weather, think about the modern public service and the quiet creative types who can make it sing.
guitar man drawing.jpg



Posted by Ronda Jambe at 10:56 am | Comments Off on My digital craft |
Filed under: Arts

July 18, 2009 | Ronda Jambe

Your benefits may not be so well-defined



The letter came in last week, and already seems to have been swallowed in the paper clutter. So I can only paraphrase (which is surely better than mis-quoting.) They were writing about the Defined Benefits scheme, and its sustainability. Some figures about what their actuaries said, some percentages and some comforting words about not cutting back unless it was absolutely necessary….But the bottom line was that some clause in the Trustee Act or whatever had been triggered, and that Defined Benefits were not, well, quite so secure anymore. Less well-defined is my take.
Since this came from Unisuper, a large and well-respected industry fund, it set off alarm bells in my small head. My brain has been wired for such news since co-authoring a book on the ageing society around the time Nick Leeson brought down the esteemed Barings Bank, taking many superannuants with him. At that time I wrote about super as too tempting a cherry not to be vulnerable to criminal activity.
Little did I suspect that legal activity was much more dangerous. As I write this today, Geraldine Doogue is discussing financial advisors on the ABC’s Saturday Extra. This has been a much-chewed topic, but the analysis of risk that is critical to good investment rarely goes beyond the financial markets.
The reality is that the base of the financial market is itself shaky: unsustainability is no longer just a catch-cry, it is our way of life. Almost nothing in our economy is capable of continuing much longer without severe re-orienting. Nicholas Stern authored of the Stern report on the economic consequences of climate change a few years ago,. Since then, there have been only small indicators that a shift is occurring in mitigating climate change. Stern is now touting low carbon growth as the way forward (never around, or past, always forward, but more about that prepositional bias later).
Low carbon growth will indeed be our future, and any decent advisor or industry fund should get on their bikes and find it, quick. My income isn’t much dependent on super, but yours may be. And governments need to show the way by tilting the policy pin-ball table (remember the fun?) in that direction.
In macroeconomic terms this means General Motors should be retooling for public transport infrastructure, rather than rekindling the phony dream of a car for every citizen as a God-given right. Fetching the frosty papers this morning I saw four cars huddling for warmth in our next door neightbor’s yard. It also means urban consolidation with forethought (as important as foreplay, but less common) so that social needs are met along with housing needs. Low carbon growth means services instead of products, a softening of the individual ownership mantra, and the reinvention of local food and goods.
For at least 20 years, and not just because I was a single parent who couldn’t afford a lawn mower or its maintenance, I have wondered why I need my own vacuum cleaner, washing machine, step ladder, etc. I don’t want to own, store or maintain these items.
This shared bulk goods approach has logically taken hold with cars. In Melbourne last weekend, our friends pointed out the car you can hire by the hour, day, or week. You need to join, and then you get benefits. Somebody is making money from this. This is the same approach I’ve been advocating for a Canberra climate change community group: get with the green economy. Dustin Hoffman in the Graduate was simply told ‘plastics’ for his future and for better or worse many young men took that advice in the 1960s. Now the good advice might be: Go Green, young folk, go Green!
Low carbon growth is still growth, and somewhere that too might be reconsidered. According to philosopher John Gray, the expectations for growth, whether material or spiritual, come from much deeper sources. Our actions and beliefs generally can be traced back to some very grand and influential concepts. Yes, religion. Marx was probably right in calling it the opium of the masses, but even he fell under the influence that Christian redemption beliefs have exerted on the Western world for milennia.
We can be saved, and a better world awaits. If necessary, we will bomb the bejesus out of them until they realise we know the shining path, la Via Sendosa. Those who don’t agree won’t get saved, so sign up quick. And we will bring you paradise in the form of liberal democracy, social harmony, and yes, endless defined benefits. This is the way forward, the moving forward, the forward direction we all love to hear from our politicians and our priests. All fantasies, of course, but maybe we willingly suspend disbelief. For those with an appetite for realist philosophy, read John Gray’s books, particularly Black Mass. You will see how hard it is to step outside the hope for progress.
World events, however, are making it ever easier to be pessimistic. But before we can redirect the ship of dreams from forward into becalmed evolution, we need to reject violence. Does anyone know how much of the global economy is underpinned by weaponry-driven investment, employment, research, and deployment? Those benefits are defined, but only in the negative. This is more important to track than debt per se.
Enough, enjoy your weekend. Last night I enjoyed the very violent movie The Escapist, and today we are going to the coast to watch the bush fire people do a controlled burn off on our property. There should be big flames and great heat. Yes!



Posted by Ronda Jambe at 7:30 am | Comments Off on Your benefits may not be so well-defined |
Filed under: Economics

July 17, 2009 | Graham

Open interview with Paul Ramadge and The Age



Dear Paul,

Yesterday you published an article by Richard Baker about our decision not to
run an article submitted to us by Lee Rhiannon, a Greens MLC from NSW. The clear
implication of your article was that the decision was motivated by political
bias. This open interview is designed to give you an opportunity to put The
Age’s
view of the story and matters surrounding it.

Before responding I suggest that you read not only Baker’s articles from

the 16th
and

the 15th
(this version on the SMH as missing from the Age), but the blog posts that I have made on the issue which you
can read

here
,

here
and

here
. You should also read the article that was submitted to us and which
appears to have been published in its entirety

here
on New Matilda.

As with the interview I did with Lee Rhiannon, I will pose the questions
below and post your responses as soon as I can after I receive them from you. I
think it would be reasonable to give you until midday Monday July 20, given the
time at which I have posted here and the length to which the questions run.

  1. After having read The Age’s articles and our three blog posts, do
    you, as the Editor-in-Chief of The Age believe that the board of The National Forum and the
    editors of On Line Opinion made a biased decision not to publish Lee
    Rhiannon’s article?
  2. What percentage of the article of the 15th was not primarily sourced from Lee Rhiannon’s
    piece or this

    2007 Age piece
    ?
  3. How is it acceptable to call the recycling of 2 year old news and a
    political party’s extended media release "investigative journalism"?
  4. Will the

    soon to be launched Fairfax The National Times
     be a
    direct competitor to On Line Opinion?
  5. Why would The Age promote publication of information
    provided to it on a website belonging to another media organisation?
  6. I note that many of the details in the full Rhiannon piece were omitted
    from The Age’s coverage of the 15th. Why?
  7. I understand from emails to us that The Age had its lawyers
    examine the story published on the 15th. What was their advice?
  8. The report of the 16th claims that the Rhiannon article was "Pulled shortly before
    publication yesterday". This is not true, it was never accepted for publication
    and the authors were informed at 1:45 p.m. the day before the proposed day of
    publication i.e. "the day before yesterday". What documentary evidence do you
    have to support your claim?
  9. The report of the 16th claims "The editor of On Line Opinion, Susan Prior, had
    agreed to post the article by NSW Greens MP Lee Rhiannon and academic Norman
    Thompson yesterday morning". What documentary evidence do you have to support
    this claim?
  10. The report of the 16th claims "The National Forum’s board is headed by…Graham Young…".
    What
    evidence do you have to support this claim?
  11. Your reporter was told in the one telephone conversation that I had with
    him that Nicholas Gruen was the chairman of The National Forum’s board and
    that he was heading a federal government inquiry into government and the use
    of Web 2.0. How do you explain why this was not reported by your journalist?
  12. The article of the 16th carries this quote:

    "Failing to publish this article keeps
    the lid on an unflattering story about how Malcolm Turnbull conducts his
    fund-raising affairs," [Lee Rhiannon] said. "If our article was rejected on the basis
    it was poor quality I welcome that feedback. If On Line Opinion pulled the
    article because it doesn’t suit a particular political agenda, this is very
    worrying for media freedom in Australia."

    What is your explanation as to why these allegations were never put to me?
    How do you explain why the piece does not mention that Lee Rhiannon was the
    source of most of the information in the article but allows the reader to
    believe she is reacting to information that has just been revealed to her?

  13. The report of the 16th describes me as "former
    Queensland Liberal Party campaign chairman" . How do you justify this description
    as fair and accurate given that I was expelled last year by the Queensland
    Liberal Party because my journalism was frequently critical of aspects of
    their behaviour and that I am a well-recognised political commentator and
    pollster?
  14. The report of the 16th describes Greg Barns as "former Liberal adviser".
    How do you justify this description
    as fair and accurate
    given that Greg Barns was disendorsed by the Liberal Party as a candidates
    and subsequently joined the Australian Democrats and is a frequent critic of
    the Liberal Party?
  15. In its fourth paragraph the report  of the 16th mentions Greg Barns
    and me as members of the board and describes our past political leanings. It
    is only in the fourth last paragraph that it mentions other board
    members and neglects to mention any political leanings they might have.
    Please explain why this is not misleading.
  16. In its fifth paragraph the report says "On Line Opinion’s
    editorial advisory panel includes Mr Turnbull’s wife, Lucy Turnbull, former
    Queensland Liberal MP Kathy Sullivan and conservative former ABC chairwoman
    Dame Leonie Kramer." Why does the report neglect to mention the other
    members of the Editorial Advisory Panel, including Chair Brian Johns whose
    political leanings would be expected to be quite different to those cited?
    Please explain why omitting these details is not misleading.
  17. I note that the Chairman of Fairfax is a former treasurer of the
    Australian Liberal Party. Please explain why it is improper to have someone
    with a political association as a member of a board of a media organisation.
    How could you regard it as fair to impute political motives to a media
    organisation’s coverage on the basis of the political associations of one or
    more board members?
  18. How many of your journalists have been members of political parties? In
    the interests of transparency would you be prepared to require them to
    reveal any associations and list them and their past affiliations on The
    Age’s
    website? If not, please explain why political associations are
    significant when your journalists are reporting on the activities of rival
    media organisations.
  19. Will you publish corrections to the errors in the article of the 16th in
    The Age, giving them similar prominence to the original article?

I look forward to your response.

 

Regards,

 

Graham Young
Founder and Chief Editor
On Line Opinion

 



Posted by Graham at 4:26 pm | Comments (6) |
Filed under: Uncategorized

July 17, 2009 | Graham

Nothing but due process and due diligence here Lee



Taking the combination of Lee Rhiannon’s answers and non-answers together, I
think I am entitled to infer bad faith on her part.

Here we have an author who has been published 13 times by us and only once
rejected, yet when she has a concern of political bias, particularly with me,
raises it first not with us, but with another media organisation without making
any attempt to contact me.

Here we have an author who misrepresents what an editor has said to her, even
though she must know that there are emails in existence which disprove her
claims.

Here we have an author who claims to be good at research yet appears to be
unable to understand a simple company structure and then seriously misrepresents
the background of two board members.

Here we have an author who accepts the right of some media organisations to
reject her work, but not others.

In fact, the whole episode appears to have been an exercise from the start in
gratuitously trying to involve Lucy Turnbull in her husband’s affairs. Whether
we had published the article or not, Lucy seems bound to have been pulled into
the field of play.

So let’s start at the top. There was no political interference in On Line
Opinion’s decision not to publish Lee’s article. Neither Lucy Turnbull nor Kathy
Sullivan was consulted. They are members of our Editorial Advisory Board. It is
a strategic body only. Its members are far too busy to run day to day issues
past them of whether or not to publish specific articles.

The full list of the membership is


July 16, 2009 | Graham

Open interview with Lee Rhiannon



Dear Lee,
I read with interest your comments in this morning’s Age and thought the best way to deal with them was as openly and transparently as possible, especially as the sub-text of today’s article was that On Line Opinion was being less than open and transparent.
The way I intend to conduct this interview is to post a series of questions here. I’ll expect you to email the answer back to me and I will post your answers under the questions. I’m sure you wouldn’t wish any damage to OLO (which has published you and your co-author Norman Thompson a total of 14 times, and never, that we can see, ever rejected an article by either of you before) to be unnecessarily prolonged so would appreciate your response by close of business this evening.

  1. In the article you are quoted as saying:

    Failing to publish this article keeps the lid on an unflattering story about how Malcolm Turnbull conducts his fund-raising affairs,” she said. “If our article was rejected on the basis it was poor quality I welcome that feedback. If On Line Opinion pulled the article because it doesn’t suit a particular political agenda, this is very worrying for media freedom in Australia.

    Have you been accurately quoted, is it in context and does it fairly represent your views?

  2. LR: Yes. It is disappointing that in this online interview you fail to answer the central question – why did the board reject the article after your editor initially accepted it? The email from your editor to my co-author Dr Norman Thompson said:
    “I sent this to the board of OLO for final approval and it has just been decided that we will not be going ahead with it.”
    Can you please explain if there is any connection between this decision and the composition of the National Forum, which includes:
    Yourself – former Queensland Liberal Party campaign chairmen
    Former Liberal adviser Greg Barns
    Lucy Turnbull, wife of Mr Turnbull
    Former Queensland Liberal MP Kathy Sullivan?

  3. Is our recollection correct, that you and Norman have only been rejected once from 15 articles? If not, please correct the record. Please tell us how this compares with your success/rejection ratio from other pulbications.
  4. LR: Yes. Of course our articles have been occasionally rejected by outlets, for example by the opinion pages of the Sydney Morning Herald. But in respect of other online outfits, like New Matilda, our publication rate is extremely high.

  5. When you came to us with the story part of your pitch was that The Age intended to run with the story. It has now formed the basis of three newspaper stories – two in The Age and one in the Sydney Morning Herald. The document you sent us was also published yesterday on New Matilda. How can it be said that our refusal to publish “keeps the lid on an unflattering story”.
  6. LR: Not everyone reads the major newspapers. It was published in New Matilda after On Line Opinion rejected it.

  7. You are quoted as saying “If our article was rejected on the basis it was poor quality I welcome that feedback…” My telephone number is 07 32521470, I can be reached by email at editor@onlineopinion.com.au and someone even managed to get my mobile phone number from the Internet the other day. If you “welcome” the feedback why haven’t you picked-up the phone or sent me an email?
  8. LR :We were given various reasons by your editor for why the article was rejected: the board was worried by potential legal threats by Mr Turnbull and the board believed the Wentworth Forum was doing nothing illegal and therefore the article was a non-story (even though both the Age and SMH ran it as a page 1 story). Now your blog says the article was rejected because ‘this was not an op-ed piece’ when it clearly is.

  9. You also are quoted as saying “If On Line Opinion pulled the article because it doesn’t suit a particular political agenda, this is very worrying for media freedom in Australia.” That’s a big “if”. As you haven’t spoken to me, or Susan (our editor) or any of our board members about this, what tangible information is available to you to support this point of view? BTW, I welcome the Greens recognition implicit in this comment of just how important OLO is as a media site.
  10. LR: My quotes recognise that I cannot be sure of the board’s motivation. I welcome your reply here as to what the board’s motivation was.

  11. When Norman, your co-author, approached us to publish he said “Online Opinion (sic) appears to have readers
    across the entire political spectrum. We would like for those who don’t agree with us to read our work, so believe your journal is best for this article. ” Is that your position too? And do you accept that two of the reasons that On Line Opinion OLO has this audience is its inclusive nature, and that it is discriminating in what it publishes?
  12. I have no reason to doubt that On Line Opinion has readers across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, your readers have lost the opportunity to read our article on your site about the Opposition Leader’s fundraising activities.

I look forward to your responses. And please be assured, On Line Opinion will always be open to approaches from you and any other Greens to publish suitable material. We don’t play political or personal favourites.
Regards,
Graham Young
Chief Editor and Founder



Posted by Graham at 12:28 pm | Comments (33) |
Filed under: Media

July 16, 2009 | Graham

The Age smears On Line Opinion



The Age published an article this morning which implies that On Line Opinion “pulled” an article by Greens MLC Lee Rhiannon for political reasons. This is completely incorrect.
We declined the article because we publish op-ed material, and this was not an op-ed piece. If they have a different view The Age can easily publish the article on their own op-ed page. It is not uncommon for publishers to have differing views, but it is uncommon for these views to arise on the basis of a conspiracy.
When rung about the issue I told the journalist, Richard Baker, that:

On Line Opinion is owned by a number of institutions, and they think they have bought into On Line Opinion, not Crikey. We do opinion, we don’t do news. We do not have the resources to do news. If the Greens want to run a news story there are plenty of other publications to send it to.

During the day we will be seeking clarification from Ms Rhiannon on a number of issues that arise from the words attributed to her in The Age. Given their treatment of us I am not assuming that she made those comments, nor that they are in context.
We will also be seeking clarifcation from Age Editor Paul Ramedge as to his view on the affair, particularly as a number of matters call into question the integrity of one of his journalists and his editorial process. I would like to think that The Age will be concerned to uphold good journalistic practice and recognise this as an opportunity to lift their standards.
We will document our inquiries on this site as we go, so please check back for more during the day. Alternatively subscribe to our RSS feed or follow me on Twitter.



Posted by Graham at 10:11 am | Comments (37) |
Filed under: Media

July 05, 2009 | Ronda Jambe

Still Creamin it in Canberra



It’s winter, some days the temperature doesn’t go much above 12C. There is a lot of plodding, as I’ve rejoined the work force, yet again, for a little while. And on a sunny day, rugged up against the blustery wind, there is still a mild exhilaration in being a public servant in the capital of this still lucky country.
Previously I’ve mentioned the boredom that too often goes with bad management in the public sector. Today I’ll talk about the flip side of that: the talent and professionalism that underlies the irritation when not fully deployed. But first a bit of perspective.
The government of California, with an economy probably bigger than Australia’s, has started issuing IOUs for payments. Many other state governments in the US are asking employees to take days off on no pay. Revenues are collapsing, and some cities have decided to cancel the fourth of July fireworks rather than lay off more staff. Tough call in a country as patriotic as the US.
Does anyone really doubt that the US is going broke? The final program on The Ascent of Money described Chimerica, in terms not much different from my blog about the US and China being ‘conjoined at the hipocket’. It said that by about 2025 the Chinese economy will be bigger than the US, which will have no manufacturing left. What does that imply for the might of the US military, or its pensions or its public services?
Here we are spending big time: a new gym on a high school up the street, and roads and bike paths at the coast. Feels good, even though such measures aren’t going to build the economy of the future, which will need public transport more than second gyms for schools.
Unlike my colleagues in Africa, my pay will be generous and arrive like clockwork. My office kitchenette comes supplied with seemingly endless coffee, tea and milk. Morning teas are polite and frequent.
And the project I’ll be helping with, which involves lots of ‘integration’ and ‘cross sectoral governance’ will be worthwhile and a money saver. Sometimes when a project cops no flack from either side, it’s because it’s simply a good idea. No ethical conflicts there for me. I don’t think I’ll be bored.
My partner said the only people who bag public servants are those who have never seen them at work, or been one. Talking to counter staff at Centrelink is a different world, and those public servants could tell the rest of us a thing or two about social problems that would make your hair stand on end.
But at the Canberra core, where the policy gets made and the stakeholders get managed, it is often an eye-opener to see how informed, professional, educated and open-minded public servants are. (Hey, that’s me!) Keep us busy and you’ll have our full attention and commitment. Treat us badly and you will get serious sulking and high turnover.
It looks like the lucky dip came up for me this time, and wandering around the Parliamentary Triangle, checking out the latest cafes hidden in the renovated buildings, it is hard not to be proud to be part of this country’s silent army of policy makers, program implementers, public communicators, treaty developers and record keepers.



Posted by Ronda Jambe at 5:48 pm | Comments Off on Still Creamin it in Canberra |
Filed under: Society