Catallaxy Files

Miranda Devine tells the story of people leaving the HSU in disgust.

Single mother Katrina Hart, 42, a member of the scandal-ridden Health Services Union, who earns $51,000 a year as a clerical worker and pays $603.20 in union dues, watched the Central Coast MP’s 59-minute self-justification with distaste.

For Hart and her equally appalled colleagues, Thomson’s melange of conspiracy theories, “cloned” phones, score-settling and accusations did nothing to rebut the damning findings from Fair Work Australia that he had spent $500,000 of HSU members’ money on prostitutes, ATM cash withdrawals, fine dining and election expenses when he was the union’s national secretary (which Thomson denies).

“That’s it, we’re out,” HSU members told Hart, as soon as Thomson finished.

“He didn’t even explain himself,” said one.

“That’s pathetic,” was another’s verdict. “Hopeless.”

“A lot of them walked off in disgust,” says Hart.

“A lot said it was crap, it was staged, he didn’t address anything that was real. It was always somebody else’s fault Who wrote that speech for him? Who coached him?”

Hart, who also is an unpaid union official, president of the Randwick campus general sub-branch, and a supporter of whistleblower Kathy Jackson, had managed to stop members quitting – until then.

These former unionist will no longer pay the $603.20 for membership – but they will still be ‘represented’ by the HSU.

So how does that work? There are two measures of union influence – union density (membership) and union coverage. Australia is a low density – high coverage economy.

To provide a visual sense of these two dimensions of union strength, Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot of union density and union coverage. As can be observed, countries fall into one of three fairly denite patterns. In the lower left corner are countries that are low both in density and coverage, in the upper left countries that are low in density but high in coverage, and the upper right countries that are high on both measures. Students of comparative politics will not fail to notice the similarity between these three clusters and similar typologies of welfare states, with liberal welfare states corresponding to low-density, low-coverage countries, conservative welfare states with low density, high-coverage countries, and social-democratic regimes with high-density, high-coverage countries. There are some anomalies, Australia being the most prominent, where the disjuncture between the labor movement and welfare-state development has been frequently noted. But in general the correspondence is striking.

It is not enough to withhold funding from unions that they loathe and despise, people need to more choice. Either to join competitor unions – currently not allowed – or to not be represented by a union at all. So it isn’t just the governance of the trade union movement that needs reform but also the industrial organisation of the labour market that needs reform.

The grubbiness in parliament is set to escalate($).

Labor is poised to refer a second Liberal MP to parliament’s privileges committee as it escalates a tit-for-tat war with the Opposition over parliamentary standards.

The Australian Financial Review has learned Liberal MP Sophie Mirabella is in the government’s sights over an alleged failure to make an accurate declaration on her register of members’ interests.

The government could refer Ms Mirabella as soon as Tuesday, though government strategists have not made a final decision on timing.

So what is Sophie’s offence?

Professor Howard died this month at the age of 83 after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease. His children, Lesley and Mervyn Howard, plan to mount a challenge in the Victorian Supreme Court contesting Mrs Mirabella’s role as main beneficiary of his will and executor of his estate, which includes a valuable terrace house in the trendy Melbourne suburb of Carlton.

Why would she be the beneficiary of a will?

Neither did she say that Howard had lived for nearly a year in a cottage at the back of Mirabella and her husband’s country farmhouse as his mental and physical heath deteriorated, he grew incontinent and paranoid, and eventually had a fall which nearly killed him.

Really? This is akin to using a corporate credit card to procure the services of prostitutes? This is what the Gillard government is reduced to in order to deflect attention from their own failings? This is our tax dollar at work.

As far as I can work out Sophie (and her husband) cared for an elderly former lover in his declining years – where were his children then?

I read in The Conversation (after having had it drawn to my attention):

The 1930s was a decade-long bout of desperate mass unemployment and poverty self-inflicted in the West, only finally relieved by the vast investment required to wage a World War.

Just not convinced that it true. I’ve used Angus Maddison’s database to look at GDP and then GDP per capita for Australia, the UK and the US. The Great Depression was a huge problem in the US with policy mistakes extending the length and duration of the trough.

GDP

GDP/Capita

This ‘WWII ended the Great Depression’ meme is being repeated a lot. So here is a great clip talking about that myth (and two others).

(HT: Paul)

Ken Parish has an excellent post on refugees effectively being held indefinitely in detention.

There is quite a bit of current public controversy over refugees indefinitely held in immigration detention as a result of adverse ASIO security assessments which they cannot effectively challenge. Secret evidence provisions in ASIO regulations mean they can be denied all knowledge of the reasons and supporting evidence for an adverse assessment.

The issue the asylum seekers face is that they have been found to be genuine asylum seekers but ASIO have determined that they are a security risk to Australia. This is a difficult problem – how to weigh up the competing claims. While it is reasonable to detain individuals for brief periods of time to establish their bona fides and the like, it is unacceptable to detain people indefinitely on the basis of a secret assessment that they might commit a crime in Australia. We don’t have life imprisonment for people who actually commit crimes.

To my mind this is part of a larger problem. Ken points to a growing trend of illiberal laws and law enforcement. Laws designed to inhibit bikie gangs now allow the authorities to collect and use ‘secret evidence’. This does make a mockery of the notion that people should be charged and prosecuted in open court.

We’re seeing the growing use of Star Chambers. Many government regulators have the right to question individuals and demand information from those individuals. Trials for some offences cannot be reported in the media. And so on. We’re being invited to simply trust the courts.

In Gypsy Jokers, the majority decided that the Court itself was perfectly capable of ensuring that justice was done; there was no need for either the party or counsel to be told. Also now see K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court, which holds to similar effect that keeping evidence secret from a party and their counsel does not of itself offend basic notions of judicial power.

The difficulty we face is that laws are being made to deal with individuals where the public has little sympathy – refugees, bikie gangs, union thugs, white-collar criminals, and the like. Mind you, refugees hardly belong on any list that includes bikie gangs, union thugs and, white-collar criminals. Yet we are seeing growing, and unchecked, power of the state.

While judges in a common law legal system are not simply bureaucrats nonetheless it is troubling that laws are made and enforced outside of the glare of public opinion and accountability.

Update: Chris Berg elaborates.

From the Hansard

Mr ALBANESE: … The member for Hughes may have failed to declare directorships of several companies, failed to declare potential liabilities arising from the collapse of a company with which he was involved, failed to declare possible criminal charges arising from that collapse and failed to declare that he has been practising as a solicitor at the same time as serving as a member of the House. For the benefit of the House, I will briefly outline the facts that I say potentially constitute contempt against the House. I refer to paragraph 2(d) of the House resolution.

I put it to you that Albanese lied. A very quick look at the Parliament of Australia website shows that the member for Hughes – Craig Kelly – is not a solicitor. In fact he worked as an ‘Export Manager’.
This is important, because Albanese – political staffer before entering the parliament – made mention of being a solicitor twice.

Finally, we come to the question of the member for Hughes practising as a solicitor while at the same time serving as a member of the House. There have been reports that after ceasing employment with this company the member represented it in several outstanding legal matters. A search of court databases confirms the member’s involvement in this litigation. I table another document.

Please note ‘practising as a solicitor’ and ‘several outstanding legal matters’.
So what is the reply?

Mr CRAIG KELLY: Earlier today the Leader of the House made a number of assertions relating to me and my register of members’ interests. His comments to the House were incorrect, and I would like to clarify the inaccuracies in those assertions.
The Leader of the House asserted that I am a solicitor. I am not a solicitor, and I do not have a law degree. I have never held myself out to be a solicitor nor made any representation to that effect to any person. I have not derived any income or personal benefit from any matters relating to this allegation.
The Leader of the House also asserted that I failed to declare my directorship of several companies. I took steps to resign my directorships of all companies named in August 2010. I provided instructions to my accountant to this effect. My accountant today has confirmed that this is correct, but he did not act on my instructions until March 2011 due to ill-health and hospitalisation on his behalf. At the time I completed my register of members’ interests I understood the instructions had been implemented, and I believed them to be correct. I regret that the ASIC record did not reflect the circumstances that I believed to be correct at the time.
The Leader of the House also asserted that I am a shadow director of a company, DV Kelly Pty Ltd. There is no substance whatsoever to this allegation. Further, I have not, nor have ever been, a shareholder or a director of this company.

So what does Albo do? He ‘assists‘ the House.

“Mr ALBANESE: In my statement I raised the question of whether the member for Hughes had been practising as a solicitor while at the same time serving as a member of the House. To assist the House, this was based on two judgments of the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal, one on 6 April 2011 and the other on 2 August 2011. In the 6 April 2011 document, next to ‘Solicitors’, it lists Mr Phillip Kelly and Mr Craig Kelly as ‘agents for applicant’. In the 2 August 2011 judgment of the tribunal, next to ‘Solicitors’, it lists C Kelly as the agent. I table both judgments. I am advised that at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales it is possible to represent interested parties as an agent without being a qualified solicitor. I note the member for Hughes’s statement that he was not acting as a solicitor during these hearings. The other matters raised remain matters to be considered by the Privileges Committee. I thank the House.”

Yes. Well. Perhaps Albanese could assist the house by not being a grub. Perhaps he could assist the house by knowing the difference between ‘two’ and ‘several’. Perhaps he could assist the house by doing some background checking before standing up to smear others.

One of the best op-eds I read in a long time.

Discussion of the so-called fiscal cliff—the combination of tax increases and spending cuts that will come in 2013 if Congress and the president don’t act—confuses a number of different issues. The evidence suggests that we should fear the tax hikes, but not necessarily the spending cuts.

Anyone who uses the term “fiscal cliff” accepts a Keynesian view of the economy, knowingly or not. Both tax increases and constrained spending are assumed to be bad for the economy.

But there are two other views: that of the budget balancer and that of the supply-sider. Rather than term the impending changes that will occur in 2013 a “fiscal cliff,” the budget balancer thinks of this as “fiscal consolidation.” Tax increases reduce the deficit, as do cuts in government spending. Both are austerity measures that make the government more responsible and, therefore, both are conducive to long-run economic growth.
…
The supply-sider has a different view from both the Keynesian and the budget balancer. Fundamentally, supply-side advocates focus on the harmful effects of tax increases. Raising tax rates hurts the economy directly because tax hikes reduce incentives to invest and because they punish hard work. As such, tax increases slow growth. But budget cuts work in the right direction by making lower tax revenues sustainable. If spending exceeds revenues, then the government must borrow and this commits future governments to raising taxes in order to service the debt.

Consequently, the supply-sider thinks of 2013 primarily as a tax increase and fears what that will do to the economy. The spending cuts are a positive. Unlike the Keynesians who view the fiscal cliff as being bad on two counts, or the budget balancer who views it as being good on two counts, the supply-sider scores it one-and-one. The tax increases have negative effects on the economy; the controls on spending are a positive side effect of the 2013 sunsets.

Read the whole thing.

A recording on the Oakeshott-style rambling speech can be heard here.

Update: Spot polls are unconvinced.
The Age

Daily Telegraph

Update II: The closing paragraphs of Craig Thomson’s speech need to be preserved for prosperity.

This should never again happen. We should never be in this situation again where the rule of law is trashed completely by a parliament. What do you think you are doing here? Are we going to have parliament ruled by the mob? Are we setting ourselves up as some sort of junta, where a majority decision of a parliament can suddenly override anyone’s rights? Is that the kind of Australia that you want? I was reminded by someone of a quote from To Kill a Mockingbird:

But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal—there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court … Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levellers, and in our courts all men are created equal.

That applies in this country, and you have trashed that. What you have done is not just damage to an individual or their family. You have damaged democracy and you continue to damage democracy, and you should hang your head in shame for that. What it shows of the Leader of the Opposition, that man, is that not only is he unfit to be a prime minister; in my view, he is unfit to be an MP.

Love the line, “where a majority decision of a parliament can suddenly override anyone’s rights?” Gee when did that happen?

Jess Irvine has an op-ed in the SMH where she makes the argument

Meanwhile, business is acting like an adolescent, too, chucking hissy fits about workplace laws and taxation because it has learnt that this is an extremely effective parental manipulation strategy. In the teenage economy, the returns from rentseeking – or seeking special treatment from mum and dad – are higher than the returns from productive pursuits, like actually innovating business practices. Business chucks a tantrum because it’s easier to manipulate mum into given you $20 than going out and getting a job and earning it yourself.

Problem is in the same paper we have this story.

There are more than 65 technology startups in Silicon Valley that were created by Australians, and this number is growing rapidly. Many who feature in a major video series launching on smh.com.au on Monday are highly critical of both the government and the venture capital industry in Australia. They say Australia is asleep at the wheel and risks being left behind.
“They’re moving to the US, they’re getting a green card, and they’re not coming back,” says Matt Barrie, the Sydney-based CEO of global online outsourcing site Freelancer.com.

Looks like those ‘rent-seekers’ are able to earn money elsewhere but not here.