An interesting article.

A collegue once said "the only way to ensure you don't make a bad decision is not to make a decision at all"

With all the committees etc it looks as though most decisions will be postponed until after the next election.

In the interim the new union friendly "fair work" legislation looks set to enforce union bargaining on employees whether they want it or not, and restore market rigidity. In the new world market this will do for Australian industry what the Japanese did for Darwin.

The road to unemployment is paved with good intentions.

The only positive thing I can say about Bertrand's article is that it comprehensively summarises the views of the neo-con commentariat that seems to be endocrinally averse to participatory democracy and due process. Anyone who has worked in the higher levels of government (as I did for 20 years) would know that legislative change takes time and implementation of that legislation takes even longer. Take for example the new IR legislation introduced to parliament this week - more than 500 pages! Does Bertrand think that opposition parties have a brigade of legislative draftspeople who have transformed all policies into defendable legislation on day one? This is real stuff that has to pass very rigorous scrutiny. The Rudd government introduced some stop-gap IR measures earlier in the year to ensure that the old regime did not prevail any longer than possible. And industry development and innovation: What about the Bracks auto plan? It was extensive and careful and has reported boldly, with recommendations accepted and announcements made. Did Bertrand expect Rudd to make a multi-billion-dollar announcement on the auto industry on Nov 25 2007, with cheques ready to be posted on Nov 26? And Innovation- there were more than 600 submissions from every significant stakeholder, plus many others. That's participation for you. The pre-election policy was that more must be done. Quite what and how takes time. And so on. Take into account that the election was in late November and Australia essentially shuts down until February. Then they had to frame a budget, knowing that the financial tsunami was coming. Then the past 4-5 months they have been dealing with the tsunami. The fact that the Rudd government has sought to ensure that it, and the populace, are now well informed is an achievement in itself. What is needed from OLO contributors is more careful analysis and understanding of real-world processes- that is, INFORMED opinion- just like the Rudd- and soon, Obama- governments.

Jedimaster,

Given that IR is not exactly a new area, and that Labor supposedly had a clear policy, the time to draft the legislation had more to do with negotiation with the unions than anything else.

Considering what was presented to industry for comment and consultation even a month ago compared to what turned up in parliament it would appear that the unions had a fair hand in re tooling it.

Kevin 747 has kept us up to date by attending personally just about every summit and has been on more trips so far than Howard in his first 2 terms in office. No wonder there has been no one at home to do the real work.

However, given that it takes government up to a year to approve house plans, it would be unfair to compare them to the real world.

While claiming a mandate to remove work choices, Labor has far exceeded it and turned the clock back to before China and India were industrial competitors.

Pattern bargaining (albeit under another name) and enforced representation by a union can only hamper productivity and shift manufacturing overseas. While the unions did a sterling job in hollowing out the economy in the 70s and 80s, it looks as though they are back for what remains.

Labor's answer would appear to subsidise (to the extent of nearly $1000 for every working person) the inefficiencies and impose additional protectionist levies on unionised industries such as the auto industry, which probably should go to the wall.

With the financial Tsunami they have the pretext to throw money at all problems with no accountability and no need to keep any election financial promises.

Given that it will probably take 3 years for the chickens to come home to roost, I guess we will be stuck in the 80s for another 5 years at least.

Very worthwhile changes have been implemented by the Minister for Immigration. These include the abolition of temporary protection visas; dismantling most of the Pacific (so-called) Solution and changes to the Citizenship test.

And as a result we are going to be flooded with low grade migrants who we can well do without.

David

Jedimaster,

I'm glad you have revealed that you used to be a bureaucrat yourself, because that seems to explain why you are sympathetic to our chief bureaucrat and his government.

Results and clearly superior to processes. A poor policy is not made much better just because it involved wise consultation, or followed an inquiry. Holding otherwise seems to be a notion which could only be held by Sir Humphrey.

Indeed, Fuelwatch and Grocery watch are two primary examples of how process is no substitute for outcomes. No person with a basic understanding of how markets work could assert that these policies are likely to reduce prices. In fact, four different government departments opposed Fuelwatch.

Another classic example that was mentioned yourself was the protectionist policies recommended by Steve Bracks and embraced by Rudd. Do you seriously believe that Labor mate Bracks was an apolitical appointment? Rudd chose the inquiry committee so that he could also choose the recommendations. What also confirms this,a s well as the uselessness of the protectionist policies is the stroing condemnation by Trasury and the productivity commissionm.

It's quite clear that green has become the new pretext for protectionism. Paint an old policy green and try to sell it as new. Unfortunately, even types who say they have worked in the senior echelons of the public service such as yourself appear to fall for it hook line and sinker.

“The record shows that in terms of policy, it has so far made a lacklustre start.”

It is not only a lack-lustre start, but a terribly wrong direction of basic policy has been set in train.

I’m talking about a boosted immigration rate and an increased baby bonus, both designed to increase our already substantial rate of population growth, when surely it is patently obvious that it is high time to achieve a stable population, so that we might have some chance of living sustainably on this arid continent.

Where did this very large boost to the already ridiculously high immigration rate come from? It happened very quickly after Rudd gained power, but he didn’t even mention any such thing in the months leading up to the election and certainly had no mandate for such an action.

I am a little dismayed that Leon Bertrand missed this very important point in his otherwise very good article.

AJFA and SHADOW MINISTER

Your utterances prove my point about uninformed opinion.The use of epithets like "bureaucrat"only demean OLO and many of its participants. How do you know what I, or any other "government employee" have done? For my own, at one stage I was director of a "think tank" that had 18 leaders from all sectors and numerous working parties. Its outcomes included the establishment of a technology park, a science museum, many applied research centres, to name a few. The point is that we consulted widely, gained information and gathered consensus on the way, which enabled effective implementation.

What do you suggest that we do instead? Run a dictatorship where information gathering and due process are ignored in favour of spontaneous action? Where is your evidence that the government's processes are a sham? Did you attempt to participate in the processes? I did- I went to briefings,I asked questions, I wrote submissions- and do you know what?- some of my recommendations have been adopted, even though I have no "connections" to the decision makers.

OLO is a great forum for furthering informed opinion in a democracy. Perhaps it should be called "Informed On Line Opinion" and submissions filtered accordingly. Then again, perhaps we need displays of unbridled prejudice to remind us what the alternative mode of government was, and could be again.

Yes its our first year & Australian Cities need to drink recycled water:

Kev here,

Look, its come to our attention that the people have become aware that we are immigrating 500,000 people a year(457s etc included) into a drought stricken continent.

In order to dispell the rightfull rumours of our incompetence we propose to force you to drink each others wee so 'we' can keep the $better $immigrant genetic stocks coming, increase Labor's power base, stress elderly dead-wood into early retirement and death, build the Nation, collect all that extra loverly GST & implicit death taxes and boost property demand, values and stamp duty revenue.

Cities need to drink recycled water in order to grow the ECONOMY: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24714985-12377,00.html

After out first year you've all got used to being treated like excrement so now you can bloody well drink it!

Oh and by the way. Its no use voting for the other mob. They'll do the same thing.

From here on its IMMIGRATE for GST & Externalise the costs. Its all the way with LABOR and labour youse will in the name of Buildying the Nation and a perpetually growing a Howard Rudd economy.

Today Australia, Tomorrow Japan and then ... who knows.

Jedimaster,

You say "Where is your evidence that the government's processes are a sham"

The internet filtering
The alco pops tax
The bank deposit guarantee
etc.

Think tanks for generating ideas are wonderful, as you can then cherry pick the ideas that support what you were going to do anyway and present a facade of participation.

The new IR laws are the most industry unfriendly for decades, and about as union biased as possible without getting a massive back lash. So much so for small mom and pop businesses who cannot dismiss or retrench anyone without a legal run around.

When the financial crisis is hitting, to fetter industry so badly is mind numbingly bad policy, and goes against all the submissions by industry.

I can see the trend of labor + power = deficit + unemployment starting again.

"Where is your evidence that the government's processes are a sham?"

Jedimaster, I cannot believe you have asked that after I discussed Fuelwatch, Grocerychoice and the Bracks review. Did you read what I said at all? If you did not, please refer to my previous comment.

As for your talk of me having a dictatorship instead of a bureaucratic model of endless consultation, inquiry, commission, forum and summit, that is a straw man argument. It's clearly not a situation of either/or.

Obviously there requires a balance between process and outcomes that ensures that actions are taken, but with minimal risk that they are wrong or misconceived. To many, it seems quite clear that the Rudd Government leans too heavily towards process. Again, Fuelwatch, Grocerywatch, Grocerychoices and all of Rudd's other inquiries which have not resulted in real solutions are all clear evidence of this.

Were the processes you particpiated in under the Rudd Government's term? What did you propose, and what was done about it? Was your idea passed into law or otherwise implemented? Because if you are referring to the 2020 Summit, I haven't heard of any follow up on any of the ideas.

AJFA
You said "Jedimaster, I cannot believe you have asked that after I discussed Fuelwatch, Grocerychoice and the Bracks review. Did you read what I said at all? If you did not, please refer to my previous comment."

I have been given to understand- through experience, consultation, reading and reasoning- that a "discussion" comprises a comprehensive presentation of facts and the alternative interpretations of the causes and the possible outcomes that may arise from those facts based on individual preferences and values. You have not presented ANY facts, let alone a comprehensive set of facts from which reasonable conclusions can be reached. You have merely referred to a government policy or program and given an unsubstantiated opinion.

Your approach reminds me of the "Argument" sketch from Monty Python:
http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/argument.html

"Man:An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Other Man:No it isn't!

Closer reading of this sketch perhaps provides the answer:

"Man:I came here for a GOOD argument!

Other Man: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

Other Man: Well! it CAN be!"

- In the same vein, I came to OLO for GOOD opinion, not just opinion

Jedimaster,

I would have thought that Fuelwatch and Grocerychoice are self-explanatory. Do you seriously believe that these policies were going to be effective? I don't think I need to explain how they are not.

Likewise with the Bracks review. Do you seriously believe the appointment of Labor mate Bracks was not a way of pre-determining the outcomes of a review whose recommendations were radically different to those of Treasury and the Productivity Commission?

I'm afraid I'm not going to explain the obvious for you. If you don't understand that these processes are ineffective I don't see any point in continuing to discuss this with you.