Here’s a piece on the Australian political outlook I posted for an international audience on Crooked Timber
Read More »

I was talking with colleagues yesterday about the economics of the Olympics of the medals and speculated that, with the East Germans gone, we spend more to enhance our chance of winning gold medals than any other country. This morning I received, from Jack Strocchi, a column on the topic from Andrew Bolt which makes exactly the same claim, giving an estimate of $50 million in public expenditure per gold medal.
Read More »

It’s looking increasingly possible that the conflict between the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement will become the central issue of the election. It is also increasingly apparent that, contrary to all the reassurances we got when the agreement was announced, that the FTA and the PBS are in mortal conflict, and that only one of the two can survive.

Today’s developments include a statement from US Ambassador Schieffer that the US may not certify that our legislation implements the FTA and more commentary from sources close to the government, all suggesting that this is a really big deal.

Reading Christopher Pearson’s column in particular, it is notable how thoroughly it undermines the claim that the FTA presents no danger to the PBS. He talks about the remedies available to the US in relation to Labor’s amendments. In addition to the possibility that the Americans will walk away from the agreement altogether, he points out two further possible courses of action.

The second aspect of the amendments likely to cause concern is that trade agreements are negotiated on the basis of “standstill”. In other words, once an agreement is reached, the parties are expected not to introduce legislation that would alter their relative positions.

Finally, the Americans could argue that the amendments are likely to give rise to a dispute under the “reasonable benefits” clause, in the event that their drug companies are unable to realise benefits that they anticipated would flow from the agreement.

What’s critical to note here is that these points have nothing to do with the specific content of Labor’s amendments. They apply to any legislation concerning the PBS that an Australian government might seek to introduce in the future and, arguably, to any administrative decisions made by Ministers. If Pearson is correct[1], the FTA gives the Americans an effective veto power over anything we might attempt to do to improve the functioning of the PBS. It’s notable that Pearson’s points are almost identical to those that have previously been made by critics of the deal, and pooh-poohed by the government.

It is critical, in both policy and political terms, for Labor to hold its ground. Even without the threat to the PBS, this was a lousy deal. If the Americans refuse to certify, Labor should announce its intention to renegotiate the entire deal, this time on equal terms.

fn1. Pearson is clever and well-informed, but he’s never shown any previous knowledge of international treaty law. In the absence of references to independent experts, I think it’s reasonable to take these claims as coming from sources inside the government.

This opinion poll, reported in the Oz is encouraging, and supports my view that the upsurge in support for Howard over Tampa was the result of a temporary panic, stirred up by a combination of racial/religious prejudice and law-and-order politics. Of course, Howard’s success was enhanced by the total failure of leadership on the Labor side, epitomised by Kim Beazley, who is quoted in the story, as lame as ever.

The poll (taken before the latest news showing Howard knew the children overboard story was false), shows that more voters now disagree with the Howard Government’s handling of the Tampa issue than agree with it — 43 per cent versus 35 per cent, and that most favor allowing at least some boatpeople into Australia.

I think the reaction against the policy has been driven in part by the obvious nastiness of the government’s campaign against asylum seekers, amplified a thousandfold in some sections of the press, not to mention the blogosphere. It is hard to imagine any decent person reading some of the stuff that has been turned out by pro-government commentators on this issue and not reacting with disgust.

It is now clear that the vast majority of those on the Tampa and other boats were genuine refugees. Even those who were not were desperate people willing to risk everything to make a better life for their families. None[1] had committed a crime justifying the kind of treatment of they received.

fn1. No doubt I’ll get someone pointing out that some of these people might have been criminals, political or common. I wonder if the same people protested when Ruddock used his ministerial power to allow a large group of members of the South Lebanese Army, an outfit with plenty of crimes on its record, to jump the refugee queue.

Having posed the question directly here, and had a look around the blogosphere, the opinion pages and so on, I’ve come to the conclusion that there isn’t a single person[1] in Australia who believes that John Howard is telling the truth[2] in regard to the children overboard story. Given that large percentages believe that Elvis lives, and a non-zero number believe themselves to be Elvis (or similar), I think this is an impressive level of unanimity.

fn1. Obviously, the relevant set includes Howard himself

fn2. That is, in the time-honored phrase, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Has anyone asked Costello about the PMs “children overboard” claims? Maybe he’d respond along the lines of John Anderson, saying Prime Minister John Howard is a trustworthy individual and most Australians know it. Or maybe we’d get one of the more equivocal formulas (perhaps a quote from Howard himself) of which Costello is so fond. Unless things get drastically worse for Howard, I can’t see Costello making a challenge (Chris Sheil discusses this further) but I also doubt that he’d be willing to tie his own credibility to Howard’s.

As the story keeps running, I’m beginning to think it possible, albeit remotely, that Howard might be forced to ‘fess up. There’s been a new development every day, and there’s at least one more to come – the Liberal Party dirt unit’s campaign against Scrafton for having porn on his computer here’s an old newspaper article [PDF], linked by Crikey which reports the dirt unit’s role (hat tip to Ron, commenting on Ken Parish) This story gets a blogospheric run from Bernie Slattery here. This may damage Scrafton, but it will also remind everyone of previous similar campaigns, against Mick Keelty, the “doddering daiquiri diplomats” and so on.

In addition Howard’s attempt to parse as supporting his own story a statement from the former head of the Defence Department public affairs unit, Jenny McKenry, confirming Scrafton’s story invites a clarification from her.

And so far, I have yet to see a single person, no matter how vehemently they support Howard, willing to say that they believe he is telling the truth[1].

fn1. To be clear here, I don’t mean something “morally true” or “true enough to satisfy the Australian people” or “true in the postmodern sense”, or “true, given appropriate rules of grammatical construction”. I mean that when Howard says something like “at no time during his telephone calls with Mr Scrafton had he discussed photos relating to the sinking of Siev4 on October 8, 2001”, this actually means that the photos were not mentioned by either party.