Yesterday, I was at a conference put on by the Foundation for Development Cooperation. I was talking about Tobin taxes and emissions trading, but the really interesting development for me was one that came up after the speech given by Kevin Rudd, and was also mentioned at the Pacific Forum last week.

This was the idea that the only way to resolve the problems of the Pacific is to allow access for citizens of Pacific island states to the Australian and New Zealand labour markets. Howard said something along these lines last week, and Rudd promised a more substantial review, which would of course, involve negotiation with the ACTU.

I’ve long held the view that traditional models of economic development were unlikely to work in the islands. If we disregard the fact that these are sovereign countries, and look at the actual economics, they look a lot like Australian country towns. In the absence of barriers to migration, you’d expect to see young people going to the city to work, though perhaps returning home at some later point. In this context, for “the city” read Australia and New Zealand.

There’s a sense in which this is the Pacific solution, operating in reverse. Having bribed and bullied our neighbours into acting as detention centres for our unwanted visitors, we’re now in a much weaker position to put them outside the fence that says “We will decide who comes here, and under what circumstances”. So perhaps some good will come of the whole sorry process.

An asideAlthough it’s not strictly relevant, I thought I’d observe that the family reunion category of migration, much criticised in commentary on migration policy, now consists primarily of the spouses of Australian citizens (at least, this is what Deirdre Macken said in Saturday’s Fin). Certainly there are quite a few cases of this kind among my immediate acquaintance and extended family, and they give the lie to the “mail-order bride” stereotype that will undoubtedly be invoked. This is worth thinking about, and I will have some more to say about it sometime.

John Howard finally let the cat out of the bag, with his suggestion that Labor’s amendments aimed at preventing evergreening of patents might ‘violate the spirit’ of the Free Trade Agreement with the US. As I pointed out last week

The letter of the FTA gives a fair bit of room to move, allowing for interpretations more or less favorable to the pharmaceutical lobby on the one hand and the PBS on the other.The government has tried to have it both ways, assuring the Australian public that the FTA clauses relating to PBS are meaningless words inserted to placate the Americans, while promising their (very close) friends in the pharmaceutical lobby that they can expect more favorable treatment, consistent with Wooldridge’s efforts to stack the PBAC and so forth. Passage of the FTA without amendment would have made it easy for the government to deliver to its friends when the elections were out of the way and the electors conveniently on the sidelines. Adding amendments directed at specific possible abuses implies, more generally, that Australia is committed to ensuring that the drug lobby gets nothing more than its minimum legal entitlement under the FTA – a nonbinding review, and observation of patent law.

Howard even raised the prospect that the Americans might walk away from the deal. If only!

Recent discussion has led me to start on a post I’ve been meaning to do asking the question: to what extent are the major parties and their leaders responsible for the resurgence of racial and religious prejudice in Australia, as represented by Pauline Hanson and the treatment of asylum seekers.
Read More »

The most plausible argument against a directly elected president is that a nominee of one of the major parties would almost certainly get up. If the President and Prime Minister were of the same party, the President would be even more a rubber stamp than the GG. If they were of opposite parties, there would be an increased risk of partisan deadlock. This is certainly undesirable, but is it a likely outcome?

This argument depends on the assumption that a large majority of Australians would vote for the candidate of their preferred party. How large a majority is needed? The evidence suggests that no more than 30 per cent of voters are ‘rusted-on’ Labor voters who would vote a straight Labor ticket in all elections, and similarly for the Liberals/Nationals[1]. That leaves 40 per cent who can be swayed either way.

This means

* An appealing independent candidate could win in a three-sided contest

* If one party chooses not to run a candidate, the other party’s candidate would almost certainly lose

So, given a widespread belief that the President ought not to be a partisan, I think it is unlikely that the major parties would run candidates and win the first time around. Once the norm of an independent presidency was established, it would be almost impossible for either major party, acting alone, to break it.

Ken Parish has more, repeating the point that we can, if we choose, have direct election without, or prior to, a Republic. He also has some nice points about experimentation in a Federal system. It’s fair to say we’ve been experimenting with different gubernatorial models lately, and not having a very high success rate.

fn1. In the last Senate election Labor got 34 per cent of primary votes, and at least some of these must have been swinging voters. Similarly for the coalition in 1998.

The recent departure of Tasmanian Governor Richard Butler has let the monarchists, long embarrassed by the antics of our hereditary ruling family, get a bit of their own back. Lots of people see prominent republican Butler’s (alleged, I should observe) arrogant and erratic behavior as a prototype for a Malcolm Turnbull presidency.

I’d suggest that the real lesson here is Churchill’s – democracy is the worst system apart from all the others. Perhaps if a President were selected by popular vote, the office might occasionally be filled by popstars or sporting heroes. But does anyone suggest that Butler or Turnbull, or, for that matter, Prince Charles, would ever win a popular vote?