Progressive Direction

July 14, 2019

• The Northern Myth Ships of Darwin Harbour – Part 2 – Cruise ships, military and miscellaneous shipping

  

  This is part 2 of what may become a multipart series …

  Darwin harbour is without doubt still a beautiful place.

  Sure, while humans and nature have both tried their best to trash the place over the past couple of hundred years – the settler society with inappropriate residential and industrial developments, the WWII bombing raids (that have left the harbour floor littered with wrecks) and nature with massive cyclones – the harbour is a survivor.

  I moved back to Darwin a few months ago after too long in Centralia. In that time Darwin – Garramilla to the Larrikia people, the first nation owners of the land and waters in and around the harbour – has grown in some respects and shrunk in others.

  One thing that caught my eye is the increase in shipping servicing the offshore and onshore gas facilities and the cruise ship industry. There is also a large coastal barge fleet servicing the NT’s offshore islands and remote townships and a mixed small fleet of fishing and pearl industry boats, among others. And of course Darwin has long had a naval base, with a small fleet of patrol boats permanently based here and other ships from the navies of Australia and other countries involved in regular joint military, aerial and naval exercises.

  Another thing that I love about this harbour is that it is never the same from one day to the next. The three visual elements – water, sea surface and sky above – are in constant flux, driven by the irresistible forces of tide, wind and weather.

  One day the waters will be a muddled mousey grey, the next a bright lapis lazuli and the next a messy cabbage green. The surface can be glassy and uniform; streamed with layered froth and channels moved by breezes and tide; choppy behind a strong south-easterly; or ripped and torn by rushing tides and strong cross-utting winds that swing ships about on their anchors like windvanes in an open field.

  And above all the sky. Even with the consistently blue midday skies of the Dinidjanggama season from June to late August the sky can wake – and sleep – a violent red from the smoke of seasonal fires that stings the eyes and throat; hazy from early morning swamp and sea fogs that bring horizons shrinking close-up and distant shores away to disappear; or on another – or the same day – with scatters of whispy clouds scudding across an impossibly electric blue dome.

  Then there is the promised threat of long-overdue but never-coming rain through the long months of the Gurrulwa Guligi (big wind) and Dalirrgang (build up) seasons, when pretty much every-thing and -one is stagnant with humidity, sweat and dread and when anything, nothing and everything does, can – or doesn’t and can’t – happen. By the time that Dalay (the monsoon) arrives in the last few months of the calendar year the rains and the cooler weather they bring are a welcome respite. And then the seven cycles of the Larrakia calendar start over again.

  Through all of this the town needs feeding, industry needs supplies, fishes and prawns are waiting to be caught and brought back to base, exports need to be shipped and tourists from the cruise ships need to have their money drawn carefully from their deep pockets, wallets and purses.

  Here are some of the larger industrial ships that come through Darwin harbour. In future parts I’ll look at military, fishing and cruise ships that come through the Port of Darwin.

  Enjoy, and please send a message in the comments section below if so minded …

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  The post Ships of Darwin Harbour – Part 2 – Cruise ships, military and miscellaneous shipping appeared first on The Northern Myth.

• The Northern Myth Ships of Darwin Harbour – Part 1 – Industrial and commercial shipping

  

  Darwin harbour is without doubt still a beautiful place.

  Sure, while humans and nature have both tried their best to trash the place over the past couple of hundred years – the settler society with inappropriate residential and industrial developments, the WWII bombing raids (that have left the harbour floor littered with wrecks) and nature with massive cyclones – the harbour is a survivor.

  I moved back to Darwin a few months ago after too long in Centralia. In that time Darwin – Garramilla to the Larrikia people, the first nation owners of the land and waters in and around the harbour – has grown in some respects and shrunk in others.

  One thing that caught my eye is the increase in shipping servicing the offshore and onshore gas facilities and the cruise ship industry. There is also a large coastal barge fleet servicing the NT’s offshore islands and remote townships and a mixed small fleet of fishing and pearl industry boats, among others. And of course Darwin has long had a naval base, with a small fleet of patrol boats permanently based here and other ships from the navies of Australia and other countries involved in regular joint military, aerial and naval exercises.

  Another thing that I love about this harbour is that it is never the same from one day to the next. The three visual elements – water, sea surface and sky above – are in constant flux, driven by the irresistible forces of tide, wind and weather.

  One day the waters will be a muddled mousey grey, the next a bright lapis lazuli and the next a messy cabbage green. The surface can be glassy and uniform; streamed with layered froth and channels moved by breezes and tide; choppy behind a strong south-easterly; or ripped and torn by rushing tides and strong cross-cutting winds that swing ships about on their anchors like windvanes in an open field.

  And above all the sky. Even with the consistently blue midday skies of the Dinidjanggama season from June to late August the sky can wake – and sleep – a violent red from the smoke of seasonal fires that stings the eyes and throat; hazy from early morning swamp and sea fogs that bring horizons shrinking close-up and distant shores away to disappear; or on another – or the same day – with scatters of whispy clouds scudding across an impossibly electric blue dome.

  Then there is the promised threat of long-overdue but never-coming rain through the long months of the Gurrulwa Guligi (big wind) and Dalirrgang (build up) seasons, when pretty much every-thing and -one is stagnant with humidity, sweat and dread and when anything, nothing and everything does, can – or doesn’t and can’t – happen. By the time that Dalay (the monsoon) arrives in the last few months of the calendar year the rains and the cooler weather they bring are a welcome respite. And then the seven cycles of the Larrakia calendar start over again.

  Through all of this the town needs feeding, industry needs supplies, fishes and prawns are waiting to be caught and brought back to base, exports need to be shipped and tourists from the cruise ships need to have their money drawn carefully from their deep pockets, wallets and purses.

  Here are some of the larger industrial ships that come through Darwin harbour. In future parts I’ll look at military, fishing and cruise ships that come through the Port of Darwin.

  Enjoy, and please send a message in the comments section below if so minded …

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  As you can see, many of these ships use the inner shipping channel that passes alongside the shoreline below The Esplanade and around past the NT Parliament House and the Administrator’s Residence.

  You can find out more about shipping in Darwin Harbour at the Darwin Port website here and find out more on the Darwin shipping channels here.

  You can find more details on the movements, tonnage and type of each of these ships at either the Marine Traffic site or at FleetMon.

  *************************************

  Top photo: The LNG Saturn was built at the Japanese shipbuilder Nagasaki Shipyard & Machinery Works of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd for Osaka Gas Co. and Kyushu Power Co., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines said. Osaka Gas Representative Director and President Honjo, named the vessel the LNG Saturn, and his wife cut the rope. The vessel will serve to transport LNG that Osaka Gas and Kyushu Power mainly purchased from Australia Ichthys LNG project and the LNG carrier will be managed by MOL. The 153,000 cbm LNG carrier boasts Moss-type non-spherical tank and 138,000 in gross tonnage. It is 288 meters long and features 48.94m in breadth and 11.55m in draft.

  *************************************

  The post Ships of Darwin Harbour – Part 1 – Industrial and commercial shipping appeared first on The Northern Myth.

July 13, 2019

• The Northern Myth Why are the secrets of the Pitjantjara people for sale in Adelaide?

  

  Three weeks back I went to Adelaide for work. As is my wont when in Adelaide I headed for the Central Markets just off Victoria Square, always my first stop for good food I can’t get in Darwin. I was also looking for bookshops, a haircut and any other fun a fella can find in the big city.

  Having grabbed a wondrous variety of stinky cheeses at Say Cheese and sweet delights at The Turkish Delight I wandered around to a local bookshop and spotted a copy of C P Mountford’s Nomads of the Australian Desert (pictured above) with a $500 price tag.

  I pointed out to staff in the shop that Nomads is a very dangerous book to have on display and for sale, particularly in Adelaide and because the subject matter of much of the book – the secret and sacred knowledge of the Pitjantjara people given to Mountford in confidence during fieldwork in the 1940s – was the subject not only of a strongly worded caveat by the author, but also a 1976 judgement by Justice Muirhead of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory that restrained the sale, display or distribution of Nomads in the Northern Territory.

  I’ll return to the bookshop and Justice Muirhead’s judgement shortly but note that his judgement was and remains effective only within the Northern Territory, having no effect (other than persuasive) outside of that jurisdiction, including the expansive traditional lands of the Pitjantjara and their affiliates – with whom they share much secret and sacred knowledge – in the states of South and Western Australia.

  Mountford – who didn’t take any formal anthropological training until after his retirement from a long career as a public servant – was for some a giant of Australian ethnology, but by others he was damned with the faintest of praise.

  Professor A P Elkin, who held the first Australian chair of anthropology at Sydney University, described Mountford as an “amateur ethnographer” and a “good photographer, particularly of still subjects.”  Elkin’s student Catherine Berndt, wrote to Elkin saying that Mountford knew “just enough to prevent him from realising his ignorance.”

  The Adelaide establishment – then and later – held Mountford in higher esteem, crediting him with bringing Aboriginal art and culture to the attention of a wide national and international audience.

  Mountford was undoubtedly a gifted ethnographer, and he travelled widely across Aboriginal Australia and produced a number of books and films of varying degrees of scientific accuracy and utility.

  Mountford’s entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography notes that towards the end of his life Mountford:

  Concentrat[ed] his efforts on an illustrated analysis of Central Australian Aboriginal art and mythology, he worked from his office in the [South Australian] museum and, at the age of 86, completed his magnum opus, Nomads of the Australian Desert (1976). The book contained images of restricted Aboriginal subjects and was withdrawn from sale soon after publication.

  Mountford died the same year that his magnum opus was published and subsequently withdrawn.

  Mountford wasn’t alone in believing that he was documenting dying cultures that would soon disappear for ever. In that we now know he couldn’t have been more wrong and, while much knowledge is no longer available, across much of central and northern Australia ceremonies that maintain traditional knowledge of and relationships with the land flourish to this day.

  Mountford included the following caveat in Nomads of the Australian Desert:

  Where Australian Aborigines are concerned, and in areas where traditional Aboriginal religion is still significant, this book should be used only after consultation with local male religious leaders.

  The restriction is important, it is imposed because of the concept of what is secret or may not be revealed to the uninitiated in Aboriginal religious belief and action, varies considerably throughout the Australian Continent and because  the varying views of Aborigines in this respect must on all occasions be observed.

  Shortly after Nomads was published and notwithstanding Mountford’s caveat, Justice Muirhead saw fit to impose an injunction on the sale and distribution of Nomads in the Northern Territory.

  Foster and Others v Mountford and Rigby Ltd 14 ALR 71 (1976) was an unusual case in a number of respects. Firstly, the plaintiffs were members of an unincorporated association (the Pitjantjara Council) that represented the Pitjantjara people, who live on large tracts of land that spans the south-western corner of the Northern Territory, the north-west of South Australia and the far central east of Western Australia.

  The respondents were Mountford as author and his publishers, Rigby Ltd and neither were represented before Justice Muirhead, as the application for an injunction was bought ex parte and was heard in chambers, i.e. with only one side, the Pitjantjara people, appearing before and providing evidence to the Court and not heard in open Court.

  The application was also unusual in that it sought to protect gender-specific confidential information of the Pitjantjara people published in Nomads that they claimed was provided to Mountford in confidence more than 35 years earlier.

  The Pitjantjara also claimed that Mountford was obliged to protect their confidences and had breached that duty by publishing Nomads. Few, if any, of those who provided the information to Mountford were alive at the time the application to the Court was made.

  While the equitable doctrine associated with confidential information has not historically been a popular or uncontroversial cause of action, courts have been asked to protect various kinds of confidence including that attached to the private etchings of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, matrimonial secrets and confidential sources of a parliamentary lobbyist and, in an Australian context, restraining the publication by the Centralian Advocate of certain information about Aboriginal customary laws and the publication of photographic slides taken Mountford containing secret or sacred material*.

  Christop Antons provides a useful analysis of the importance and relevance of Foster v Mountford in a chapter published in Landmarks in Australian Intellectual Property Law published in 2009.

  In Foster v Mountford: cultural confidentiality in a changing Australia* Antons discusses the significance of Foster v Mountford, which he says is a case:

  … belonging to the period in which Australian courts were finding their identity in deciding intellectual property disputes. As the first decision in Australia taking into account Aboriginal customary rights to culturally defined notions of secrecy, it is a landmark case. It symbolises a shift from assimilation policies based on the notion of Australia as terra nullius at the time of discovery towards a growing understanding of Aboriginal customs and associated rights … The case also has significance beyond Australian borders. In an ongoing debate about violations of indigenous cultural secrecy and ‘rights to cultural privacy’, the case has been regarded as one of the few legal actions examining such violations.

  Antons goes on to note the limited effect of Foster v Mountford with the increasing reach of the internet and other technologies into remote Aboriginal Australia but notes that it provides at least a framework for a broader consideration of traditional knowledge.

  Established doctrines of equity such as confidential information, fiduciary obligations and unconscionability combined with protocols and other forms of contracts may not always offer ideal answers to the problems surrounding Aboriginal cultural secrecy. If used in a pragmatic manner, however, as in Foster v Mountford, these doctrines may lead to reasonably acceptable and practicable solutions.

  One recent example of Antons’ “acceptable and practicable solutions” is the decision by Justice Nettle of the High Court of Australia in the matter of Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths (deceased) [2019] HCA 19 (the Timber Creek native title compensation case) handed down on 19 June 2019.

  Justice Nettle’s decision (the primary decision by the Full Court of the High Court in NT v Griffiths can be found here) concerned an application for consent orders to “suppress publication and disclosure” of a volume of anthropological material identified as “gender restricted.”

  As in Foster v Mountford, the material the subject of the application in NT v Griffiths was:

  … restricted men’s evidence given by senior male members of the claim group on country.

  That, supported by uncontested affidavit evidence, including anthropological evidence establishing:

  … the restricted transcripts and reports relate to matters that are restricted in their transmission or communication to ritually qualified men according to customary Aboriginal practices.

  Justice Nettle observed that these practices are “a fundamental component of Aboriginal religious belief and practice” and that failure to comply with the rules established by that practice:

  … is believed to result in exposure to harmful and potentially fatal spirituality. Those who break the rules for transmission may be objected to social opprobrium and spiritual reprisals that may be deadly … The men who gave the restricted men’s evidence … would not have been prepared to give evidence had they known that it might later be read in transcript by women. If that were to occur, the men concerned would be vulnerable to the social opprobrium, spiritual reprisals and other deeply held fears of the kind mentioned.

  In considering the consent orders sought, Justice Nettle briefly examined several public policy issues, including that arising from a primary objective of the administration of justice, namely to safeguard the public interest in open justice (see s 77RD of the Judiciary Act) and the requirement in sections 77RI and 77RE of the same legislation that any order made operate for no longer than is necessary than to achieve its purpose. Justice Nettle’s orders will run for a period of 10 years.

  It is instructive to observe the continuity between the approach by Justice Muirhead in Foster v Mountford and of Justice Nettle in NT v Griffiths.

  In Foster v Mountford, Justice Muirhead found that:

  … a number of the photographs, drawings and descriptions of person, places and ceremonies have deep religious and cultural significance to the plaintiff Foster, and to the other plaintiffs. I find that some of the matters hitherto secret are revealed in the book, and that this has caused dismay, concern and anger. The plaintiffs’ concern probably goes basically to the fact that the revelation of the secrets to their women, children and uninitiated men may undermine the social and religious stability of their hard-pressed community.

  Like Justice Nettle in the High Court last month, 43 years earlier Justice Muirhead also considered the public policy impact of his decision, not least upon the “right to disseminate the results of scientific or anthropological research.”

  Unchecked by the provisions of the Judiciary Act noted in NT v Griffiths, Justice Muirhead ordered that the defendants be restrained from:

  … selling or displaying for sale, or otherwise distributing in the Northern Territory of Australia the book Nomads of the Australian Desert and further restraining the defendants from causing or authorising the further sale, distribution or display of the said book in the Northern Territory of Australia.

  It is understood that Rigby Ltd withdrew Nomads from sale following Justice Muirhead’s decision and that around 2,000 copies were sold before the withdrawal and that several hundred more were destroyed in a warehouse fire, with the remaining copies purchased by the Aboriginal Arts Board*.

  A search of the National Library of Australia’s Trove catalogue indicates that Nomads is available in at least 70 Australian libraries, including the Alice Springs Public Library, where I last saw it in a locked case 10 years ago.

  A simple Google search of “Nomads of the Australian Desert” produces links to a number of Australian and international booksellers with Nomads for sale. Prices range from a low of $US388 ($AUD552) to $US1,027 ($AUD1,462).

  Those numbers make the copy of Nomads for sale in Adelaide a bargain. When last I checked it was still for sale for $500, plus $20 postage.

  **********************************

  References

  • Ricketson, S. Confidential Information – A New Proprietary Interest? Part 1. 11 MULR 223 (1977) and Chapter 19, Aboriginal Customary Law Offences, in Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, (ALRC Report 31) Australian Law Reform Commission. (1986).
  • Antons, C. Foster v Mountford: cultural confidentiality in a changing Australia, Chapter 7 in Landmarks in Australian Intellectual Property Law, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press. (2009)
  • Holcombe, S. Confidential Information and Anthropology. (in press) (2015)

  **********************************

  The post Why are the secrets of the Pitjantjara people for sale in Adelaide? appeared first on The Northern Myth.

July 12, 2019

• The Northern Myth The Role of a Speaker in Determining the Opposition: Kezia Purick

  

  The Role of a Speaker in Determining the Opposition

  This is a paper presented to the 50th Presiding Officers and Clerks Conference, Brisbane 2019, by the Hon. Kezia Purick MLA, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.

  The minority in the House of Commons is composed for the most part of members of a
  single party who are in general opposition to the Government and hope to supplant it at the
  next election through becoming a majority. Party Politics: The Growth of Parties.
  Sir Ivor Jennings, Cambridge University Press 1961.

  If the official Opposition is not clear by virtue of numbers, it is for the Speaker to decide
  which group shall be so called, and who will be recognised by the Chair as the leader of the
  Opposition. House of Representatives Practice 7th Edition page 79.

  As Speaker I am entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the orderly conduct of business in the House. To do this I must now determine, in light of the tie situation and the point of order raised, which party shall form the official opposition. House of Commons Debates (Canada) February 27 1996.

  At the opening of this Assembly, His Honour the Administrator of the Northern Territory said:

  The results of the recent election have established the first official Opposition in the Assembly. The presence of an official Opposition in this House is welcome as the Westminster system of government can only be fully effective under the scrutiny of and by constructive argument from a viable Opposition.

  … I am sorry to have to say ….The Majority Party has showed itself to be openly resentful
  towards the presence of an Opposition. The behaviour of some of its members including the
  Majority Leader, has been churlish if not downright childish. It is quite clear that having cut
  their teeth in an Assembly where there was no recognisable Opposition, they are now
  reluctant to adapt to the present composition of this House. Member for Sanderson,
  Ms June D’Rozario Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Debates 6 December 1977.

  I do not intend to get caught up in a political fight over the resources or recognition of
  Opposition in the Assembly. That is a matter for the Government in terms of resourcing and
  the Assembly in terms of status. Statement by Speaker, the Hon. Kezia Purick MLA
  Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Debates 30 October 2018.

  Preamble

  This paper looks at recent events in the Northern Territory concerning public debate and
  discussion about who forms the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly. A debate which has
  been based on conjecture and hypothetical assumptions because essentially, the question
  does not arise as there is not an equality of numbers of Members representing different
  political parties in existence who are unable to form government.

  The 13th Northern Territory Legislative Assembly (like the 12th) has changed its composition since the election. This has resulted in the growth of independents.

  As at 2019 there are 15 (Labor) Government Members, seven independents, two (Country
  Liberal Party – CLP) Opposition Members and (uniquely) one Labor non caucus Member in
  the 25 Member Assembly.

  During late 2018 and continuing into this year there was a surge of interest in the concept of
  a coalition of independents and a possible claim on the resources provided (by the Northern Territory Government, not by the Speaker) to the Opposition in the Assembly. The matter had been dormant for two years after being examined in the immediate post 2016 election analysis.

  As the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly I have consistently made it very clear that I do
  not agree with any proposal that the Speaker should have a role in anointing an ‘official’
  Opposition.
  In coming to this conclusion I have considered a great deal of advice, been very well
  informed and I have not made the decision lightly.

  The Canadian Precedents

  Canada appears to be particularly fertile ground for calling on Speakers to resolve who is
  considered to be the Opposition.

  The House of Representatives Practice gives a nod to these precedents. The Clerk of the
  House, Mr David Elder, advised the Clerk of the Northern Territory Assembly in November
  2018 about the provenance of the extract at the beginning of this paper.

  My staff have had a good look into this and could not find any example of this having arisen in the Australian federal context.
  However they did note the situation did arise in the Canadian Commons whose Procedure & Practice (O’Brien & Bosc) similarly provides: ‘Should an equality of seats among the largest opposition parties occur, the Speaker may be called upon to decide which party should be designated as the Official Opposition’. In 1996 when a tie occurred between the two largest opposition parties mid-parliament, the Speaker ruled that incumbency was the determining factor and that the status quo should be maintained1.

  An informative article by Professor Nelson Michaud outlines the various Canadian
  precedents in some detail2.

  In British Colombia in 1937 the recognised Opposition’s party lost a seat after a by-election
  resulting in another party becoming numerically superior in the House. The Speaker
  determined that ‘for the sake of convenience’ the ‘official’ Opposition would not change.

  In Saskatchewan in 1977 an equality of numbers in opposition resulted in a (legislatively
  required) equality of resources shared amongst the two parties.

  In Alberta in 1983 the Speaker stated that in the case of equality of numbers, party status
  must be taken into account. In that case the Speaker even took notice of the election results as well. This was unusual in that other Canadian precedents only considered what is happening inside the House and not the numerical quantity of votes that got them there. It is understood that this approach was contra a previous Speaker’s ruling from the same province in 1952.

  In New Brunswick in 1994 the Speaker there decided that taking note of election results was
  an ‘exception to a general rule’. Madam Speaker extended her consideration not to just the
  official opposition but also to the Leader of the Opposition, this was directly counter to the
  Alberta Speaker’s specifying it was not his duty to specify the Leader of the Opposition.
  The outcome in New Brunswick was the Speaker’s ruling meant that equality of numbers,
  which had come about as a consequence of by-lections and resignations during a term of
  the Assembly, on its own was not enough to replace the then recognised (numerically equal) ‘official’ Opposition.

  In the (Canadian) House of Commons in 1996 the ‘continuity principle’ enunciated in New
  Brunswick two years earlier prevailed when there became an equality of numbers of two
  parties in opposition, the party (Bloc Quebecois) started off in opposition and prevailed over the reinvigorated Reform Party which later achieved equal numbers on the floor of the House.

  The interesting argument there was that because Arthur Beauchene’s Rules and Forms of
  the House of Commons of Canada states that the political party which has the right to be
  called ‘Official Opposition’ is the largest minority group which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government to assume office, then a kind of “government in waiting” principle should be applied. Mr Speaker did not agree.

  The Reform party argued the separatist Bloc Quebecois was not a “government in waiting”
  since it would not run candidates outside Quebec and its members were committed to the
  secession of Quebec and breaking up the confederation of Canada.

  The problem with some of these arguments is that they neglect to remember that in most
  cases a new government is formed after an election and not by some osmosis from
  Opposition or pre-anointment by a Speaker as the next in line3.

  In The Yukon in 1996 the Speaker extended the notion of incumbency to having formerly
  been in Government being a satisfactory test. This situation arose directly after a general
  election rather than during a parliamentary term like the other Canadian examples.
  Speaker Robert Bruce of the Yukon described his decision making with reference to the
  House of Commons precedent when he wrote in the following year:

  It is the Chair’s judgment that that spirit and intent is best satisfied by selecting an opposition party caucus which formed the government prior to an election to be the Official Opposition over an opposition party caucus that was a third party in the House prior to the election4.

  How do any of these example relate to the existing situation in the Northern Territory?

  Well, in my view they don’t, but that hasn’t stopped conjecture and debate.

  It is also worth noting that access to the resources made available to the recognised
  Opposition is perhaps what motivates the debate.

  The Yukon Speaker also said: This decision is made in respect to the proceedings in this
  Chamber. Decision on matters such as caucus funding and space allocations are made in
  another forum.

  This is of interest because that ‘other forum’ in the Northern Territory is a gift of the
  Government. The Government decides the quantum of resources allocated to the Opposition as well as to any other groups. The Remuneration Tribunal Determination each year makes it clear that this is at the discretion of the Government.

  For instance, during the 12th Assembly, in 2015 the Government declined to provide any
  additional resources to the three Palmer United Party Members of the Assembly (all
  defectors from Government ranks).

  In the existing 13th Assembly the grouping of seven independents (after many requests for
  more resources) have benefited from a funding allocation which allows the Department of
  the Legislative Assembly to employ two temporary researchers to serve them all (funding
  expires on 30 June next year and the general election is in August next year).

  The assumption in the Northern Territory is that the allocation of the Government’s funds for Opposition will follow the decision made by the electorate as to who is in Opposition. The idea that the Speaker might ‘choose’ an Opposition could effectively mean that the Speaker would direct the flow of the Government’s funds.

  The Northern Territory Experience

  The matter of who forms Opposition was the subject of detailed advice from both the Clerk to the Speaker and advice sought by Government from the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory. These advices were disseminated to Members on 30 August 2016, a few days after the general election.

  They covered off on matters such as the definitions of an ‘opposition’ in various well
  regarded sources such as the Encyclopedia of Parliament5 and Erskine May’s Parliamentary
  Practice6 as well as examining the Northern Territory (Self Government) Act 1978, the Standing Orders (of a number of parliaments) and the Remuneration Tribunal Determination and looking in other places where there may have been references to ‘opposition’. Those advices were informative and they appeared to settle the matter for the time being.

  In October 2018 the matter arose again with a series of Questions on Notice from the
  Member for Araluen (independent) to the Government, media requests to the Speaker and
  sometime later, an attempt by three independent Members who approached the Speaker
  advising they had formed an ‘alliance’ to claim Opposition.

  At the first sitting of the 13th Assembly on 18 October 2016 there was no dispute or
  conjecture about the Opposition7.

  The declaration of the polls had confirmed there was a cohort of two Members from a single
  political party to form Opposition and no objection was (or has yet been) raised by way of
  substantive motion in the Assembly.

  Recognition of an Opposition in the Legislative Assembly

  The Opposition is the party or group which has the greatest number of non-government Members in the House of Representatives8. Rulings and interpretation of these Standing Orders is the responsibility of the Speaker or Member presiding in the Chair, guided by previous rulings and the practices of the Assembly and, if required, the most recent edition of the House of Representatives Practice9.

  These authorities are the basis for how the Opposition has come into existence in the
  Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.

  The 2016 advices contain consideration as to whether it would be possible for a grouping of
  individual independent Members of the Assembly to form and be recognised as an
  Opposition.

  The Solicitor-General (advice tabled in the Assembly), specifically advised:

  Advice has been sought in relation to the formation of the Opposition by a “coalition” of Independent Members if more seats in the Legislative Assembly are held by Independent Members than by Country Liberal Party (CLP) Members … in my view the Opposition cannot be formed by a coalition of Independent Members of the Assembly10.

  While questions have been asked of the Government at Question Time about the resourcing
  of independent Members, no Member of the Assembly has sought a decision of the
  Assembly as a whole in order to change the Assembly’s adoption of the practice of
  recognising the party or group with the greatest number of non-government Members
  becoming the Opposition.

  The House of Representatives Practice advises that the concept of ‘alternative Government’
  is very relevant in Australia. Every Opposition can realistically hope, eventually to form
  government…11

  Does this ‘hope’ extend to individual Independent Members? I don’t think so. An unplanned
  for opportunity to be part of a government by being coopted into a ministry to support a
  minority government is a different matter.

  Questions from the Member for Araluen to Speaker

  On Friday 26 October 2018 in the context of active media coverage I sent an email to all
  Members of the Legislative Assembly as follows:

  Dear Honourable Members

  It has come to my attention through comments from Members on local radio and questions from media outlets that there is a deal of misunderstanding (and perhaps some politicking going on) in terms of the role of the Speaker and the status of ‘Opposition’ in the Legislative Assembly.

  Let me make it abundantly clear – The Speaker has no individual role in determining what constitutes an ‘Opposition’ in the Legislative Assembly.

  The attached advice from the Clerk dated 30 August 2016 was provided by email to all Members just after the Territory election in 2016.

  It should be understood from this advice that the Clerk also has absolutely no role in determining the status of an ‘Opposition’. Clearly some Members may have a poor memory or did not read this previous email message.

  It is the Assembly itself which will make a determination if and when it comes to that.

  See particularly page 6 of the attached concerning a brief reference to a situation where two (non-government) political parties have equal numbers in the Assembly. To follow that thread, you can look at page 77 of the ACT Legislative Assembly’s
  Companion to Standing Orders document here.
  I have no doubt this advice to Members will end up with some media outlets and so be it, I have no issue with my comments being broadcast far and wide.

  Regards

  The Member for Araluen (a former CLP Deputy Chief Minister in the 12th Assembly) replied
  to me and copied in all Members as well as the Clerk on two occasions the following day.

  The Member asked:

  1. Are you saying the Assembly decided in 2016 who was to be Opposition?
  2. If not, then who exactly did make that decision to give Opposition status to the two members of the CLP?
  3. If it was not you “individually”, then what other individual or group of individuals made that decision?

  I replied that I continue to take the view that the status of Opposition in the 13th Legislative
  Assembly is consistent with the established precedent that the party with the largest
  numerical representation after the Government is the Opposition.

  It is also my view that the Assembly is not required to take specific action or adopt any
  specific position when it is known that numerically there is a party or grouping of Members
  which can be identified as the Opposition. By doing nothing more than following recognised practice the Assembly, in effect, decided that the two CLP Members in the Assembly were the Opposition.

  I tabled my considered response to these questions in the Assembly the following week.
  In the case of the 2016 election there was some initial doubt as to whether there would be
  more than one Member of the Assembly from the CLP, (this is what generated the first
  advices from the Clerk and the Solicitor-General in August 2016) however upon the
  declaration of the polls there were two CLP MLAs.

  Further to her first email, the Member for Araluen emailed me and all Members the following questions:

  4. The document you have attached by the Clerk, refers to an attached letter from the NT Solicitor General providing advice on this issue. Is it possible for this letter from the Solicitor General to be provided to all honourable members?
  5. You have referred us to the ACT Standing Orders. Did you consider over the past 2 years, developing a Companion to the Standing Orders of the NT Legislative Assembly, like that of the ACT Legislative Assembly?

  The Solicitor-General’s 2016 advice was sent to all Members in 2016 and has been tabled in
  the Assembly.

  A ‘companion guide’ in the Northern Territory would not assist in any contemplation of the
  status of Opposition here as there is no equivalent Standing Order in the Northern Territory
  to the ACT Standing Order about a method for the Assembly choosing an Opposition leader.

  The reference to the ACT Standing Orders was provided to Members to assist Northern
  Territory Members understand what might be available should a second party or group of
  Members come into existence to challenge the existing CLP Opposition status.

  Media and other Member Commentary

  A discussion between some Members of the Assembly on Darwin radio station MIX FM as
  well as two other emails sent to me on Friday 26 October 2018 from a reporter at the ABC in
  Darwin asserted some form of collusion on the part of the Speaker in ‘determining’ the
  Opposition.

  The radio interview included the following comments from the Member for Blain (an
  independent but also a former 12th Assembly Chief Minister):

  We fear insider trading because the two existing parties and the Speaker appear to have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are … If we leave it to insider considerations and advice from a Speaker you are going to have, I think, things stay exactly the same way because they are motivated to keep them the same way.

  The next week in the Assembly I called upon the Member for Blain to ask him to withdraw
  the comments and to apologise for reflecting upon the Chair12 which he did.

  The ABC’s journalist wrote to me asserting:

  I am working on a story today about the possibility of independent members Terry Mills and Robyn Lambley attempting to form Opposition. As you are aware, it wasn’t the Government that gave the two-member CLP official Opposition status, it was you and the clerk.

  This assertion is factually incorrect. Neither the Speaker nor the Clerk have the power to ‘give’ status to an Opposition.
  He continued:

  According to a respected constitutional law expert, it is the Speaker who selects the Opposition and questions have also been raised over why the Solicitor General was even called in for a matter that is supposed to be dealt with by the rules governing the Legislative Assembly, which is the Clerk’s responsibility.

  It is not known who the expert referred to is.

  In the context of conversations between the Clerk and noted constitutional law scholar
  Professor George Williams, Professor Williams wrote to the Clerk on 7 February 2019 in the
  following terms:

  Dear Michael
  … I am thinking about whether to do one of my columns in The Australian on the subject.
  I did end up doing a short interview today for ABC radio before I received the below. I made the point of how existing conventions are ill adapted for the current situation, and that I saw this is as a matter for Parliament to resolve, rather than the speaker. I noted though that it was not clear Parliament would be able to do so, especially given the need for government members not to determine who becomes the opposition. In light of this, I suggested that the conventions may need to evolve and that Parliament may need to be informed by further independent advice so as to bring a non-partisan perspective to the resolution of this question13.

  The article in The Australian14 provides some more information on those views. I have
  emphasised the pertinent part above with regard to my role as Speaker.

  While the procedure in the ACT Assembly provides for a deadlock in that jurisdiction where
  there is an equality of numbers in opposition parties. The matter has never been determined in the Northern Territory.

  The House of Representative’s Practice reference is to a situation where the Speaker might
  be required to recognise who is the Leader of the Opposition where there are two parties in
  opposition with the precise same number of Members15.

  In his email to me the ABC’s journalist further stated:

  The 2016 decision has also been called into question because of the rushed handling of it. You gave the keys to the fourth floor offices to Higgins and the CLP before anyone else could make an argument for Opposition and the Government then followed suit and gave them the Opposition resourcing. That’s just a fact.

  The 2016 advices were received by James Oaten at the ABC in Darwin who reported on the
  matter extensively at the time. (Mr Oaten was not the reporter making these new assertions).

  The allegation of a ‘rushed handling’ is incorrect and the remainder of the commentary is not ‘a fact’.

  The poll was declared on 12 September 2016. The Chamber seating plan was settled by the
  Speaker after the declaration of the poll. It was an orderly process. The Assembly holds no
  record of ‘anyone else’ seeking to ‘make an argument for Opposition’.

  Written Questions and the Government’s Response

  The role of the Speaker in ‘determining’ Opposition became somewhat murky when the
  Chief Minister’s answer to Written Question 447 was published.

  The answer was provided to the Member for Araluen without consultation with or reference
  to me about its content.

  It is understood the answer is partially based upon further advice the Government received from the Solicitor-General. After seeking a copy of that advice it became clear to me that the Solicitor-General’s advice was not considered in full in the Government’s Answer 447.

  Answer 447 is an answer provided by the Chief Minister and as is well known, Ministers may
  answer questions how they see fit.

  If I had written the response I would probably have written:

  The Speaker in the Northern Territory has consistently advised she will not make an arbitrary decision if there is an equality of numbers. It will be a matter for the Assembly itself.

  Question and Answer 447

  The Member for Araluen to the Chief Minister:

  1. Given that the CLP Opposition currently have only two members, how would the Opposition be determined in the case whereby another two cross bench form a political party (compliant with the requirements of the NT Electoral Commission) and make a bid for Opposition status?
  2. Given the Remuneration Tribunal Determination refers to a single ‘Opposition’, would the Chief Minister give consideration to making an interim Determination (as available under the Act) to recognise a second party of opposition and adjust the allocated resources in equal shares accordingly?
  3. Given the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and other Entitlements) Act provides in the regulations the Tribunal cannot allocate certain resources to Opposition and Independents will the Government step in if there is an equality of numbers in two political parties on the opposition bench to the Government?
  4. If there were two political parties, both with 2 cross bench Members of Parliament in the NT Parliament, who and how would the Opposition status be determined?
  5. Has the Government sought an update from the Solicitor General with regards to her 2016 advice on who constitutes the opposition in the case outlined above?
  6. Is the status Opposition status simply about a political party having more Members on the floor of the NT Parliament?
  7. How is it determined that a political party or a coalition of political parties, can “form an alternative government” and thereby be considered as an Opposition?
  8. What role or say does the NT Government have in determining what political party or coalition of political parties forms Opposition?
  9. Has the Government sought any advice from the Speaker and/or the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on the matter of who forms Opposition if there is an equality of Members in two parties that do not form the Government?
  10. Is there any precedent for the Opposition status of a Parliament to be shared by two parties of the same size?
  11. Are there any circumstances in which Opposition status could be shared by two political parties?
  12. If so, how would that work?
  13. Given that the CLP Opposition currently have only two members, how would the Opposition be determined in the case whereby another three cross bench form a political party (compliant with the requirements of the NT Electoral Commission) and make a bid for Opposition status?
  14. Could you describe the circumstances that would trigger a change in Opposition, given the current Opposition consists of 2 Members of the NT Legislative Assembly?
  15. Who would determine a change in Opposition?
  16. What is the process for changing Opposition?
  17. If two political parties formed a coalition of more than three Members of the Legislative Assembly, in the current Parliament with the CLP Opposition of two, could they form the Opposition?
  18. How would a coalition of two political party be recognised as a potential Opposition in the NT Parliament?
  19. What requirements are needed to qualify as a coalition in order to be considered as an Opposition in the NT Parliament?
  20. In the case where no political party has more than one member representing them on the cross benches of the NT Parliament, how is Opposition formed?
  21. In the case where there are no political parties represented in the cross bench (all cross benches are Independent Members of Parliament), and therefore there is no political party to form an “alternative Government” or claim Opposition status in the NT Parliament, what would happen?
  22. What is recognised as a coalition in the NT Parliament?
  23. Can a group or alliance of two or more Independent Members of Parliament (not a political party) with common policies, form Opposition?
  24. What is the Parliamentary process for determining a change of Opposition? What happens?

  Answer – Overarching Response

  Under Westminster convention and practice, the ‘Opposition’ is defined as the political party (or ‘coalition Opposition’ of parties), which has the greatest number of non-Government Members in the Legislative Assembly. It is not possible for two separate Opposition parties to exist, or share the function of Opposition status, while remaining distinct in their individual Party’ status. For similar reasons, it is not possible for two Independent members to share the function of Opposition. A coalition of parties forming the official Opposition could be demonstrated by some blurring of the distinction between the parties, comprising clear evidence of their ongoing joint commitment and capacity to function as the official Opposition.
  While there is no ‘bright-line’ test of the requirements for a coalition of parties to be afforded the status of Opposition, a coalition Opposition would need to demonstrate a public commitment to act co-operatively based on aligned ideologies and that it could effectively perform the functions of the Opposition. Evidence of this commitment could be, for example, a written agreement pledging to always act collectively and with detail regarding the agreed positions on likely policy issues. If the official Opposition party (or coalition Opposition) is not clear by virtue of numbers, it would be a matter for the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to decide which group will be recognised as the official Opposition, and who will be recognised as the Chair as the Leader of the Opposition.
  1. Refer to the Overarching Response.
  2. There can only be one party recognised as the official Opposition, therefore,  consideration of a second party of Opposition, and subsequently the resourcing of such a body, is a fallacious concept.
  3. Refer to Question 2 above, and the Overarching Response.
  4. Refer to Overarching Response.
  5. Yes.
  6. Yes – refer to Overarching Response.
  7. Refer to Overarching Response.
  8. None – refer to Overarching Response.
  9. No.
  10. – 19. Refer to Overarching Response.
  20. In the event there was no non-Government party with more than one Member, there would be no official Opposition. In that situation, it would be more appropriate that all non-Government Members (both Independent and those endorsed by a minority party) would act in opposition to Government, instead of there being an official Opposition. This was the case in the first Assembly of the Northern Territory.
  21. Refer to Question 20 above.
  22. -24. Refer to Overarching Response.

  Not satisfied with the Government’s response and the subsequent and repeated repudiation by me of the purported role of the Speaker which the Government outlined in the response entitled Overarching Response above, the Member for Araluen again asked the Government further written questions.

  The Government’s answer to these questions (451) was: Refer to Written Question 447 for answers.

  On 19 December the Member for Araluen asked Written Question 479: Can a group, alliance or coalition of two or more Independent Members of Parliament (not a political party) with common policies, form Opposition?

  The Government responded: The responses to Written Questions 447 and 451 provide the
  answer to this question.

  Finally (so far), on 28 February this year, the Member for Araluen asked question 538 on the
  same topic with 20 parts to the question16, the Chief Minister’s novel answer was:

  The extensive advice you have already received answers these questions. I encourage you to focus your energies on the concerns of Territorians, rather than continually focusing on yourself.

  TRY Time

  On Wednesday 6 February the NT News reported under the front page headline T.R.Y.
  Time: Terry, Robyn and Yingiya move to seize Opposition from CLP17 that the three
  independent Members had met with me to ask me to “formalise the arrangement which
  would see the two member CLP stripped of the resource and privileges of the Opposition”.

  Needless to say, at my meeting with the three Members on the previous day I reiterated my
  by then oft stated position that I do not see it as the role of the Speaker to do any such thing.
  When they cited the Chief Minister’s ‘overarching response’ to Question 447 I advised they
  would have to take that up with him.

  I was particularly interested in the reporting the next day which stated: “The opposition-in-waiting would operate as a collation of independents and follows advice from the NT
  Solicitor-General that a coalition of non-government members could act as the official
  opposition if those members had demonstrated a public commitment to act cooperatively
  based on aligned ideologies”.
  “However that advice related to coalitions of political parties not independents.”

  Yes – That’s a pretty big “however…”

  After meeting with the independents on 5 February I wrote to them to advise:

  It is understood that you seek Speaker’s intervention into the existing arrangements concerning which Members of the Legislative Assembly form the recognised Opposition. As you have been advised previously, by convention, the grouping of Members from the recognised political party with the most Members who cannot form Government are considered the Opposition in the Assembly.

  That convention does not reflect any decision made by the Speaker. For procedural purposes, the Speaker is required to know which Member is Leader of the Opposition but otherwise has no interest in the matter. It is open to you as Members to challenge the above stated convention and seek to formalise other arrangements with the agreement of the majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly..…
  At our meeting on the 5th of February you referenced the Chief Minister’s answer to Written Question 447 submitted by the Member for Araluen. That answer asserts the Speaker has a role in the determination of who forms the Opposition in some circumstances. The Chief Minister’s response to that question on notice is a matter for him. I do not agree that the Speaker in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly should
  have the described role. I will not perform that role. I have consistently said I will not do so. Should one of you wish to move a motion in the Assembly for the Assembly to consider whether the Assembly recognises your grouping of independent Members as the Opposition and one of you as the Leader of the Opposition that course is open to you.

  Conclusion

  It remains my view that the Speaker should have no direct role in deciding who forms
  Opposition in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

  In Party Politics: The Growth of Parties Sir Ivor Jennings wrote in 1961 that: The minority in
  the House of Commons is composed for the most part of members of a single party who are
  in general opposition to the Government and hope to supplant it at the next election through becoming a majority18.

  While his work mentions the few independents who come to the fore from time to time it
  does not contemplate a coalition of independents supplanting parties.

  Acknowledging some unique legislatures such as that of Nunavut where there are no
  political parties and the government is formed by a vote on the floor of the Assembly, the
  experience in Australia has uniformly been that parties exist and parties either alone or in
  coalition form governments and if they exist in opposition they are recognised as the
  Opposition.

  In the Northern Territory there was not always an opposition that could be recognised even
  when the Assembly had two non-government members who were elected as independents.
  While occasionally styled as ‘in opposition’ they were not recognised and resourced in such
  a manner (1974-77).

  I continue to take the very well established approach that the Speaker’s role is to serve the
  Assembly itself.

  The Speaker remains in the service of the Assembly and is accountable to its membership
  for so long as the Assembly determines (in my case) that I should hold the position. To
  choose a different particular grouping to become the Opposition when there is, by convention and past practice, an already recognised grouping in existence would be, in my view, an abuse of my trusted and impartial position.

  I therefore leave it as a matter for the Assembly itself.

  *****************************

  Footnotes

  1 Reproduced with the permission of both Clerks.

  2 Designating the Official Opposition in a Westminster Parliamentary System. Nelson Pichard, The
  Journal of Legislative Studies Vol 6 No 1 Winter 2000 pp69-90 at page 75 onwards.

  3 See the Speaker’s complete explanation at: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/35-
  2/house/sitting-1/hansard#16.

  4 Recognition of Official Opposition Robert Bruce, Canadian Parliamentary Review Spring 1997 page
  38.

  5 Wilding and Laundy 1961 Edition page 428.

  6 Erskine May (Sir Malcolm Jack) – Twenty Fourth Edition page 49.

  7 The NTEC results were declared on Monday 12 September 2016.

  8 Seventh Edition at page 79.

  9 Standing Order 1: General Rule about Application and Interpretation, Legislative Assembly of the
  Northern Territory.

  10 Paragraph 29 of Solicitor General’s advice at Annexure 2. Tabled in the Assembly.

  11 Seventh Edition at page 79.

  12 See generally the House of Representatives Practice Seventh Edition page 202.

  13 Reproduced with permission of Professor Williams.

  14 Territory’s Arm Wrestle is Unique 18 February 2019.

  15 House of Representatives Practice Seventh Edition at page 79.

  16 See: https://parliament.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/665653/Aqst-538-LambleyOpposition-Status.pdf.

  17 Reporter: Hayley Sorenson.

  18 At page 2.

  *****************************

  You can read all of the papers from the 50th Annual Presiding Officers and Clerks Conference held earlier this week in Bribane here.

  The post The Role of a Speaker in Determining the Opposition: Kezia Purick appeared first on The Northern Myth.

July 11, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Transit Unplugged

  I’ve been listening to the Transit Unplugged podcast for a while now on my (sometimes quite long) weekend walks.

  They typically interview CEOs and other senior managers from public transport systems in the USA, often small-to-medium sized operations.

  In recent weeks they’ve published a set of interviews with CEOs from much larger operations – and the reason this is of particular interest to locals here is that they’re all in Australia – mostly Melbourne.

  Featuring are PTV (since merged into Department of Transport), Metro, Yarra Trams and V/Line, along with Transport Canberra, Sydney Trains/NSW Trainlink and John Holland.

  While I know and have spoken to some of the people involved, it’s interesting to hear about issues from this perspective – interviewed by host Paul Comfort, who is a former CEO of an American public transport operator.

  They’re not challenging interviews – but some of the challenges facing these operations certainly get highlighted.

  The interviews are also a reminder that behind the scenes of the public transport operations that we passengers see day to day, there’s a lot of management of people and finance that’s also going on – something in common with any big organisation.

  The other theme is that of change. For instance the PTV interview notes that one seat journeys are no longer realistic for all trips in a city the size of Melbourne, but work needs to be done on better interchanges. The V/Line interview notes the transition from a regional rail operator to (at least for many passengers) a commuter railway.

  I can see a few typos in the transcripts – especially for Jeroen Weimar, who is a fast talker when he gets going – and Nicolas Gindt’s reference to gunzels, in his French accent, which must have confounded the host, is missing.

  Perhaps the transcripts were generated by a computer – and you might also note a few minor gaffes in the recordings, but still, these are very interesting and well worth a listen.

  I’ll leave you with this great optimistic quote from Howard Collins from Sydney Trains:

  Australia has hit the golden age of rail. I think for the first time in probably 50 years, Australians realize public transport is the only way to get cities to work. Expanding cities like Melbourne and Sydney, which are going to grow from five million to eight million in the next 20 years, you can’t drive, you can’t have that culture of car anymore. You’ve got to look at London and New York, and you’ll see that public transport.

  Transit Unplugged Podcasts

  • PTUA members and would-be members: the next member meeting on 25th July features Councillor Nic Frances Gilley from City of Melbourne, talking about their draft transport strategy. Details here.
• The Northern Myth Blow-flies, “honey” and secret recipes: the great NAIDOC Blachung cook-off of 2019

  

  “Blachung” – there are as many alternate spellings as there are recipes – is for many Top End families the sauce (or sambal) that keeps them together and provides a common culinary reference point.

  As part of Darwin NAIDOC celebrations for 2019, the Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation – hosts and organisers of many of this week’s great events – held a competition to find the best Blachung sauce at its Coconut Grove headquarters.

  I caught up with a few locals to see what they thought about their favourite condiment. Like a mug I asked Larrakia man Mark Motlop who made the best Blachung. “Mine!” he responded. And the second best? “Mine!” and broke us all up in peals of laughter.

  Mark went on to explain that plenty of his aunties made Blachung:

  Everyone has their own different style of making it and everyone thinks that theirs is the best but blachung is just nice!

  Where does blachung come from? Well, the Indonesians have their own different style – they call it “belachan” and there’s “blachan,” which you can buy in blocks from the shops – that is the dry one – and then there’s “blachung” that I’m used to – My father is from the Torres Strait, my mother is a Larrakia woman and I learnt to cook blachung from my father.

  Plenty of folks reckon that cooking blachung was not for the faint-hearted, not least because of the universal ingredient of shrimp – which can come in a dry block or as a paste and the particular smells they put off when cooked.

  Mark Motlop reckon he tries to cook it indoors until his missus gets sick of the smell and sends him outside.

  Northern Land Council CEO Marion Scrymgour reckons that you could always tell when her Mum had blachung on the go.

  You could always tell when the blachung was cooking – not just that smell, but also the flies on the screen door – sometimes there would be hundreds of those big blue blowflies trying to get to that smell! But when it was cooked, YUM! It is just like honey to a lot of Aboriginal families in Darwin.

  Maisie Austin from the NT Stolen Generations Aboriginal Corporation reckons that her family would always cook inside the house.

  Yes, they cooked inside. I remember when dad used to make it everyone used to have to go outside because it just stank the place out!

  Apart from the extraordinary olfactory impacts and entomological attractions of cooking blachung, there was widespread agreement on its origins somewhere in Asia.

  Nigel Browne of the Larrakia Development Corporation noted the links between Darwin’s Asian history and demography and its favourite condiment.

  [Blachung] obviously has Asian influences but if you look at the history of Darwin over the last couple of centuries, for a long time the largest part of the population was Chinese and a lot of our Larrakia families have Chinese backgrounds as well. But also Malay, Filipino, Indonesian, Timorese – all sorts. I think it has been more than a century of a cultural and culinary melting pot and blachung is one of the things that’s come along for the ride.

  The prawn paste is the base of course but a lot of people use really different things. Some use chicken giblets, turtle guts, goose giblets.  All sorts of stuff. Some of it is very, very hot, some is mild and some has more flavour than heat. I like a lot of heat and a lot of flavour!

  Wadjigan/Larrakia man Jerome Cubillo credits the early Macassan traders with the introduction of blachung and of the impact on good food on community relations.

  For me it has got to come from the Macassan trading days – bringing all their spices across to the Top End for hundreds of years and that Asian influence. It might be just a unique thing to Darwin, growing up here with all the different cultural influences – the Chinese, the Filipino and more – that just added to the mix. Our mob like the flavours and it caught on – and was adapted locally of course.

  I think it speaks about how diverse Darwin is and how we are really fortunate here. From the very start of Darwin we had a whole mix of different cultures coming into one place, interacting with Larrakia and other Aboriginal cultures. This is a unique place where growing up you didn’t know any different from seeing a whole range of cultures just coming together at places like the Saturday markets at Parap, the Mindil Beach markets and the Sunday markets at Rapid Creek and Nightcliff. I think people getting together around food is a special thing that breaks down stereotypes and stigmas through food. What could be better!

  No-one could agree on who made the best blachung. For Marion Scrymgour it was her Mum that made the best but she also credits former NT government Minister and NLC Director Jak Ah Kit as one of the best blachung makers.

  For Careflight’s Peter Costello it was all about being local.

  Local people … local people. (Laughs) It depends what chilies you put in and what you add to it so it is very hard to explain.

  For Northern Land Council Chair Samuel Bush-Blanasi the best was “Pedro’s … and old Jimmy Anderson.”

  Maisie Austin’s pal, Tiwi Islander Veronica Virgona reckoned the best place to find blachung in the old days was in the suburb of Stuart Park.

  My parents always used to say that if you are looking for blachung go to Stuart Park because you’ll find somebody there with it!  We had the Abala and Lew Fatt families living there. My parents loved it. Us Tiwi islanders, we never made it – but we used to eat it! The blachung made by the Lew Fatt family was always my favourite.

  For local legend Sambo (that’s right, just Sambo) the best blachung was made by his godfather. He’s passed away now but “his blachung was the best.”

  Jerome Cubillo also keeps it in the family.

  My Aunty Pilar Cubillo’s blachung is the best. Well, there is a bit of bias there. It was the first one I tried and also because it packs a lot of punch! I like it hot. You’ve got to do it properly if you are going to do it at all! Aunty Pilar’s is my go to against which I measure all the others. Freddy Adams makes a pretty mean one!

  Maisie Austin may just have it all worked out – she supplies the chilies and her family supplies her with the blachung!

  Everyone has their own secret recipe, my father and my mother and my brothers are all blachung makers and they are all different and all beautiful. And I supply the chillies! They are quite a big and very hot chilli and they were brought over from Queensland. I’ve been growing them for about 30 or 40 years.

  And, like pretty much everyone else I interviewed, blachung goes with just about anything. Maisie Austin again.

  Rice, steak, bread … anything! Chicken vermicelli (laughs) whatever you are eating … omelette, whatever!

  Mark Motlop reckons blachung on rice is the go.

  You can put it on ham and cheese sandwiches, on top of your steaks, on rice – on top of the rice is the best way to eat it.

  Nigel Browne gets the last words – he puts blachung on …

  Anything … and everything! (laughs) Probably not for breakfast but most definitely … I like using it like Hot English Mustard. I’ll put the blachung on the steak and I’m all set!

  And the winners of the inaugural NAIDOC Blachung cook-off for 2019 were:

  First place: Judy Kennedy;

  Runners up: Mark Motlop & Steven Cardona.

  See you all next year!

  The post Blow-flies, “honey” and secret recipes: the great NAIDOC Blachung cook-off of 2019 appeared first on The Northern Myth.

July 04, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Bustitution looms again

  Just a quick one as I’ve been very busy, and have also had a bad cold, so haven’t felt like much writing.

  The next lot of major bustitution is upon us from Saturday morning, and including all of next week: no trains between the City and Caulfield.

  You’ll recall that at Easter, this was a complete mess.

  Have they learnt from that? Yes, I’m told they looked very closely at how it went, though they’re sticking with the strategy of funnelling most people into Caulfield, then bussing them from there.

  Why? Because, they say, they know what went wrong, including during that looooong trip on the Monday morning:

  • What should have happened is that terminating trains used platforms 1 and 3. Frankston into platform 1, with passengers directed to a bus queue at the NW end of the station, going to the Arts Centre; Dandenong into platform 3, passengers directed to a bus queue at the SW end, buses to Federation Square
  • But Frankston trains arriving into platform 1 were delayed leaving again due to crowding on the platform.
  • Train controllers made the fateful decision to terminate some onto platform 2 instead, to keep trains moving.
  • This resulted in large numbers of people ending up in the one queue, and consequently long delays there, and on buses approaching Federation Square.
  • Bus drivers only have training for their specific route (they’re often brought in from far afield, so don’t necessarily know the local road system), so they couldn’t divert resources to the Fed Square route, nor could they divert some buses away from Fed Square to avoid traffic snarls

  “Buses replace trains”
  No, they really don’t. #TrainPain #bustitution #MetroTrains pic.twitter.com/k65FAL2PKt

  — Daniel Bowen (@danielbowen) April 7, 2019

  Okay, fair enough, let’s assume the root cause was a lack of staff clearing platform 1. They can fix that.

  But that doesn’t explain why they let the queue for buses to Fed Square get out of control. Why didn’t they divert some of the crowds to the other queue?

  They could also brief the bus drivers on both routes, and the options connecting them, for more operational flexibility. Sounds like this time they will divert buses if the Fed Square route clogs up.

  And it doesn’t explain why the long delays for buses getting out of Caulfield across Princes Highway, nor why the Federation Square bus route was still a mess throughout that week.

  To be fair, they say they’ll try harder this time to quickly clear incoming buses out of Fed Square, and deploying Variable Message Signs to encourage other traffic to avoid parts of that route, to try and keep things moving.

  They’re also going to try express buses from Cranbourne and Pakenham all the way into the City (inbound AM peak only), to try and reduce loads closer in. It’ll still be a long journey in the traffic.

  Interesting change in approach – flyers being handed out at Cranbourne this morning. #bigbuild @danielbowen pic.twitter.com/eyEzAPF1ph

  — Jessica Cross (@jmcross99) July 3, 2019

  And for Dandenong line users they’ll have contingency plans if the line clogs up, offering the option of a bus connection from Oakleigh to Darling on the Glen Waverley line. They may also deploy buses to Moorabbin.

  But they’ve resisted the idea of funnelling large numbers of passengers onto other lines by default, as it may just cause crowding and delays to spread more widely.

  There also seems to be no consideration to also boosting regular crosstown route buses to neighbouring rail lines – though they did tell me they’d watch for people left behind, and try to boost tram capacity. Tram 67 and bus route 630 seemed to be the worst affected last time.

  I also know they’ll continue to monitor closely each day and tweak things where possible. I don’t expect this will be the last big shut down for the metro tunnel, so they do need to keep working at improving things.

  Let’s see what happens on Monday morning.

  • Official PTV info: winter construction blitz

June 30, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Old photos from June 2009

  Here (just a few hours late) is another in my series of ten year old photos: this time, it’s June 2009.

  Already the subject of a blog post, was this confusing ad on the side of a bus. Does it mean it’s flexible or not?

  

  Don’t you wish you were not packed into a train on your commute, but instead on your own private train somewhere? I used this photo in a blog about Connex (Veolia, then running the suburban trains) and Transdev (then running Yarra Trams) being replaced by consortiums run by MTR and Keolis – which was announced in June 2009.

  

  There was a campaign on trams around keeping trams and other traffic moving.

  

  …There was also a campaign around rail safety.

  

  As of June 2019, there’s a new bus route 627 that’s just started – here’s a pic of the previous route to have that number – which was very confusing. Since split into the 625 and 626, which helps legibility.

  

  Meanwhile over on the trains, ads for the government’s transport plan had started to appear.

  

  …and Myki machines had started to appear in railway stations. They would finally be switched on at the end of 2009.

  

June 27, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Some Brisbane observations

  Last week’s two whirlwind trips to Brisbane were busy with family business, but there was a chance for a few quick transporty observations.

  Tourists see signs for “stations” and might assume they’re all railway stations. Nope, some of them are busway stations – they just look similar from the outside!

  

  

  Boggo Road busway station has platform numbers combined with the adjacent Park Road railway station. But why don’t the two stations have the same name?

  When we passed through, the railway line was closed for works, with the busway and station being used for bus replacements. Handy. Their bus replacement routes also have route numbers, which helps navigate the system when the trains are out.

  

  Some Brisbane bus drivers say “thank you” as you touch-on your Go card. This might encourage fare compliance. Most Melbourne bus drivers in comparison don’t seem to acknowledge this.

  Brisbane bus passengers are encouraged via signage to say thanks to their drivers, and many seem to do so.

  Lots of resources get thrown at Brisbane buses: high frequencies on many routes, the bus ways, and innovations such as USB charging. It probably reflects that they play a significant role in the transport task, in comparison to Melbourne. Of course Brisbane has no trams.

  As noted previously, the busways keep buses zooming along‌ at least at off-peak times. They can clog up quickly during peak. They can handle a lot of people – more than cars, but not as many as trains.

  

  Elsewhere on Brisbane roads, there seem to be some bus lanes and jump start lanes, but little in the way of real bus traffic light priority.

  

  Brisbane’s train system infrastructure remains impressive, but service frequencies do not.

  Most rail lines run only every half-hour outside peak, including the Airport to Gold Coast line, though this is gradually moving to 15 minutes.

  The exception of course is the inner section where multiple lines converge. We travelled from Wooloowin (near our hotel) to Park Road, then made a connection to a bus to UQ. Then back again. Waiting/connection time: minimal, thanks to combined high frequencies.

  

  Wooloowin has the rail service of a busy hub station, but feels like a well-to-do residential inner suburb.

  Apart from the hotel we stayed in, many of the houses were traditional Queenslanders, not South Yarra-like skyscrapers. I wouldn’t be surprised if density increases there as the city grows.

  Mind the gap.
  Good advice, Bowen. pic.twitter.com/sWEDHriPzJ

  — Daniel Bowen (@danielbowen) June 22, 2019

  As in Melbourne, Brisbane trains seem to be mostly 6-car trains even at off-peak times. so it beats me why the new trains (“Next Generation Rollingstock” aka NGR700) were built with intermediate cabs. Maybe they envisage some 3-car running on some lines into the future.

  Correction: the NGR fleet does not have intermediate cabs. The middle two carriages are non-cab/driver motor cars.

  

  There are a lot more staff on the train system than in Melbourne, even on weekends. For a start there are drivers and guards on the trains.

  But there are even more staff thanks to a screw-up with the new trains.

  • Over decades, Queensland Rail have designed the system to cater for wheelchairs in the middle of the train. Guards on older trains are located here, and so are raised sections of platforms.
  • But the NGR fleet was designed for the guards at the end of the train.
  • So on every line they run on, station staff meet the trains and check for anybody needing assistance. It’s resulted in lots of stations staffed from first to last train, and those staff roving the platforms.
  • The side effect of this is there are actually some good safety and customer service outcomes for all passengers, but I’m sure the government would have preferred not to have the additional expense.
  • Maybe passengers might prefer that too, given a well-publicised shortage of drivers.

  

  It’s nice having the airport train in Brisbane. But it’s expensive, and at most times of day it’s infrequent. Of the four trips to/from the airport, I only used it for one – where I was travelling alone, and at a time when there was a train every 15 minutes.

  The train was a long way from full, but still had quite a few people aboard – perhaps 100 alighted at the end of the line at the Domestic terminal.

  

  

  For one of the other airport trips I used a taxi (perhaps more expensive than Uber, but positioned right outside the terminal, with no waiting), and for another, because we’d be making some time-sensitive, non-PT-friendly trips, we got a hire car — which was pretty smooth, but I did have to navigate Brisbane’s road network, which was challenging thanks to hills preventing a Melburnian-friendly grid.

  Parking in Brisbane’s CBD and surrounds is getting difficult on weekdays. They’re becoming a big city!

  New in the CBD scramble crossings – with signage to educate pedestrians.

  

  And along Albert Street there’s construction for their metro tunnel (“Cross River Rail“), though I’m not sure there’s any actual construction happening just yet. It’s due to open in about 2025, around the same time as Melbourne’s Metro 1 tunnel.

  The Go Card that I first bought in 2011 still works, 8 years later. Presumably due to its 10 year lifespan, it’ll conk out in 2021, though I’m told you can actually get the expiry date extended at a station booking office. I didn’t get a chance to do this, and I’m not sure if it means the card is replaced, or just the expiry date on it is reset.

  

  Go Card purchase cost remains at $10 (refundable deposit), but single use (2-hour) tickets are also available – they’re just a printed receipt you can show to staff. More expensive than Go Card fares, but good to have the option for tourists who only want to make a quick single trip.

  And one more thing in the transport mix: apart from hire bikes, Brisbane also has Lime scooters all over the CBD and inner city. I don’t have a feel for how successful they are, but I did see a few people using them.

June 23, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Vale Uncle Frank

  In the past week, I’ve flown to Brisbane and back twice.

  My Uncle Frank got very sick. My sister, my cousin and I are his closest relatives, and we all live interstate. Thankfully we were able to go and see him.

  He passed away on Sunday morning. It was peaceful in the end, but it was still a shock.

  You may have noticed I've been pretty quiet this week.
  It's because my uncle passed away.
  He was 86, and lived in Brisbane. His nephews and niece were his closest family.
  Sharp until the end, and always full of good humour.
  RIP Uncle Frank 1933-2019 pic.twitter.com/Sy1bFKBWHi

  — Daniel Bowen (@danielbowen) June 21, 2019

  After helping to organise things, I flew home, then back for the funeral, which was on Friday: a service at the Funeral Director’s chapel.

  After the service was a burial in the family plot at Lutwyche Cemetery, then we had a meal at a nearby restaurant to chat with relatives, neighbours and friends, to reminisce. It was good.

  To the end, Frank was sharp and loved to chat. In the past few years I’d ring him up and he’d love to talk about politics, family, and especially family history, which he knew I was interested in.

  And transport sometimes came up as a topic, interwoven into our conversations.

  He told me he’d done national service in 1951. He used to go to army training on the tram… carrying his rifle… with a bayonet. He reckoned you probably couldn’t do it nowadays!

  Uncle Ken passed away in 1996. Dad in 2010. Frank was the last of that generation in that part of my family.

  Sometimes when you’re living a long way away from your relatives as you grow up, you can end up a little unaware of some of the things that make you the person you are. Chats on the phone with Frank helped to fill some of those gaps for me.

  RIP Uncle Frank, 1933-2019. Sadly missed.

June 21, 2019

• Club Troppo Comparing the Census to alternative data or information: What is the right counterfactual?
  

  You might think that on a post about counterfactuals, we’d have a picture of sliding doors together with two contrasting pictures of Gwyneth Paltrow. But you’d be wrong. We’re full of surprises here at Lateral Economics.

  By Matt Balmford; Gene Tunny; and Nicholas Gruen

  Our inaugural blog post for the Valuing the Census project provided an overview of our strategy for estimating the benefits of the Census to the Australian community.

  From here, we’ll be blogging about various issues that we’re grappling with in making this assessment.

  To assess the value of the Census, we need to assess the additional value it generates over alternatives in its absence.

  These alternatives are counterfactual scenarios to assess the benefits of the Census against.

  So, that value is of the extra precision or insight for a given use, compared with the next best alternatives.

  (In later blog posts we’ll get into what Census-related data or information means, as well as what the impacts of this extra precision or insight might be.)

  But what are the alternatives to the Census?

  They might include personal experience, or stylised facts, or the ABS’s survey-based official statistics, or market research data, or many other administrative or non-official data.

  Alternatives will obviously vary by issue and use, and not all alternative data will be available to all people (for example, due to commercial or confidentiality restrictions) or be easy for them to understand and/or use.

  In a hypothetical world without a Census, would the ABS do something else to fill some of the gaps created?

  Would the ABS or other agencies create a new next best alternative source of data for some uses and if so at what cost?

  The potential counterfactual scenarios are varied and prompt consideration of a wide range of issues.

  For example, consider these hypothetical scenarios:

  1. That data today sourced from the Census because unavailable. Users will need to make best use of whatever alternative data is currently available from ABS or other sources. This saves the Australian government the whole incremental cost of the Census (which were around $500m in 2016).
  2. A Census is conducted less frequently (for example, every ten years as in the US). Census data would become less useful as it became more out-of-date, but it would also reduce costs (presumably  by around half) some of which savings could be invested in expanded ABS surveys to plug the worst gaps.
  3. The traditional Census every five years is replaced with greater use of ongoing large-scale sample surveys (closer to the French rolling census) and integrated administrative data in official statistics.  It is unclear what the costs of this would be, or how quality would be affected.

  Our current thinking is that, given the purpose of this exercise, it would be the most simple and straightforward to consider the first scenario that is ‘with’ and ‘without’ the Census.

  This reduces the number of permutations and uncertainties in play.

  Since our valuation will draw in part from stakeholders’ perspectives on alternatives to Census-related data, the thought experiment needs to be clear and consistent for them, too.

  We are hoping that stakeholders will be able to understand this ‘with’ and ‘without’ scenario.

  For example, since 2006 the Census has incorporated information of educational attainment (i.e., highest year of school completed or level of highest non-school qualification).

  This helps users to investigate the relationship between levels of education and employment outcomes, income and other socioeconomic variables. It is often used as a proxy measure of socioeconomic status.

  While various sample surveys also look at this issue, their sample size is too low to give sufficient detail for small population groups and for small regions or localities (for example, with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples).

  This is the sort of comparison between Census-related and alternative data and information that we’ll be looking to explore further with stakeholders.

  In doing this, we acknowledge that simply discontinuing the Census is not a realistic scenario with the kinds of options set out in the second and third scenarios being more likely (and which statistical agencies worldwide are debating).

  However, we think it is a reasonable position to take for a first and already challenging Australian assessment of Census value, and one that is not trying to assess the relative desirability of different Census models.

  It is also the position taken, with varying degrees of explicitness, in recent UK and NZ analysis on similar topics.

  Do you agree with our current thinking?

  Are there other approaches we could take that will be both valid and practical?

  If so, please let us know by commenting on this post or emailing us at mail@lateraleconomics.com.au.

June 20, 2019

• Club Troppo If your problem is darkness, it’s better to light one quarter of a candle than to light any more of a candle (apparently)

  Here’s Phil Lowe reporting on the RBA’s failure to meet its performance targets and refusal to do anything about it:

  This decision [to cut rates by 0.25%] was not in response to a deterioration in the economic outlook since the previous update was published in early May. Rather, it reflected a judgement that we could do better than the path we looked to be on.

  If anyone can fill me in on what that means, I’d be grateful.

  Monetary policy is one way of helping get us onto to a better path. The decision earlier this month will assist here. It will support the economy through its effect on the exchange rate, lowering the cost of finance and boosting disposable incomes. In turn, this will support employment growth and inflation consistent with the target.

  It would, however, be unrealistic to expect that lowering interest rates by ¼ of a percentage point will materially shift the path we look to be on. The most recent data – including the GDP and labour market data – do not suggest we are making any inroads into the economy’s spare capacity.

  Steady as she goes.  

June 12, 2019

• Club Troppo Blogging another inquiry: Valuing the Australian Census

  Lateral Economics has been commissioned by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to estimate the value of the Australian Census to the Australian community. As part of that exercise we’ve got the go-ahead from ABS to do something that, it seems to me, all public inquiries, and most independent public agencies, should do as a matter of course. Run a blog a little like the blog we ran when I chaired the Government 2.0 Taskforce.

  Ten years on from the Taskforce, it’s amazing how slow the practice has been to catch on. It seems to me the kind of thing that the Productivity Commission should do, and the Reserve Bank. Anyway, as far as I know, there’s no such blog on offer there or anywhere else much. One exception is the Bank of England which runs a lively blog in which staff explore all manner of questions relating to their research. It greatly enhances both its work and their staff’s morale and willingness for some of the best to stay at the Bank rather than moving off into academia or consultant land.

  Anyway, this exercise gives us an opportunity to trial it again. Accordingly we will post from time to time outlining the progress of our investigations, particularly highlighting issues we are trying to understand to improve the quality of our review.

  Comment will be post-moderated with a back-up plan to provide pre-moderation in the unlikely event of commentary which is judged to lack bona fides in a disruptive way. We’ll be consulting ABS with draft blog posts before posting them to give the ABS an opportunity to provide input. We nevertheless remain responsible for the exercise, and for the content of each post, not the ABS.

  Finally, if you do have anything to offer, please do so to show how productive this kind of exercise can be. I know myself how productive it is from my own experiences blogging myself not least as part of the Government 2.0 Taskforce, but as I’ve grown older it’s struck me how much adoption relies on, well, adoption. If no-one’s doing it, no one does it. Then a few people do it and the obviousness of doing it seems to become accessible to others, even as they keep their in-tray reasonably cleared.

  Valuing the Australian Census

  Gene Tunny, Nicholas Gruen, and Matt Balmford, Lateral Economics

  The five-yearly Australian Census provides a wealth of data on Australian households. Those data are used extensively by all levels of governments, industry, and non-profits in decision making and planning. The Census provides important information on household composition, journey-to-work flows, Indigenous status, and languages spoken at home, among other data. It is also used extensively to ‘ground-truth’ and so assess and improve the representativeness of a wide variety of data sets. The ABS understands that all this information is of substantial value, but no careful estimate of its total value has yet been made. The ABS has engaged Lateral Economics to provide such an estimate.

  In recent years, a combination of factors has led to renewed scrutiny of the value of the census, including burgeoning administrative data which could be tapped by national statistical agencies, as well as advances in computing power and data science. Statistical agencies worldwide have come under pressure from ministers to provide greater justification for the hundreds of millions of dollars of costs of a national census. For instance, in 2001, the UK House of Commons Treasury Select Committee called for the national census to be justified in cost-benefit terms. Since then, the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) has produced a Census Benefits Evaluation Report for the 2011 Census. It was reported that the UK census yields annual benefits in the order of £500 million.

  In 2013, Statistics New Zealand followed the example of the ONS and commissioned a valuation of the NZ census, which reported a return on investment (ROI) of around $5 of net benefits for every $1 of expenditure on the census.

  In Australia, too, the issue of the cost of the census has come under scrutiny. For example, in 1993, a Federal government interdepartmental committee investigated cost reduction opportunities for the census. However, it recommended maintaining the current census format. Indeed, comprehensive five-yearly censuses are seen as necessary to ensure fair electoral representation given substantial population growth in newly-developed areas, such as Springfield and Yarrabilba in South East Queensland. The requirement for a five-yearly Census was inserted into the Census and Statistics Act 1905 in 1977 (section 8(1)), following a 1976 High Court decision suggesting the need for more a more frequent Census to ensure fair electoral representation.

  A critical question for Lateral Economics’ research project is the extent to which the Census is essential for developing high quality estimates of populations at various levels, national, state, regional and for small areas, and for various groups in the population, including Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse people. Such estimates are important for electoral representation, but they are also important for the allocation of:

  • GST revenues across state and territories;
  • resources in health, education, and other social services; and
  • capital expenditures, both for social infrastructure and transport infrastructure, and in the private sector, too (e.g. shopping centres, retirement villages, etc.).

  Such decisions may depend critically on information such as accurate estimates of Indigenous people in a region, or journey-to-work flows between regions, and the Census is a critical source of information to such estimates and for which there are not obvious substitutes.

  Lateral Economics will attempt to quantify the benefits to the Australian community of more accurate decision making regarding the allocation of funds across regions for different purposes. We will be guided, but not limited, by the methodologies employed in previous studies. These methodologies rely largely on estimates of the inaccuracies of resource allocation and capital investment that would be occur in the absence of Census data. We will also draw on methodologies developed in these studies for estimating the dollar benefits of, among other things:

  • improved public policy development in social policy areas where Census data are important, such as in policies for disadvantaged groups^[1]; and
  • higher-quality academic and market research.

  Even after the most stringent of efforts, considerable uncertainties will remain in parameterising these questions. However this underlines the importance of consulting as widely as possible – with the Australian Electoral Commission, Commonwealth Grants Commission, other federal and state agencies, local governments, and the private sector and NGOs – to develop defensible assumptions to underpin our estimates (guesstimates?). It is likely we will provide reasonable lower and upper-bound estimates of this ROI.

  In undertaking this project, Lateral Economics is not necessarily presuming that there will net benefits to the community from running the Australian Census in its current format and frequency. We are doing our best to follow the evidence – something that the ABS has stressed its support for. We note that, based on a cost-benefit analysis, South Africa decided not to run a census in 2016, so the question of whether a national census is valuable is an open one.  But wherever the evidence takes us, it’s critical we get the best evidence we can regarding users’ specific uses of Census data, the benefits they derive from that use, and any reflections they have on what the next best source of data would be in the absence of the Census, and the potential costs of any reduction in data quality.

  In future articles, Lateral Economics will discuss our progress and seek feedback on our thinking and analysis to date regarding the different Census benefit values we will be estimating. In the meantime, if you have any ideas or information that you think would help us, please get in touch via mail@lateraleconomics.com.au.

  ^[1] This could be estimated by assuming a percentage improvement in the quality of related government services and applying that to total spending on those services. The assumption would be informed by consultations with stakeholders.

June 11, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Train services vs patronage

  A follow-up to last week’s post mapping out the number of train services per station.

  Commenter Andrew suggested I compare it against patronage – happily I’d been working on this anyway!

  Here it is – and as a bonus I’ve got hold of 2017-18 station patronage data.

  The darker the blue, the higher the boardings per service. Click on a station to see the numbers.

  What’s interesting is that the top ten stations for boardings per service are not what you might expect.

  • Melbourne Central 51.060
  • Sunshine 46.142
  • Southern Cross 45.337
  • Box Hill 44.133
  • Flinders Street 42.08
  • Williams Landing 41.522
  • Watergardens 39.459
  • Footscray 39.360
  • Essendon 38.933

  Remember, these are figures across the entire day. Peak would be a lot busier.

  I was surprised that two of the top five are well outside the CBD. And if you’re boarding at Williams Landing or Watergardens and you think it’s busy, it’s not your imagination.

  Is it an anti-west bias? I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. Historically, development in Melbourne has spread further to the east and south than the west and north. So the train lines are longer, with more stations, and thus overall higher patronage. So more train services are needed.

  Of course the north and west are now growing fast. Is provision of PT keeping up with demand? Nope… but that’s the case across most of the city.

  Charting the numbers

  Here is the data on a chart – services per weekday on the X axis, and boardings on the Y axis.

  

  Note the patronage (Y axis) is on a logarithmic scale. It was even messier without this, because just a handful of stations have daily boardings up between 10,000 and 100,000 per day.

  The middle range, between 500 and 10,000 per day is a bit of a dogs breakfast because of a large number of suburban stations in that range – and in many cases, they also have identical service levels, thanks to being on the same line. More on these below.

  Broadly, you can see that the higher the patronage, the more services a station probably gets.

  But does patronage follow service, or service follow patronage? A little of both – authorities tend to try and act to demand/crowding, but the convenience of frequent services attracts more passengers (including more development around stations – hello South Yarra!)

  The underground stations at Parliament and Melbourne Central (and to a lesser extent Flagstaff) get a lot of people going through them, despite only having four platforms and about half the number of train services as Flinders Street.

  The highest ranked Zone 2 station is Box Hill, followed by Dandenong. Some zone 2 stations have seen a big increase in passenger numbers since the fare cap was introduced in 2015.

  Zooming in on the suburban stations of under 7000 boardings per day, things become a little less muddled:

  

  A few stations like Newport, Camberwell, Clifton Hill and Burnley are getting more trains than you might expect for the patronage, thanks to their junction status. They are important for interchange, and different lines converge there, resulting in more services. (In contrast, Caulfield gets slightly more services, but has the patronage to match thanks to the adjacent university campus.)

  Some inner-city stations also get more services than the patronage might suggest – but this certainly is not an argument to cut services – one could expect recent infill development has seen the numbers of passengers continue to increase in recent years. Consistent stopping patterns are also important – running some trains express burns up track capacity and creates confusion.

  There are also some very busy middle and outer suburban stations that appear not to be getting enough services, such as Sunshine, Essendon, Glen Waverley, Watergardens, Werribee and Hoppers Crossing.

  This Channel 9 story in February (which is where the patronage data came from) highlighted the mismatch between demand and supply:

  Exclusive data has revealed some of the city’s busiest suburban train stations have some of the worst levels of service. @andrew_lund #9News pic.twitter.com/rhcu9VAbp2

  — Nine News Melbourne (@9NewsMelb) February 11, 2019

  Regulars here would know my message from all this: as Melbourne grows, so does overall travel demand. The number of services provided around the rail network needs to continue to grow, including outside peak hours – as well as boosting tram and bus services.

  • See more on the Channel 9 patronage story from February
  • Patronage in 2017-18 at some stations was affected by major works, for instance Rosanna (and surrounding stations), the Dandenong line and Frankston all had closures.
  • Projects such as the metro tunnel will enable increased train services on many lines, but the timing and number of these is unclear.
  • I’ve been reminded that Philip Mallis posted a different set of data, showing annual patronage at stations, including both V/Line and Metro.

June 07, 2019

• The Northern Myth Essential documents from Aboriginal Australia: 8 – The 2018 Barunga Agreement

   

  

  On the 8th of  June 2018 the Northern Territory Government and the NT’s four Land Councils have signed an historic Memorandum of Understanding paving the way for consultations to begin with Aboriginal people about a Treaty.

  The MoU was signed on the first day of the Barunga Sport and Cultural Festival – the 30th anniversary of the presentation of the Barunga Statement to Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who went on to promise a Treaty between the Commonwealth and Australia’s Indigenous peoples, but has remained undelivered.

  On 18 February 2019 the NT government appointed Professor Mick Dodson as the NT Treaty Commissioner. Professor Dodson congratulated the NT Government for initiating the Treaty process.

  “Anyone who has listened to me talk publicly, knows that I am concerned with what I call “the unfinished business”. A Treaty is a good place to start with addressing this unfinished business.We as a nation must come face to face with our dark and traumatic history. We must confront the impact of colonisation and begin the process of acknowledgement, recognition and healing. The NT has embarked on dealing with this task by this courageous step of setting up this Commission.”

  THE BARUNGA AGREEMENT

  A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMEWORK FOR NEGOTIATING A TREATY WITH THE FIRST NATIONS OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN THE NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL (NLC), THE CENTRAL LAND COUNCIL (CLC), THE ANINDILYAKWA LAND COUNCIL (ALC) AND THE TIWI LAND COUNCIL (TLC) (THE ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCILS) and THE NORTHERN TERRITORY GOVERNMENT (THE NTG)

  The Aboriginal Land Councils are independent statutory authorities established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to express the wishes and protect the interests of traditional owners throughout the Northern Territory.

  The members of the Land Councils are elected by Aboriginal people living in their areas. The NLC and CLC are also Native Title Representative Bodies recognised under the Native Title Act 1993 to promote the interests of native title holders across the Territory (‘Traditional owners’ include native title holders).

  The NTG is the democratic, representative and executive arm of the Northern Territory. Its functions and powers derive from the Northern Territory Self Government Act 1978, which established the Northern Territory of Australia as a body politic under the Crown.

  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  Aboriginal people, the First Nations, were the prior owners and occupiers of the land, seas and waters that are now called the Northern Territory of Australia. The First Nations of the Northern Territory were self-governing in accordance with their traditional laws and customs. First Nations peoples of the Northern Territory never ceded sovereignty of their lands, seas and waters.

  Background to the Memorandum of Understanding:

  This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) represents the first significant step in advancing a Treaty in the Northern Territory since the call for a national Treaty in the historic Barunga Statement by the Northern and Central Land Councils. The Barunga Statement was presented to former Prime Minister, RJ Hawke AC, by Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu AM and Mr Wenten Rubuntja at the annual Barunga Cultural and Sporting Festival on 12 June 1988.

  The text of the Barunga Statement is as follows: We, the Indigenous owners and occupiers of Australia, call on the Australian Government and people to recognise our rights:

  • to self-determination and self-management, including the freedom to pursue our own economic, social, religious and cultural development; • to permanent control and enjoyment of our ancestral lands;

  • to compensation for the loss of use of our lands, there having been no extinction of original title;

  • to protection of and control of access to our sacred sites, sacred objects, artefacts, designs, knowledge and works of art; • to the return of the remains of our ancestors for burial in accordance with our traditions;

  • to respect for and promotion of our Aboriginal identity, including the cultural, linguistic, religious and historical aspects, and including the right to be educated in our own languages and in our own culture and history;

  • in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights, the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, rights to life, liberty, security of person, food, clothing, housing, medical care, education and employment opportunities, necessary social services and other basic rights.

  We call on the Commonwealth to pass laws providing:

  • A national elected Aboriginal and Islander organisation to oversee Aboriginal and Islander affairs;

  • A national system of land rights;

  • A police and justice system which recognises our customary laws and frees us from discrimination and any activity which may threaten our identity or security, interfere with our freedom of expression or association, or otherwise prevent our full enjoyment and exercise of universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  We call on the Australian Government to support Aborigines in the development of an international declaration of principles for indigenous rights, leading to an international covenant. And we call on the Commonwealth Parliament to negotiate with us a Treaty recognising our prior ownership, continued occupation and sovereignty and affirming our human rights and freedom.

  The call for the Commonwealth Parliament to negotiate a national Treaty has yet to be realised. However, thirty years later, the Aboriginal Land Councils remain fully committed to the goals and aspirations articulated in the Barunga Statement.

  The NTG, for the first time in its history, is also committed to commencing discussions on developing a Treaty (or Treaties) in the Northern Territory with Aboriginal Territorians. It has established an Aboriginal Affairs SubCommittee of the Northern Territory Cabinet to advance a number of Aboriginal Affairs priorities including a Treaty.

  The Aboriginal Land Councils wrote to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on 2 March 2018 proposing to reach an MOU with the NTG outlining a consultation process for a Treaty with Aboriginal people that is led by Aboriginal people.

  At an historic meeting between the Aboriginal Land Councils and the NTG on 23 March 2018 in Alice Springs it was agreed to establish a Treaty Working Group to develop the MOU.

  It is intended that this MOU provides the opportunity, building on the significance of the 30th anniversary of the Barunga Statement, to facilitate consultation with all Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to allow for a framework to be agreed for negotiating a Treaty.

  Subject to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, the Legislative Assembly has power, with the assent of the Administrator or the Governor General to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory.

  It is acknowledged that there is a range of Aboriginal interests in the Northern Territory and that all Aboriginal people and their representative bodies must have the opportunity to engage fully in the process agreed to in this MOU.

  It is further acknowledged that non-Aboriginal Territorians need to be brought along with this process. It is understood that the use of the word Treaty in this MOU also includes the plural “Treaties” should the proposed framework include provision for negotiating multiple treaties.

  IT IS AGREED BY THE NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL, THE CENTRAL LAND COUNCIL, THE ANINDILYAKWA LAND COUNCIL AND THE TIWI LAND COUNCIL and THE NORTHERN TERRITORY GOVERNMENT as follows:

  Principles Guiding the Treaty Consultation Process

  1. It is envisaged that should a Treaty ultimately be negotiated, it will be the foundation of lasting reconciliation between the First Nations of the Territory and other citizens with the object of achieving a united Northern Territory.

  2. All Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory need to be heard and the consultation process agreed to in this MOU needs to be inclusive, accessible and transparent to all.

  3. Traditional owners, as the original owners and occupiers of the Northern Territory, and represented by the Aboriginal Land Councils, are integral to consultation concerning a Treaty.

  4. All Territorians should ultimately benefit from any Treaty that is agreed in the Northern Territory.

  5. The NTG must not exclude from discussions any legitimate issue raised by the Parties or other Aboriginal people for inclusion in a Treaty while the consultation process agreed to in this MOU is underway.

  6. It is agreed that:

  a) Aboriginal people, the First Nations, were the prior owners and occupiers of the land, seas and waters that are now called the Northern Territory of Australia.

  b) The First Nations of the Northern Territory were self-governing in accordance with their traditional laws and customs; and that

  c) First Nations peoples of the Northern Territory never ceded sovereignty of their lands, seas and waters.

  7. It is also agreed there has been deep injustice done to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, including violent dispossession, the repression of their languages and cultures, and the forcible removal of children from their families, which have left a legacy of trauma, and loss that needs to be addressed and healed.

  8. The Treaty must provide for substantive outcomes and honour the Articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

  9. Recognising that a Treaty is of much wider significance than a normal agreement between the State and Indigenous peoples, it is also recognised that Treaty making involves the acceptance of responsibilities and obligations by all parties;

  10. The Treaty should aim to achieve successful co-existence between all Territorians that starts with ‘truth telling’ which involves hearing about, acknowledging and understanding the consequences of the Northern Territory’s history.

  Objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding:

  The objective of this MOU is to agree about and to implement a consultation process to be led by an independent Treaty Commissioner, which will inform the development of an agreed framework to negotiate a Northern Territory Treaty.

  This framework may focus on, but not be limited to, the following areas:

  • Agreement as to what a Treaty is and its potential contents;

  • What a Northern Territory Treaty will seek to achieve;

  • Whether there should be one or multiple treaties;

  • What outcomes are possible under a Treaty for Aboriginal people that encompass recognition as First Nations, rights, obligations and opportunities; and

  • What the best process is for negotiating a Treaty.

  The key objective of any Treaty in the Northern Territory must be to achieve real change and substantive, long term, benefits for Aboriginal people.

  A Treaty needs to address structural barriers to the wellbeing of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and provide for economic, social and cultural benefits. Appointment of an Independent Treaty Commissioner The NTG will appoint an independent Aboriginal person as Treaty Commissioner.

  The appointment, role and functions of the Treaty Commissioner will be enacted in legislation, the contents of which shall be agreed by the parties. In the interim the Chief Minister shall appoint the Treaty Commissioner to consult, inquire, report and make recommendations in accordance with Terms of Reference agreed by the parties.

  The Terms of Reference shall outline, in accordance with this MOU, the role, responsibilities, outputs, reporting requirements, term of appointment and qualifications of the Treaty Commissioner. The role and functions are to include:

  1. Consultation with all Aboriginal people and their representative bodies in the Northern Territory about their support for a Treaty and on a suitable framework to further Treaty negotiations with the NTG;

  2. Providing a public report to the Chief Minister on the outcomes of the consultation process and a proposed framework for Treaty negotiations; and

  3. Facilitating conversations for a possible Treaty framework process between the NTG, Aboriginal Land Councils and other Aboriginal representative bodies, and community groups.

  The Treaty Commissioner will be independent of the NTG and Aboriginal Land Councils. The reasonable costs of a Treaty Commissioner to perform the roles and functions and achieve the objectives listed in this agreement, will be paid for by the NTG.

  Consultation Process

  The Treaty Commissioner will devise and implement an Aboriginal-led consultation program after discussions with the Treaty Working Group. That program will have two stages and include:

  • In the first stage (to take no more than 12 months), advising and sharing information and ideas about different experiences nationally and internationally and models of what a Treaty could be with Aboriginal Territorians;

  • Explanations of the legal context of a Northern Territory Treaty;

  • Initial consultations to determine the level of interest in a Treaty amongst Aboriginal Territorians and the provision of an interim report by the Treaty Commissioner to the Chief Minister to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly;

  • At the start of the second stage, release of a public Discussion Paper to help facilitate informed discussions among Aboriginal people that are focussed on reaching a consensus on particular positions with respect to a Treaty;

  • Translating the Discussion Paper into the major Aboriginal languages in the Northern Territory (including audio translations) by the Northern Territory Aboriginal Interpreter Service;

  • Multiple methods for Aboriginal Territorians to give feedback;

  • Consultations will follow a structured and principled process utilising an identical agenda for consistency across locations;

  • Land councils will provide advice to the Treaty Commissioner on locations for regional and remote consultations taking into account small, medium and large communities and homelands; and

  • A final report on outcomes of consultations about a possible Treaty and proposing a framework for a Treaty to proceed.

  The report is to be provided to the Chief Minister within 18 months of the conclusion of the first stage, tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and shall be publicly released by the Chief Minister within 21 days of its receipt.

  Coordination and Support

  The NTG and the Land Councils will cooperate to support the consultation process to be undertaken by the Treaty Commissioner in regional and remote locations.

  The Parties will work together with the Treaty Commissioner to establish consultation protocols for Treaty matters. This will include ensuring the ongoing cooperation of all Parties in consultations across the Northern Territory and the provision of consistent information.

  Respective parties will also keep the Treaty Commissioner informed of any discussions concerning a Treaty to enable all Aboriginal voices to be heard by the Commissioner.

  Treaty Working Group

  The Northern Territory Treaty Working Group membership will continue to comprise senior representatives of the NTG and Aboriginal Land Councils.

  However, by agreement, after the signing of the MOU, its membership will be reviewed and opened up to other Aboriginal representative bodies and community groups in the Northern Territory to also participate. After the appointment of the Treaty Commissioner the continuation and terms of reference for the Treaty Working Group will be further reviewed.

  Related Matters

  Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

  At the time this MOU is being signed, the Commonwealth Parliament has established a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2018. This follows a constitutional convention on 23-26 May 2017 that brought together over 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders at the foot of Uluru in the Northern Territory on the lands of the Aŋangu people.

  The majority resolved, in the ‘Uluru Statement from the Heart’, to call for the establishment of a ‘First Nations Voice’ in the Australian Constitution and a ‘Makarrata Commission’ to supervise a process of ‘agreement making’ and ‘truth-telling’ between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The NTG and Aboriginal Land Councils agree to contribute to the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee and hope that it will be possible to achieve constitutional recognition that also includes a Commonwealth Treaty making process.

  Negotiating a Northern Territory Treaty does not remove the need for a Treaty at a national level, accompanied by ‘truth telling’ or a voice to the Parliament. A Northern Territory Treaty cannot address all the consequences of the British taking control of the land, seas and waters of the Northern Territory and its legacy of injustice.

  A Federal Treaty process is a crucial next step in our journey as a nation.

  Status of the Memorandum of Understanding

  The Parties do not intend any of the provisions of this Agreement to be legally enforceable. However, that does not lessen the commitment of the Parties to fully implementing the Agreement in a transparent, consultative and accountable manner. To facilitate this, it is agreed by the Parties that the Agreement will be published immediately on the websites of the Parties once it is signed and tabled in the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible and that quarterly updates will be made publicly available by the Treaty Commissioner.

  

   

  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  Further reading on the Barunga Agreement can be found at the following link:

  • https://nt.gov.au/news/2018/june-2018/barunga-agreement

  Other Essential Documents in this series can be found below:

  • Essential documents from Aboriginal Australia: 1 – the 1963 Yirrkala Bark Petitions
  • Essential documents from Aboriginal Australia: 2 – the 1998 Barunga Statement
  • Essential documents from Aboriginal Australia: 3 – the 1993 Eva Valley Statement
  • Essential documents from Aboriginal Australia: 4 – the 1998 Kalkaringi Statement
  • Essential documents from Aboriginal Australia: 5 – the 2008 Yirrkala Statement
  • Essential documents from Aboriginal Australia: 6 – the 1972 Larrakia Petition
  • Essential documents from Aboriginal Australia: 7 – the 2008 Yuendumu Petition

  The post Essential documents from Aboriginal Australia: 8 – The 2018 Barunga Agreement appeared first on The Northern Myth.

June 06, 2019

• Club Troppo The Last Days of Nigel (the Darwin Shooter’s second victim)

  Yesterday I was chatting online about Wednesday evening’s dreadful shooting massacre in Darwin (like many shocked people here). I posted a comment listing the various murder scenes, saying: “A fourth was murdered at 18 Gardens Hill Crescent (or Gardens Rd, not sure which).”

  A fellow Darwin tweep (son of an old colleague) with whom I talk quite often, replied: “Crescent. His name was Nigel.” Actually we were talking about the second victim in time, a person so far only identified as a 75 year old man. M_ obviously knew something, so I sent him a Direct Message.

  KP: Hi M_. I guess from your comment that you were close to Nigel. I’m so sorry. All this stuff is so close, it reminds you that Darwin really is still just a small town.

  M_ : Cheers Ken. Wasn’t close but he is my neighbour. I was first on the scene and tried to perform first aid but it was a mess and he lost too much blood. Ambo didn’t arrive for an hour. Police were at a road block 100m down the road at the time but just stayed where they were. Ben drove straight past them after unloading at 2 apartments. Bit upset about that to be honest.* They even id’d the right ute to me after I ran down the road. Appreciate your story though. We also know the Hoffman’s but have to say I didn’t recognise him as I watched him exit. Bloody small town mate. Bloody being the operative word today.

  Nigel was always whinging about the trees. He liked to cut down trees and had a win with the council over a tree last week. He was pretty happy about that. He was a good sort and I reckon he was shot through the door coz he liked to keep an eye on the comings and goings. His uneaten dinner was still on the kitchen counter in his flat.

  *M_’s reaction here is more than understandable, but I don’t necessarily agree. Assuming the police staffing the Gardens Hill Crescent road block were just general duties uniformed officers, if they had set off solo in pursuit of the gunman they would almost certainly have caught up with him at the Buffs Club at the top of the hill only a minute or so later. Would they have captured the shooter alone and unaided?  It’s more likely that one or both of them would also have been slaughtered, just adding to the horrific death toll.

  It’s essential that all relevant issues are explored, to ensure as far as possible that the best possible procedures are in place and followed in such events.  But we shouldn’t start with a presumption that it was anyone’s fault other than the Shooter himself.  There were four separate murder scenes and all four murders occurred within the space of only a few minutes. In the absence of NT Police acquiring extraordinary clairvoyant powers, it looks to me that they did as good a job as one could reasonably expect in such an extraordinary and confused situation.

June 05, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Visualisation: how many services from your station?

  I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before: slicing and dicing GTFS data is not as intimidating as I thought it might be, and it’s pretty easy to import into Google Maps so you can visualise it.

  Once you find what you want and figure out its quirks, you can get some pretty useful stuff.

  Let’s start with this: a map of the total number of weekday Metro train departures per station. Click here (or use the View Larger Map icon) to see it bigger.

  It’s easy to import into Google Maps, though there is limited control over the groupings and colours.

  So, the stations are grouped into:

  • red (under 140 departures per weekday)
  • yellow (140-202)
  • green (203-262)
  • and cyan/light blue (above 262).

  Departures includes both directions (including arrivals for terminus stations), per day, for Monday to Thursday. Fridays run a slightly different timetable due to Night Network overnight services.

  A few things I noticed

  Unsurprisingly the central stations have the most train services, with lines except Stony Point (and Alamein outside peak) converging there.

  Junction stations such as Caulfield and Clifton Hill (and inner stations on that line) that serve multiple lines also do well here, as do major stations served in peak by expresses and stopping trains, such as Box Hill, Glenferrie and Newport.

  Dandenong probably just sneaks into this category thanks to late-night shuttles from Cranbourne adding to the departure/arrival count.

  Green accounts for most stations on the lines with frequent all-day services out to Frankston, Dandenong and Newport, as well as some stations that have very frequent peak service such as Box Hill to Ringwood.

  Yellow is mostly lines that run only every 15-20 minutes off-peak, but have a more frequent peak service.

  Why do Middle and West Footscray and Tottenham not quite make yellow? Because they are bypassed by some trains from Sunbury in peak, which probably helps balance train loads, but adds to waiting time.

  It’s a similar story for some stations that are yellow, not quite green: Highett and Southland, and many of the zone 1 stations on the Ringwood line.

  Red stations have relatively infrequent service: all-day 20ish minutes (such as the Altona Loop, Williamstown, Alamein and Upfield lines) or good peak but infrequent off-peak (such as the outer sections of the Sunbury, Hurstbridge lines, and the Ringwood and Dandenong branches) or just very few services such as the Stony Point line.

  The interesting thing to look for is red stations close to the City. Some of these I expected, such as the Upfield line, with only a basic service all day, in part due to the single track.

  I didn’t expect inner sections of the Hurstbridge line to show up in red. Stations such as Westgarth fall just below the 140 threshold, thanks to only 20 minute frequency off-peak, and some peak express trains bypassing them.

  

  The need for upgrades

  The nature of a visualisation like this is that not all stations can be cyan and green.

  But the challenge for government is to boost services to those red and yellow stations, particularly those close to the CBD, to keep up with demand – not just train crowding, but overall suburban travel demand, including that sparked by infill development.

  While adding peak service is tricky on some lines due to capacity, a boost to all-day off-peak/weekend/evening frequency is easy – and would bring huge benefits to passengers by cutting waiting times and crowding, and improving connections.

• Club Troppo Guest Post by Simon Molloy: Reducing political bias at the national broadcaster
  

  An interesting graphic which the SMH thought was better presented in a form in which you can’t read whatever was near the right hand margin. NG (ed)

  Claims of a left-wing bias at the ABC are seldom absent from public discussion. These claims quickly lead to suggestions that the ABC should privatised.

  Of course, bias and impartiality are notoriously elastic and subjective concepts. The only arbiter that can make sense of this tangle of subjectivity is the Australian public. The ABC’s impartiality can only be judged by its perceived alignment with the views of the Australian public as judged by the Australian public.

  But how are we going to determine what the Australian public thinks is biased or impartial?

  Why not just ask them?

  Why not conduct regular ABC impartiality polls? Why not create a statistically accurate reading of what the stakeholders that fund the ABC think of its performance?

  While it is easy to be sympathetic to arguments that public broadcasting is antiquated and irrelevant in an era when news and information is a simple finger-tap away, our expanded media-verse is characterised by weakened credentials and authority, and diminished responsibility accompanied by associated risks of wilful misinformation and manipulation.

  Given these risks, it is relatively straightforward to articulate a renewed and refreshed case for public broadcasting that is founded on reliable, responsible and impartial reporting transparently founded on research and facts. But without radical impartiality this renewed argument for public broadcasting collapses.

  An ABC impartiality poll could be conducted every six months by independent parties under competitive contracts and funded directly by Government. Survey and sample design would need to be sophisticated, but this is well within the science and art of modern survey techniques. Much has been made of the inaccuracy of polls in relation to the recent Federal election, but these errors amounted to less than a few percent. The survey data, methodologies and results would be open for academic and journalistic review and an orientation to continuous improvement would be a core goal.

  Reliable survey data would enable us to identify the public’s impressions of overall bias and also provide public feedback on lower level questions: for example, an assessment of the impartiality of leading current affairs programs, and even ratings of the perceived balance of reportage on specific issues.

  This data could be used to provide the ABC with strong and specific direction for improving the public’s perception of its impartiality. ABC management would be expected to act on these findings and new incentives could be implemented to encourage them to do so. Critically, the ABC’s funding could be indexed to its measured ‘impartiality performance’. Impartially would become an organisation-wide KPI.

  There would be numerous technical survey design issues. Should the surveys be anonymous? Should they be linked to individuals say via a tax file number? Of course, there will be those who attempt to game the system and that needs to be a design consideration. Everything important gets gamed to some extent. That is the very thing that we are trying to deal with.

  In the era of elevated political correctness, virtue signalling, social media echo chambers and political polarisation it is all too easy for unrepresentative ideological enclaves to form within our critical institutions and they are difficult to dislodge. Creating real, immediate and pecuniary incentives is likely to be the only effective solution.

  We depend on the public having access to accurate information and a range of views and analysis that, taken together, represent a balanced perspective. Our collective investment in the institution that is the ABC needs to be protected against the corrosive influence of ideological capture.

  Improving our institutions is an arduous process that can only be achieved wilfully via a degree of political consensus that appears increasingly difficult to assemble. Intuitional innovation as a national competitive differentiator is something that needs greater recognition in Australian politics.

  In a world where trust and truth have become scarcer, they have also become more valuable. The need to address a growing market failure in the production of trustworthy public information suggests a pressing rationale for public broadcasting. But it is a role completely contingent on radical impartiality.

May 31, 2019

• The Northern Myth Are there legal protections for drinking water in the Northern Territory?

  

  This is a guest post by Liam Grealy and Kirsty Howey*

  On 19 April 2018, the Northern Territory (NT) Department of Health (DOH) issued a precautionary drinking water advice to Garawa 1 and Garawa 2 camps in the remote NT township of Borroloola.

  Routine testing had revealed elevated lead and manganese in the water supply above safe levels. Residents were told not to drink, cook, or brush their teeth with the water, while assured that the contamination was only a short-term problem. The issue proved persistent, however, with the precautionary advice for Garawa 1 not lifted until 15 June 2018.

  Although still not publicly confirmed, brass fittings in the decades-old reticulated piping connecting the water supply to the houses in the town camps were attributed responsibility, with the acute problem resolved by a combination of water flushing and spot replacement of fittings at the most stubborn points. It was, according to the authorities, a minor incident.

  But over the past two years there have been multiple incidences of water under-supply or contamination in remote Aboriginal communities in the NT – at Yarralin, Ngukkur, Yuelamu and elsewhere. These incidents collectively illustrate the precarity of reliable drinking water supply in these places, where people’s health, as elsewhere, depends on the availability of water that is safe to drink, of adequate supply, and distributable to homes.

  As the world continues to heat and water supply becomes more vulnerable, these impacts may become more pronounced.

  Prompted by these incidents, and the links between housing, drinking water, and human health, the Housing for Health Incubator has asked the question: what legal protections and governance regimes do exist for drinking water in the NT?

  Our submission to the NT Water Regulatory Reform process centred drinking water regulation in the NT, and highlighted significant limits and gaps in the current regime.

  To summarise, under the legislation that applies to drinking water in the NT, there is no general provision or power to reserve water for current and future drinking water supply against other uses. Further, there are no mandated minimum standards set for water quality across the NT. Finally, different legal regimes govern how drinking water is supplied depending on residence in the NT, privileging urban and town populations over Indigenous communities and outstations located on Aboriginal land.

  The Water Act 1992 (NT), which deals with the allocation, management, and assessment of water resources across the NT, has only fragmented application with respect to drinking water. Allocations for drinking water do exist in declared Water Control Districts where a Water Allocation Plan has been finalised. However these areas currently account for a small proportion of the NT’s landmass, focused on major population centres, such as Katherine.

  There is no legislative power to reserve water for current and future public water, meaning that an adequate drinking water supply is not reserved to residents across much of the NT.

  Further, the NT has not set minimum standards for water quality anywhere in the NT, despite there being power to do so in the Water Act (s73), the Water Supply and Sewerage Supply Act 2000 (NT) (s45), and the Public and Environmental Health Act 2011 (NT) (s133).

  Instead, a now expired (as of 2015) but still apparently applied Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DOH and Power and Water Corporation (PAWC) states that while “no minimum standards for drinking water quality have been set”, the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) “will be used as the peak reference”.

  A regime of water testing, incident reporting and response, and public reporting of drinking water quality is outlined in this MOU – although in strict legal terms, this regime is unenforceable and compliance appears inconsistent. For example, despite a requirement that annual drinking water quality reports be published annually, as of May 2019 no drinking water quality report for Indigenous communities located on Aboriginal land has been published since 2016.  Moreover, it is unclear which government agency is directly answerable to residents for water quality issues under these arrangements.

  Finally, the Water Supply and Sewerage Supply Act 2000 (NT) regulates the provision of public water supply in NT “water supply licence areas”. Power and Water Corporation (PAWC) is licensed and regulated by the Utilities Commission under this legislation.

  However, it currently only applies in the NT’s 18 gazetted towns. For the 72 larger Indigenous communities and 66 of the approximately 500 outstations located on Aboriginal land under the Land Rights Act, the Water Supply and Sewerage Supply Act does not apply.

  They are serviced by Indigenous Essential Services Pty Ltd (IES), a not-for-profit subsidiary of PAWC. Unlike PAWC, IES is a private company and its operational structure is relatively opaque, with no legislation mandating licensing of its operations or particular levels of service to residents against which IES can be held accountable.

  In the 450 or so other outstations on Aboriginal land, there is no regulation and neither IES nor PAWC operate. Water infrastructure in these areas appears to be maintained either privately, via funding provided to outstation resource centres, or not at all.

  To be clear, the absence of legislated protections for standards, duties, accountability, and transparency does not mean PWC and IES are not testing the water in areas where they operate. In their radio interviews with ABC Darwin last week, DOH and PAWC noted this, while emphasising the difficulty of supplying safe drinking water across the NT.

  However, in South Australia, which experiences many of the same geographic, geological, and infrastructural challenges in supplying drinking water, guarantees for water supply and minimum water quality are contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act. There is thus an alternative to the patchwork of differentiated forms of attention evident in the NT, which would require that all drinking water providers be registered and comply with minimum standards.

  The Incubator is advocating for the introduction of a similar Safe Drinking Water Act in the NT. When the next incident of water contamination surfaces, it is important that there are clear public standards for testing, reporting, and remediation with direct lines of legal accountability to residents. Such legislated standards are necessary to reduce the likelihood of such incidences and to protect drinking water for all residents of the NT.

  ==============================

  *Liam Grealy is a postdoctoral fellow at the Housing for Health Incubator at Sydney University.  Kirsty Howey is a PhD Candidate at the University of Sydney.

  The post Are there legal protections for drinking water in the Northern Territory? appeared first on The Northern Myth.

May 30, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Old photos from May 2009

  It’s the end of May, so it’s time for a batch of photos from ten years ago.

  I quite liked this ad for iiNet in Flinders Street Station:

  

  I was snapping photos for Tony’s web site “Our Fading Past” (currently offline, but the Google Map is up), highlighting old signs around Melbourne. This classic is in Ripponlea on the side of a heritage-listed pharmacy.

  

  On the 70s-era Z-class trams, you can still find these things. Originally these trams had front-door boarding, so you could have your ticket checked by a conductor. The rear doors were used to alight, and these little screens would light up to indicate you could press the button to open the doors. I think these days most of them are wired up to the Next Stop buttons.

  

  Also arriving on trams: new Myki readers. Myki became active on Melbourne trains at the end of 2009, and on trams in mid-2010, with the touch-off requirement removed to make it work with the slow readers.

  

  Excitement! New screens arrive at Richmond! Evidently some teething problems initially.

  

  At this time, there were still plenty of CRTs around the network. These were at Parliament station.

  

  A visit to the Dandenongs…

  

  …wouldn’t be complete without a photo of one of greater Melbourne’s worst bus stops for accessibility.

  

  A foggy morning at Glenhuntly station

  

  …and here’s a view at the other end of the day from Richmond. Note the lack of platform cover, and the Hitachi train.

  

May 28, 2019

• Daniel Bowen How does the new local bus route fit into the network?

  Good news: New bus route 627 starts in June, running from Moorabbin to Chadstone via East Bentleigh and Murrumbeena.

  Excuse the micro-transport-blogging about this specific route in my local area, but (as usual) there are considerations that are relevant across the network.

  This new route fills some gaps in the local network, including East Boundary Road (which is meant to be part of the Principal Public Transport Network, but currently has sections with no public transport), and sections of Tucker Road and Jasper Road. New bus stops are under construction.

  

  The route will make trips to the huge Chadstone Shopping Centre easier for people in Moorabbin and parts of Bentleigh and East Bentleigh who currently don’t have direct services – remembering that changing along the way is not a good experience given low bus frequencies, especially on weekends, which are the busiest shopping days.

  The 627 will add another connection to the Frankston line from the Dandenong line, which can be useful when major delays (planned or otherwise) hit one line or the other, and it’ll serve the new McKinnon Secondary campus, though it won’t connect to the existing campus.

  It adds to frequency on about 3.5km of route 822. (It also shares parts of routes 701 and 703, though not really in a way that adds very useful frequency.)

  It runs more frequently on weekends than many other suburban bus routes: every 40 minutes instead of the typical hourly frequency. It’ll mostly run half-hourly on weekdays.

  

  The bad news: The route structure is a zig-zag. Not particularly intuitive. This is partly due to challenges with the T-junction at the southern end of Tucker Road.

  This route has been laid over the existing local bus network, without any other changes. Ideally this would have been an opportunity to straighten out route 822 to run along East Boundary Road, with this new route filling the gap, and/or straighten out route 626 along McKinnon Road (so that route could connect the two McKinnon SC campuses).

  Combined timetable

  I wanted to talk in detail about the timetable.

  The new 627 adds useful frequency to the section of route 822 between Chadstone and Leila Road (and as far as south as Centre Road if people can walk for a few hundred metres).

  But the timetabling doesn’t make the most of this.

  If I were planning it, I’d be particularly careful to aim for even frequencies southbound, departing from the most likely trip sources on the shared section: Murrumbeena station (particularly on weekday afternoons) and Chadstone (particularly on weekend afternoons).

  Ideally northbound frequencies would be as even as possible too of course, but this is a secondary priority, since people can more easily time their departure from home. Timing your connection from a train arriving at Murrumbeena, or the arrival of another bus or the end of your movie at Chadstone, is a bit harder.

  Unfortunately the planners haven’t quite hit the target here. Here’s how the combined service looks at Murrumbeena southbound on weekdays after 3pm:

  • 3:13 (822)
  • 3:23 (627)
  • 3:43 (822)
  • 3:54 (627)
  • 4:14 (822)
  • 4:24 (627)
  • 4:43 (822)
  • 4:55 (627)
  • 5:18 (822)
  • 5:25 (627)
  • 5:48 (822)
  • 5:56 (627)
  • 6:19 (822)
  • 6:26 (627)
  • 6:45 (822)
  • 6:55 (627)
  • 7:14 (822)
  • 7:28 (627)
  • 7:48 (822)
  • 7:58 (627)
  • 8:28 (627)
  • 8:44 (822)
  • 9:04 (627)
  • 9:28 (627)
  • 9:37 (822)
  • 10:04 (627)
  • 10:47 (822) (last bus)

  Trains are every 10 minutes or better until 10pm, so the aim isn’t for buses to meet specific trains, but instead to provide a good frequency so that nobody has to wait too long for a connection.

  Instead the combined bus departures are irregular. At the commuter peak, gaps vary as widely as 7 to 23 minutes. Not so good.

  Given a total of 4 buses per hour, a consistent 15 minute combined service would have been better. (Back in the 1980s, the predecessor to the 822 was the 655, which ran every 15 minutes in peak as far as Stockdale Avenue, East Bentleigh – a bit further than the combined 627/822 route will run.)

  These shortcomings aside, there’s a clear opportunity to grow commuter patronage to and from the station, which is great.

  The last two bus departures for the night are scheduled 5 minutes after (then not so frequent) train arrivals – which is good – even better if bus drivers can wait a little while if the train is late.

  

  There’s a quirk with travel time.

  On the new route 627, Chadstone to Murrumbeena is timed at 7 minutes.

  On the older route 822, it’s 9 minutes… despite the two routes being identical on that section. And there’s a similar discrepancy in the other direction.

  It appears route 822 hasn’t been re-timed since the level crossing was removed and the route was straightened out to avoid the side street detour so it could stop outside the old station. That’s an issue which affects many routes serving stations rebuilt through the Level Crossing Removal Project.

  Weekends

  How does the Saturday afternoon shopping rush look from Chadstone? Much better: each bus leaves every 40 minutes, and they’re pretty evenly spaced until 5:31 when the 822 drops back to hourly – then it’s a bit messier, for instance both routes are timed to depart at 6:11pm.

  And weirdly, the 627 gets more frequent after 7:30pm.

  • 2:11 (627)
  • 2:29 (822)
  • 2:52 (627)
  • 3:09 (822)
  • 3:31 (627)
  • 3:51 (822)
  • 4:11 (627)
  • 4:31 (822)
  • 4:51 (627)
  • 5:11 (822)
  • 5:31 (627)
  • 6:11 (822)
  • 6:11 (627)
  • 6:51 (627)
  • 7:11 (822)
  • 7:31 (627)
  • 8:04 (822)
  • 8:06 (627)
  • 8:36 (627)
  • 9:00 (822)
  • 9:06 (627)
  • 9:36 (627)
  • 10:00 (822)

  What about Sunday afternoon from Chadstone? Not so good – route 627 is every 40 minutes, but route 822 is only hourly, so it’s messy.

  • 2:08 (822)
  • 2:11 (627)
  • 2:51 (627)
  • 3:08 (822)
  • 3:31 (627)
  • 4:08 (822)
  • 4:11 (627)
  • 4:51 (627)
  • 5:08 (822)
  • 5:31 (627)
  • 6:08 (822)
  • 6:11 (627)
  • 6:51 (627)
  • 7:08 (822)
  • 7:31 (627)
  • 8:00 (822)
  • 8:06 (627)
  • 9:00 (822)
  • 9:01 (627)
  • 10:00 (822)

  The obvious solution would to upgrade the 822 to match the 40 minute frequency on Sundays, and to also tweak the weekday timetables to match better.

  

  Shared stops?

  No doubt along the common part of the route, the two routes will share stops, including at Murrumbeena station.

  At the Chadstone bus interchange? Unclear. Hopefully either a shared bus bay or adjacent bays.

  Route number

  Another point: Why was the new route given the number 627?

  627 used to be the number used for what is now the 625 and 626 when they were one, long, confusing route.

  Would it be better as, say, 820, to help sell the shared section with 822? (The route numbers 821, 823, 824 and 825 are already taken.)

  Or are there future planned network changes that are coming into play here?

  

  The big picture

  I’ve focussed on a local route, but the same principles apply across the public transport network.

  The addition of extra services (and extra service kilometres) is very welcome. But as I noted in a 2014 blog post, these upgrades should not be planned in isolation.

  The real aim is to help each new upgrade improve the overall network.

  While the bus system needs more resources, there are lots of gains to be made from reviewing and revising the network: moving towards direct routes, where possible along main roads, and using the efficiencies gained to increase frequency.

  The patronage growth in Smartbus routes shows this works, but it’s also been shown in other areas such as Brimbank.

  The windy indirect routes are not useful to most people – and as this Twitter thread shows, it’s something of a myth that buses that stop everywhere suit people with limited mobility.

  Thread.
  Melbourne's bus routes are frustratingly circuitous and meandering. Here is the impact this has on people who are trying to use public transport instead of their car.
  A friend's mother is entering a nursing home, located 3.7km as the crow flies from the family home >

  — Karen (@kcIMT122) May 24, 2019

  Monday’s State Budget provided not a lot of new funding for buses, so it makes sense to ensure the network is as efficient as possible at meeting suburban travel demand.

  Hopefully this new route will help, and other upgrades will follow.

May 27, 2019

• Club Troppo Australia should remain in alliance with the bully

  There is a widespread consensus in Australian policy circles that Australia should follow the US in almost any foreign adventure, though preferably on the cheap. The shining example of this was John Howard’s decision to publicly support the US in its war in Iraq in 2003, and yet send only a 1,000 special forces or so. Maximum alliance points, minimal actual risks and costs. Well done, John Howard.

  Sure, the US and its Murdoch media empire heavily lobby and cajole Australian politicians and public opinion. Yes, joining the Americans makes one a bit of a target. And yes, of course there is a large element of corruption and laziness to the alliance.

  Still, we’d be nuts to break up with the Americans. The best arguments come, ironically, from those who criticise the Americans loudly and convincingly.

  The biggest reason to be with the Americans is that they are bullies. Yes, you read it correctly: the fact that they misbehave on the international stage is a very important reason to be with the Americans as all those who have opposed them have found out the last 70 years. Look at American decisions the last 5 years around the Golan, Jerusalem, Khassoggi, Venezuela, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Cuba and Libya. The more we cry ‘injustices’, the more we should want to keep the Americans as friends.

  All the ‘left-wing intellectuals’ who write about how many wars the Americans have started and how they have supported dictators and other *ssholes thus provide the strongest reasons for Australia to stay in the US alliance: the Americans get very nasty to those they see as enemies, particularly those who were former friends (think of Panama, Iran, or Venezuela). Why make ourselves the net target?

  Sure, supporting the bully comes at a loss to others in the world, but not to us unless the other side really gets more powerful, in which case we can always switch. A new bully would recognise we are just the runt that follows the biggest bully, so it’s up to the new bully to show he is worthy of our allegiance. Till then, we stick with the one we know. That IS smart politics.

  Can’t we do a New Zealand and simply be independent, I hear you ask? You see this written a lot, but New Zealand doesn’t have large American bases on its soil. Australia has huge American bases on its soil, which do not merely provide business for prostitutes but also gives the Americans a reason to become very nasty to whomever asks them to leave.

  Also, NZ is essentially free-riding off the military protection offered by Australia. Australia needs a reasonably sized army. In turn, it is easier to have a modern well-trained army if one has integrated it with the best-equipped best-trained units of the US army. Going on foreign adventures, however ill-conceived, keeps the army on its toes a bit. Good training.

  So no, the NZ option is closed to us. To have no army is not an option and to break with the US would weaken our army and cause a serious political conflict.

  One should also not underestimate how popular the alliance with the Americans is amongst the Australian public, just as blindly following the Brits was before ‘we’ switched. Australians like to feel they are part of the winning team and there is a keen interest in being in the Western-block. It gives Australians a sense of belonging in the world. ‘We’ have loved being part of the war against terror and have happily accepted a few bombings as the price to pay. I say that with resignation, not relish. ‘We’ enjoy the role of runt, even more so when it gets some of us killed: Australians truly value obedience. Paying a price for the obedience simply makes it more real and hence more rewarding. You may not like it. I don’t like it. But you ain’t gonna change it in a hurry.

  But, I hear you cry, what about the torture, the illegal killings, the bugging, Assange, etc., that comes with handing over basic foreign military policy to the Americans? To be blunt, Australians don’t care about such things and never have. Like the Americans, the Australians prefer not to know and are hence quite happy being lied to. If someone would force us to acknowledge such things you will find Australians would truly just shrug the shoulders, as all NATO partners and their populations have effectively shrugged their shoulders at all the misdeeds of the Americans. This includes the Norwegians and the Dutch, those paragons of virtue.

  More broadly, if you are not competing to be in charge, you have to accept what your friends who are in charge do. It does indeed mean we are guilty of everything our American friends do, which is why we don’t want to know. Our hidden shame is the price of cowardice and an easy life.

  Isn’t militarisation and the increase in the security state a threat to Australian democracy? Yes it is, but I am afraid that that is home grown and quite independent of the US alliance. Internal dynamics in Australia move us towards a class society with a nasty security establishment. It is not the Americans who fund or encourage the Anzac military marches reminiscent of Germany in the 30s.

  What about the Chinese then and our strong economic ties to China: aren’t those at risk from a continued American alliance? Well, maybe. Many NATO member and other allies have stronger economic ties with China than the US, such as South Korea, which has not been a problem. We should surely keep trying to have our cake and eat it as long as possible, refusing to choose by pretending we don’t even see the choice.

  How about a war with China though? As I have said in the past, China will become more important than the US and it is part of our task as their friends to help the Americans get used to it. That probably IS the best thing we can do for our long-run security: to stay close to the Americans and whisper in their ear that they can’t truly win against the Chinese and need to keep it cool. If it truly does come to a devastating nuclear war between the US and China, Australia indeed will be a target, but that’s a very remote possibility. Having over a million Chinese on our shores in that sense gives China a reason to go easy on us and try and win us over.

  Shouldn’t we then at least invest in our capacity to think for ourselves? Yes, I do think Australia should invest in better education and international awareness for its own population, for all kinds of reasons, but our failure to do so is unrelated to the Americans. And we don’t want an Australian military that has smarter world-wise leaders. They would only make the Americans edgy about us.

  Don’t I fear that a low-level US-China conflict, combined with growing inequality in Oz, will involve an internal dynamic where the rich plutocrats will fan resentment against the one million Chinese in Oz in order to keep the masses off their back? Yes, I fear that scenario, particularly if there is a major recession that brings the corruption of the elites to the attention of the population, at which point the plutocrats will need a scapegoat. Yet, that 1930s fascism scenario is essentially not dependent on the American alliance. If it happens, the reasons will be internal, with only the focus of the scapegoating influenced by the alliance.

  In short, I do not really see any reason for Australia to become more independent in its military policy. We are aligned with the neighbourhood bully and follow where he goes. Like an Ostrich, we pretend not to see, so as to have the best of everything. That is the smart thing for the neighbourhood runt to do. We can always switch if a bigger bully emerges.

May 26, 2019

• Daniel Bowen PT service kilometres vs population

  In the world of public transport, services are what counts.

  Infrastructure is important, but ultimately, infrastructure is only built to enable services.

  If the train only runs every 40 minutes, it’s a long wait whether the station is 100 years old, or shiny brand new.

  Today is State Budget day, and it’s a good chance to look at the overall level of service around the network. The Budget Papers (the Service Delivery book) includes figures for total service kilometres for each mode.

  To put these figures in context to see how the network is expanding against population growth, we can calculate service kilometres per person.

  So how’s that tracking? These graphs are based on the 2018 Budget Papers:

  (Edit: 7/6/2019: I messed up and used the wrong numbers on this graph. Corrected and updated below.)

  

  On the face of it, that looks okay. It’s going up. Bus kilometres in particular show some growth.

  However one should always be cautious about the most recent years. 2017 was the expected outcome, and 2018 was the target. We’ll see what those say in the 2019 budget papers.

  (My assumptions: I’ve used metro train, metro bus and tram, and a portion of V/Line service kilometres, because V/Line serves parts of Melbourne’s west. And I’ve used Census figures for greater Melbourne’s population.)

  Focusing on just Metro Trains, which is the backbone of the public transport network:

  

  Again, an uptick. But the underlying figure for 2018 was a target of 23.8 million kilometres, a rise from 23.1 – or a bit over 3%.

  Has that actually happened? Probably – the 7km Mernda rail extension opened, and there were some worthwhile service increases for the Dandenong line and a couple of others.

  But is the overall network keeping up with population growth, both on Melbourne’s outskirts and the inner and middle suburbs? Is every line seeing more services to combat crowding across the day?

  I’ll aim to update these figures later today – to see if reality has matched the forecasts, and what the plan is from here.

  Update 8pm: Today’s budget includes some investment in additional train services (Metro and V/Line), expected from 2020 onwards – though the 2019-2020 expected service kilometres is the same as this year. It’s just as well something’s happening, as Metro patronage is continuing to grow – it’s looking like almost 5 million trips above the target for 2018-19.

  There’s no increase in the target for tram service kilometres, and a minor increase in buses.

  As a result of all this, for 2019-2020, the target service kilometres per person for Metro trains, and overall across the network, will drop slightly.

• Club Troppo Forecasting and competition policy

  Values are observed in actions and choices, and rather less so in words. Competition policy has been applied with great relish to the labour market – at least at the bottom end. (Subject to our relatively generous basic and award wage arrangements). So restrictive practices of warfies and workers in manufacturing plants have been ended, and where they haven’t compromised worker safety or other valuable things, I expect this is a very good thing.

  But back the top end of town, rigid demarcations remain, between doctors and nurses, baristas and solicitors (ok – barristers and solicitors, but you get my meaning). You might think this is because of the raw power of powerful professions in our society. And you’d be right. ¹ But the thing is that economists’ and policy makers’ imagination seems to align with the power. The desirability of reforming professional licensing was always in the Chicago School catechism. ²

  But in the case of Australian opinion leaders, not so much. I’ve been in numerous ‘How Good is Australia? Not good enough without more Reform. Why can’t we get back to the glory days of Reform?’ conferences of the great and the good when it’s not been mentioned. I brought it up at such a session run by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission and managed to get it onto the list, but not with any great enthusiasm from anyone.

  And as many Troppo-didly-dillians will know, a few years ago the Abbott, though it may have been the Turnbull or even Gillard Governments, convened the Harper Review into competition policy which at some stage got it into its head that we should open up social services. Admittedly they did so in a manner that led Gary Sturgess to warn them at their conference “stop it or you’ll go blind”. No-one on the panel knew much about the human services they were arguing should be opened up and it occurs to me that if the draft report had had one of those mascots that are now de rigueur at the Olympics, it would be called “Thread Bear”.  The final report purported to a little more knowledge, but not very convincingly. This then fed into a PC report which recommend five areas that might be opened up.

  Be that as it may, it occurred to me that here’s another area ripe for opening up. Nick Kamper and I have previously argued for the opening up of government forecasting models – their release as open source models. But forecasting is exactly the kind of thing that should be opened up to all comers.

  Currently our situation is not so unlike Philip Tetlock’s picture of forecasting in our society:

  Accuracy is seldom determined after the fact and is almost never done with sufficient regularity and rigor that conclusions can be drawn. The reason? Mostly it’s a demand-side problem: The consumers of forecasting – governments, and the public – don’t demand evidence of accuracy. So there is no measurement. Which means no revision. And without revision, there can be no improvement. Imagine a world in which people love to run, but they have no idea how fast the average person runs, or how fast the best could run, because runners have never agreed to basic ground rules – stay on the track, begin the race when the gun is fired, end it after a specified distance – and there are no independent race officials and timekeepers measuring result, How likely is it that running times are improving in this world? ³

  Indeed, in doing so government could move towards its classical role which is the ring master, designing forecasting tournaments – with forecasts in probabilistic form – which would actually generate retrospectively accountable information about the quality of forecasting and in so doing both rescue forecasting from suspected political bias as well as start identifying whose forecasts are best and so create the incentives for them to improve.

  1. To be as generous as possible, let’s say “largely right”. One can concede that restrictive practices in law and medicine do have some consumer protection and integrity functions, though these could be easily dealt with if we were serious about achieving anything here. ↩
  2. Milton Friedman cut his academic teeth with extensive research into occupations and occupational licensing (under the tutelage of Simon Kuznets if I’m not mangling what I read a while back). ↩
  3.  Tetlock, P.E. and Gardner, D., 2016. Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. Random House, p. 14. ↩

May 23, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Temporary track to minimise disruptions

  I think this is quite clever.

  When trains or trams are partially closed for planned works, generally the less of the route is disrupted, the better.

  But this is always limited by the placement of turnaround facilities. Witness the current Sandringham line closure: the major works are at South Yarra, but because (despite what was said beforehand) the infrastructure issue at Elsternwick hasn’t been fixed, the whole line is closed.

  Over on the trams, they have an ingenious solution: a portable, temporary crossover. It was in use in Swan Street in Richmond (route 70) for a few days this week while tram platform stops are built:

  This enabled them to terminate trams at Richmond station, with disrupted passengers able to either change to a train, or walk 400 metres to where trams could resume.

  Apart from placement of the temporary track, they also needed to install some overhead wire. Of course it’s made easier to manage in this case by the road closure.

  But it’s smart thinking, allowing trams to run as far as possible, reducing disruption for passengers, and avoiding the mess and cost of replacement buses.

  Temporary track is nothing new. Back last century it was a common occurrence around the tram (and train) networks. But that was in a bygone era, when I suspect labour was cheap.

  For long term projects, it still sometimes happens. Over Easter, the Dandenong and Frankston lines near South Yarra were ripped up and rebuilt as part of Metro tunnel works, and will be ripped up again as the junction to the new tunnel portal is built. There have also been tram tracks relocated on St Kilda Road which may need to be relocated again as the tunnel works continue.

  But overall, temporary track is less common in modern times, at least on short term projects.

  If only it were this easy on the railways.

May 22, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Illogical obsession

  Saturday’s Federal Election result might have been unexpected by many, but it underscores the Coalition’s illogical obsession with East West Link.

  Well, illogical from a transport planning perspective that is. Remember, it’s got a business case that says it will lose money – unless you include Wider Economic Benefits with which the Victorian Auditor General had, and I quote: significant issues (of) plausibility.

  (This was also a reminder that you can’t always believe everything in business cases.)

  It’s not really free money of course. It’s money from taxpayers. It should be spent wisely.

  

  Being a money-losing project didn’t stop the Federal Coalition making a pledge of $4 billion for East West Link during the election campaign. Despite their claims, that doesn’t appear to be enough money to pay for it.

  The $4b is only the government contribution – as per the 2014 business case. But the amount required is questionable given five years have passed, and there’s been some scope creep thanks to overlap with the WestGate Tunnel, and (perhaps) a proposal last year from the State Coalition to build the eastern tunnel portal further east.

  

  There’s also the question of whether there’s construction industry capacity to build a third major motorway project (at the same time as WestGate Tunnel and North East Link), alongside numerous level crossing removal projects and the Metro tunnel. Heavy demand tends to drive up prices.

  Obviously the Federal Coalition backed EWL yet again because of politics, but it’s not really clear why they remain so obsessed with it, since it didn’t translate into swings to them around Melbourne – apart from in Aston.

  Everywhere else in Melbourne, there were swings away from the Coalition – maybe not enough to lose seats, but enough to move a good many electorates into marginal territory.

  Really struggling to see any electoral dividend at all from Coalition’s stubborn promotion of #EWlink. Let it go cobbers. https://t.co/XBSiiNhnOn

  — Tony Morton (@tonybmorton) May 20, 2019

  To be fair on the Feds, they also made a pledge for the Kooyong railway crossing removal – which amazingly isn’t on the State’s list. (The Coalition pledge also included studies for two others: Tooronga Road and Madden Grove). This is good – except that they insist it has to be rail under, because they’ve taken the State Lib line on skyrail… as if an elevated rail line will somehow spoil the view of the nearby elevated tollway.

  If the Feds can get over their obsession with EWL – which of course they won’t – there are plenty of other projects they could be contributing to, including other level crossing removals and rail network duplication, which would provide huge benefits.

  If they were feeling particularly mischievous, they could take on public transport projects that the State isn’t interested in, such as suburban tram extensions. Some, such as the 75 to Knox and Ferntree Gully, would even reach into the eastern suburbs electorates the Coalition is courting.

  Equally there’s an argument that a spirit of genuine cooperation would see the Feds funding projects on Infrastructure Victoria’s short term priority list.

  

  It’s not as if Melbourne doesn’t have already enough major road projects underway. Two new tollways is two too many.

  Yes, these motorways all have short term travel time benefits, but history shows those won’t last. And there are ways of boosting access and economic activity that aren’t restricted to people who drive and can afford tolls, and don’t so easily get clogged if they are “successful” and people actually use them.

  It’s worth noting that every time the EWL has been taken to an election, it’s lost: Kennett in 1999, Brumby in 2010, Napthine in 2014 (despite the side letter, which is what triggered the huge bill for cancelling it), and Guy in 2018.

  And now 2019. It seems the Coalition hasn’t yet learnt their lesson.

  • PTUA: Value for money must inform State budget reset

May 20, 2019

• Club Troppo Brian Schmidt: The Mathematics Does Not Lie: Why Polling Got The Australian Election Wrong

  This is a guest post by Brian Schmidt. Actually it isn’t, I’ve cut and pasted. I hope he doesn’t mind. Important stuff. HT: John Walker

  Everyone in my office grew sick last week of my continual complaints about the state of the political polls. Not because of any insights into the results they were predicting, but because they were all saying the same thing with a collective similarity that violates the fundamentals of mathematics.

  Since the election was called, there were 16 polls that published two-party preferred results ahead of Saturday’s vote. Every single one of them predicted the LNP winning 48% or 49% of the two-party preferred vote, with Labor winning 51% or 52%.

  These polls were central to the public’s perception of this election, with everyone, including the media, ignoring the polls’ underlying uncertainties. These uncertainties typically far out-weighed most of the conclusions drawn from the poll results.

  In 2019 it’s hard to get a poll right. No longer is there an easy way to phone a random sample of people at home using the White Pages. Those people who are contacted are less likely to agree to be surveyed than in decades past. This means that getting a random sample that really represents Australia is harder than ever.

  But the one thing that is almost impossible to avoid is what is called sampling error. This uncertainty in a poll is caused by talking to a subset of people, rather than everyone. And no matter what you do, except polling more and more people (which is very expensive), you are stuck with it.

  You can think of the uncertainties in the polls much like what happens when you flip a coin 10 times. You can expect to get the “right” answer of five heads quite frequently, but not every time. It turns out mathematics tells us that you’ll only get five heads 25.2% of the time.

  If you do a similar calculation for the 16 polls conducted during the election, based on the number of people interviewed, the odds of those 16 polls coming in with the same, small spread of answers is greater than 100,000 to 1. In other words, the polls have been manipulated, probably unintentionally, to give the same answers as each other. The mathematics does not lie.

  I say unintentionally because humans are biased towards liking to get the same answer as everyone else. We often make subtle choices, even in quantitative analyses, to get the answer we expect. Commonly called confirmation bias in science, many of the large experiments in physics and astronomy hide the answers of an analysis from researchers until they are completely done to avoid this effect.

  I don’t know why the polls so badly missed the election’s actual result. But whatever led to the five polling companies to illegitimately converge on the same answer, must be a significant contributor. All five need to have a thorough and independent investigation into their methodologies, and all should agree to better reflect uncertainties in their future narratives.

  The last five years have demonstrated to me the fragility of democracy when the electorate is given bad information. Polls will continue to be central to the narrative of any election. But if they begin to emerge as yet another form of unreliable information, they too will be opened up to outright manipulation, and by extrapolation, manipulation of the electorate. This is a downward spiral our democracy can ill afford.

  • Professor Brian Schmidt is a Nobel Laureate in physics and the vice-chancellor of the Australian National University

May 17, 2019

• Club Troppo RIP Bob Hawke: a repost from 2008

  I worked for the early Hawke government in 1983 and 1984 when I worked for Senator John Button. Hawke barely knew me then or later, but in 2003, I attended a dinner at Moonee Valley Racecourse in honour of the 20th anniversary of his election. Anyway, I happened to be at his table and made a point at the end of the dinner of going up to him, shaking his hand and saying “Thanks for being the only really good prime minister of my lifetime,” an assessment which I hold to this day.

  Hawke and Keating, both at the time of their 13 years in office and ever since, have enjoyed a relative status surprisingly like Paul McCartney and John Lennon, respectively. Paul, like Hawke, was the babyface, the one more liked by your average Joe but John, like Keating, was the one with intimations of depth and drama. We look down upon those who seem to want us to like them – like Paul and Bob. They can’t be a Cool Kid – like Paul and John. In any event, it’s been becoming clearer that Paul was the greater talent in the Beatles, though they were both giants. And I’d say the same of Hawke versus Keating. Labor supporters are also always a sucker for a martyr, and Keating managed to measure up – along with Whitlam and Gillard.

  Such fond thoughts are all very well, but in politics, you sign up to a struggle on behalf of those you claim to represent. You owe them everything you can manage to stitch together to achieve victory. If you want to be a grand failure, better to pick religion. Not politics.

  In any event, to mark his passing I’m hoisting an essay I wrote in late 2007 trying to crystallise what seemed to me the lessons from the Hawke and Howard years with an obvious eye to the new Rudd government. What I’ve never told anyone before is that on publication, the new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd rang me and offered to create a post of Australian Strategist Laureate for me if I’d accept it. (I haven’t told anyone this before because I only just made it up.)

  Compare and Contrast

  I.

  Just as Marshall McLuhan argued that, in media, the medium was the message, one can say something similar about style and substance in politics. The style is the substance or at least comes to determine it. The political history of the last generation particularly the contrast between Bob Hawke’s and John Howard’s styles illustrates my point.

  Their rhetoric notwithstanding, Hawke’s and Howard’s economic ideologies weren’t far apart. Each sought prosperity through a vigorous market, and each supported substantial income redistribution. But the quality of governance differed considerably in ways that suggest lessons for the future.

  II.

  Lack of resources and timidity in the face of inevitable scare campaigns ensure that opposition platforms are painfully incomplete blueprints for government. But the style of government influences the subsequent development of that platform for good or ill.

  Three crucial and related elements of political style depend on whether:

  • unity or division is emphasised;
  • there is a cult of the strong leader as opposed to the leader being seen as an orchestrator of wider forces; and
  • the extent to which populist themes dominate political rhetoric

  Hawke provides us with the archetype of one style. Seeing himself as the conductor in an orchestra more than the strong man at the helm, his style was self-consciously inclusive. Of course, he was happy to use populist themes, but much of his political energy was dedicated to persuasion, to arguing a principled case for economic reform.

  By contrast, Howard saw himself as the strong leader, and his instincts were populist and nationalist. As a result, his reign was remarkably free of policy momentum. And that robbed him of political momentum. Remarkably for a politician governing during a long boom, each election saw Howard come from well behind, needing to pull ‘a rabbit from his hat’ to use the expression that became a cliché by the time Howard’s time drew to a close.

  III.

  The centrepiece of Hawke’s economic strategy was tackling both inflation and unemployment simultaneously by reducing real wages and doing so by agreement with the unions rather than with economic contraction. Despite widespread scepticism (such policies had failed elsewhere), things fell into place with great felicity.

  Like all successful prime ministers, Hawke had his luck. But his consensus was the template on which a rich, new style of politics developed. A highly productive relationship grew around the framework of the Accord. The unions delivered lower disputation and wage restraint. Treasury and the central agencies sold the new government a backlog of economic reform that the previous government had baulked at.

  Though not formally part of the structure, business leaders were also involved in the process. These new nodes of ideas and influence existed in a productive and dynamic tension with one another so that within a few years the Treasury, the ACTU, some business peak bodies and the government each under the sway of competent and pragmatic leaders were working very productively together.

  Within just five years of Hawke’s election, the process of microeconomic reform had been articulated in a wide-ranging and mature form and it continued to unfold as governments committed and then implemented new policies over the next decade. And on the back of the revenue from rapid growth, the government bought continuing wage restraint, economic reform and major increases in transfers to poorer households.

  IV.

  By contrast, Howard’s accession to power was much less constructive. Sacking six departmental heads at the outset, his government’s relationship with the bureaucracy was serviceable but not particularly creative or productive. And while its relationship with business was close and sympathetic, business wasn’t a particularly useful partner in developing and implementing a political agenda.

  Where Hawke enjoyed an extended honeymoon lasting beyond his 1984 re-election, Howard was in trouble within his first year. Introducing gun control and slashing expenditure showed political courage, but policy was a series of episodes rather than the unfolding of a growing policy vision.

  Within 12 months of Howard’s taking office, there was increasing alarm at his directionlessness. In this circumstance, Howard took his economic policy vision off the shelf, as it were, promising the GST that Hawke and Fraser had shied away from. Though his subsequent re-election was inevitably regarded as a vindication, it was a difficult election to lose. And Howard lost it on votes, though he held sufficient marginal seats to retain government.

  A leader with greater policy vision wouldn’t normally have needed this grand and near politically suicidal gesture.

  V.

  To use the ungainly terminology of our time, Hawke’s strategy was triangulation, Howard’s was wedge politics.

  Coined by Bill Clinton’s advisor Dick Morris, “triangulation” involves a leader presenting themself as someone above and between partisan politics, finding a creative but commonsensical course between left and right. As Katherine West used to observe, for quite some time, Prime Minister Hawke appeared above the ruckus and between the left and right.

  As the expression suggests, wedge politics focuses on dividing one’s opponents or their constituency. At least where it’s been most devastating, wedge politics has appealed to populist sentiment. It appeals to the idea of a nation or a national culture besieged either from without as in the case of terrorism and asylum seekers, or from within as in the case of the culture wars against effete elites who are seen to court nihilism, relativism and cultural disintegration.

  Now, these sentiments can make a good speech. In the right circumstances, they can win an election. But they are expressive, not deliberative. “We decide who comes here and the circumstances under which they come” is ill-suited to the unfolding of a coherent policy platform.

  Of course, all democratic politicians juggle tensions between popular sentiments and policies that must be more carefully considered. Yet, not surprisingly, political strategising dominates the mind of most professional politicians. And where wedging is at best a distraction from the policy substance of governing, triangulation is a political strategy which is about policy rather than value-laden gestures. It facilitates a constructive integration of political strategy and rhetoric and policy development. Populist wedging frustrates it.

  Further, though a government practising triangulation frequently steals its opponents’ policies, its focus remains itself. To the extent possible in the chancy game of politics, it remains the author of its destiny. By contrast, wedge politics is reactive both to evolving events and to its opponents. Thus, although one can think of some exceptions to this generalisation, while Hawke’s broad strategy was to marginalise his opponents as irrelevant, Howard’s approach was to exploit opposition weaknesses, so much so that his own conduct was often shaped by little more than the desire to draw his opponents into political dilemmas.

  VI.

  If his first year in office left onlookers wondering what he was trying to achieve, Howard’s last year was an apotheosis in which the style of sledging and wedging his opponents had become the substance. What policy direction there ever was had leached away, overtaken by a clearing of the policy decks (numerous policies being hurriedly reversed to neutralise the opposition’s policy advantage) and a symphony of improvised attacks on its opponents.

  Howard improvised one political feint after another. The only time I can remember when I had less knowledge of what alarms and excursions might turn up in the next day’s papers was during the chaos that was the Whitlam Government.

  With the recent AWB scandal leaving the government’s distain for the principles of ministerial responsibility fresh in the mind, the Minister for Environment got tangled up in the government’s attack on Kevin Rudd. With the government in high dudgeon about Rudd meeting persona non grata Brian Burke, the minister turned out to have done the same thing quite appropriately in his ministerial duties.

  At this point, the principles of Westminster Government appeared, like some digitised folkloric creature in a Harry Potter movie with nothing but its uncanny weightlessness to give away its essential unreality. The minister resigned. His prime minister said he’d done nothing morally wrong. Others in his party said that in resigning hed done the right thing. The minister, smiling and magnanimous, was transparent about his party’s motivation, which was to clear the decks for intensified attacks on the Opposition Leader. And so, the once-grave principle of ministerial responsibility reasserted itself one last time under Howard, this time transformed into an ironic simulacrum of its former self — a walk-on walk-off cameo the tactical feint du jour in the news cycle.

  And apparently seeking to expose divisions in the ALP, Howard managed to wedge his own party by embracing nuclear power. He then downplayed the conversion as a grateful opposition drove home its electoral unpopularity.

  The rudderless in pursuit of Rudd.

  VII.

  Workchoices offers a pointed example of our themes.

  Though Hawke never gained control of the Senate, the style and institutions of consensus politics also helped insulate him from this kind of political overreach. The search for consensus often identified politically viable means of making policy progress while addressing the concerns of major interest groups. And once policies had been broadly agreed, the partners to the process then helped sell the sometimes difficult messages that emerged, like the need to rein in expenditure, reduce real wage costs, protection and means test benefits.

  In fact, as right-leaning labour economist Mark Wooden observed, Workchoices itself was far from clean or coherent as labour market liberalisation. In addition to introducing new red tape and arbitrarily restricting what could be negotiated, it maintained minimum wages that were relatively and absolutely amongst the highest in the world. And it was not integrated with other arms of policy, most particularly welfare.

  Workchoices eroded wages and conditions for lower paid workers, though perhaps less dramatically than many feared. But Howard never clearly acknowledged the obvious political problem. He responded to the inevitable scare campaign with an Orwellian mix of advertising and spin seeking to highlight the positives. Even Workchoices Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) read like a marketing brochure, and was duly rejected as an inadequate appraisal of costs and benefits by the independent red tape watchdog. (As an aside, this was while the Howard government-appointed Banks Committee was coming up with a red-tape busting agenda. In 2007, with a refurbished regulatory gatekeeping infrastructure in place in the wake of the Banks Report, the hastily cobbled together “Fairness Test” also fronted with an inadequate RIS).

  More importantly for the fate of the Howard government, in eliding the policy problem (the costs imposed on some) it ignored the corresponding political problem.

  It needn’t have been that way. Hawke’s approach to engineering lower real wages was straightforwardly negotiated with stakeholders and so addressed these issues as an integral aspect of its design. Wage restraint was sold as equality of sacrifice for the greater good of the economy and community, and other arms of policy were mobilised to compensate workers through the social wage (Medicare) and through a wage tax trade-off.

  Ironically, in 1999 the Business Council proposed something in this mould. It proposed and met with the ACTU to seek support for a wage tax trade-off which would have seen the minimum wage frozen in return for tax credits to compensate low income working families. But the government showed little interest.

  If cost had been the problem or the fact that the compensation package was highly targeted and so created some losers in childless households, this constraint evaporated as the mining boom drove soaring company tax receipts. Remarkably, during the endless embarrassment of riches that followed, the government seemed endlessly caught short, cutting taxes in different ways in four successive years (without trying to buy reform with such measures) and improvising any number of different giveaways invariably multiples of $100 to specific groups. Beneficiaries included pensioners, self-funded retirees, parents. One year apprentices got $800 for their tool kit.

  Had the government acknowledged the losers from Workchoices, explained its rationale and explicitly compensated them for it, history could have been very different.

  VIII.

  Triangulation has been the political style of left-of-centre parties, whilst wedging has characterised the right. Yet, there’s no logical necessity for this. It would be perfectly possible for right-leaning parties to triangulate and so dominate the centre as to render their opponents irrelevant, but both here and in other countries, particularly the United States, they have practised divisive and populist wedge politics.

  In fact, in Australia, we’ve had three right-leaning political leaders who have had powerful policy visions. They’ve not embraced wedge politics. Yet in presenting themselves as strong leaders, each has forsworn the resources the inclusion of triangulation. And each of those leaders — Hewson, Kennett and Greiner — was less politically successful than Howard the wedger, whilst enjoying no worse circumstances.

  We’ve also had a left-leaning political leader Paul Keating mix the economic policy of triangulation with a new, more divisive style focused on his own strong leadership. Like the three Coalition politicians mentioned above, Keating’s style had more than a little of the crazy brave about it and, like them, his period of political supremacy was surprisingly short given his talents.

  IX.

  Prime Minister Rudd’s style is already emerging. Promising a new consensus across our country, he’s already pre-emptively launched a process by which his opposition number is undergoing trial by bipartisanship on Aboriginal affairs. These clues suggest that Rudd wants to be the conductor rather than the heroic leader, the uniter not the divider, the triangulator, not the wedger.

  But Hawke’s success was built not just on his own style, but on what it brought forth most particularly the Accord and the creative tension this established with the bureaucracy as well as institutions such as EPAC. Critics could say – did say – that Hawke’s corporatism was undemocratic; that the right venue for such deal-making was not behind closed doors, but within Parliament under public scrutiny.

  But shouldn’t governments set agendas both inside and outside Parliament? Indeed the Howard government’s failure to do so damaged both the quality of its governance and ultimately its own long-term political saleability. In any event, whatever extra-parliamentary institutions and pressures an accord can produce, Parliament retains its role in forming governments and passing laws.

  Indeed, at a time when the executive so dominates Parliament, when political debate is so rarely permitted to rise above the relentless infotainment values of the media, one can argue that Hawke’s centrist corporatism enriched our deliberative democracy. Although invitations to the table were at the grace and favour of the government, the conversation once there was a genuine search for solutions, something that has become increasingly rare within the stage-managed public theatre of Parliament and party political combat. And once established within the Accord framework, politically difficult policy objectives like wage restraint were then sold to constituencies by the Accord partners.

  But, as its period in power lengthened, the bureaucracy’s proximity to senior politicians ensured that its influence grew at the cost of others. Australia has a first-class bureaucracy and Treasury, the central bank and central agencies typically provide first-class advice. But it’s in the nature of such agencies to promote strong orthodoxies which can blindside them and those they advise. By the end of the ALP’s reign, economic reform had become formulaic and it had become all too easy for the defenders of the formula to mistake those arguing for new developments of those policies as their opponents.

  Instead of letting it slowly atrophy, an alternative course was for the Accord to have deepened, for instance by broadening its agenda and its make-up. Its purposes would have changed as the issues changed; for instance, its role in wages policy would necessarily have been scaled back as enterprise bargaining spread. It would, however, have been an ideal vehicle within which to negotiate a wage-tax-trade-off of the kind discussed above.

  While we debate across the trenches between left and right using weapons crafted from the experience of the US, England and New Zealand, there’s a strange beam in our eye about Ireland. In fighting its way out of the economic despond of 17% unemployment in 1987, Ireland emulated Australia. Like us, Ireland embraced fiscal and wage restraint and it did so with an accord between government, employees and employers. But, as our Accord withered and was duly dispatched upon Howard’s victory in 1996, Ireland’s social partnership grew in stature and now enjoys bipartisan support. Since 1987, Ireland has roughly doubled our own impressive per capita economic growth. It was one of Europe’s poorest countries. It’s now one of its richest.

  The idea that innovation in practical affairs might be central to Australia’s destiny has deep roots in our history. In the late 1930s, Australian economic statistician Colin Clark expressed his own ambitions in response to John Maynard Keynes’ entreaties to Clark to return to England.

  I am reaching the conclusion I want to stay in Australia. People have minds which are not closed to new truths, as the minds of so many Englishmen are: and with all the mistakes Australia has made in the past, I still think she may show the world, in economics . . . .

  By the mid-1990s, we were showing the world, which watched and imitated our best innovations — HECS, the Child Support Agency, Rural Research and Development Corporations, welfare targeting, and the list goes on. But the atrophying of the Accord, and the loss of political confidence engendered by the early ’90s recession (and Keating’s more divisive style?) robbed us of confidence to build imaginatively on that accomplishment.

  Today, after a long detour from which we might surely have hoped for more, the possibility presents itself anew. Though, as usual, we’re sceptical, the government’s exploratory 2020 Summit at least suggests an appetite for the challenge. Hawke’s two summits attracted similar scepticism before their event. But both were the beginning, not the end of a process by which we built the institutions and political culture capable of meeting the challenge.

  Let’s hope we can do so again, and that both political parties come to sustain the effort for decades to come.

May 15, 2019

• Club Troppo George RR Martin just reminded us of the horrors of war and our role in them.

  Episode 5 of the final season of Game of Thrones showed us a vengeful fallen angle, Daenerys Targaryen, after whom thousands of children in the real world have been named. Even though her enemies had been defeated and surrendered, she nevertheless used her massive weapon, a fire-spewing dragon, to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. We get to experience this from the point of view of the victims who are incinerated: men, women, and children.

  I see this episode as the crowning moment of George Martin’s career. He wrote the books and scenarios on which the tv-series is based. He has shown us and told us about the cruel side of humanity time and time again, but many of us did not take this personally. To worm his way into our minds, he gave us a heroine who overcame sexual abuse and umpteenth set-backs to become a powerful ruler who did many good things.

  Daenerys liberated the slaves of an entire region. She helped defeat an army of ice zombies who otherwise would have killed everyone on the continent of Westeros and turned it into a zombie wasteland, thus saving all the generations to come. She hence saved hundreds of millions of lives, losing many of her best friends and allies in the process, risks she knowingly took. Those are good deeds of the highest order. She was and to some extent will remain, on balance, a heroine.

  But throughout her on-screen struggles these last 10 years she was ruthless, not blinking an eye when her brother was killed by having molten gold poured over him, crucifying hundreds of ‘slave masters’ as punishment for their actions. The noble side of her character was fanned by adulation of freed slaves and warm relationships with her closest friends, Melisandre and Jorah. Their influence tempered her continuous preparedness to use her children, three fully grown fire-spewing dragons, to lay waste to the bastions of her enemies.

  When her closest friends died, two of her dragons were killed, and her role in saving the whole of humanity on Westeros did not bring her the adulation and love she so desired, Daenerys did exactly what she had promised to do and was foretold to do in all previous seasons. She broke the game of power in Westeros and turned its biggest city to ashes. She did it partly out of revenge, partly in order to instill fear and thus loyalty, and partly out of a ruthless bloodlust that ran in her family and in herself.

  Letting us, the audience, get so close to Daenerys and all her emotional ups and downs throughout the years, has made many of us feel we have partly done all the good things she did. George RR Martin trapped us in her story by letting us see her develop and gain what we also crave: connection, appreciation, redemption, love, lust, and, above all, power. Many of us excused her excesses and coldness, ignoring all the warnings and prophesies, not because we did not recognise this potential in her or even ourselves, but because she was the symbol of how we want to see ourselves. We were made to trust that she would never give in to seeing everyone as expendable in her drive to rule.

  Now George RR Martin has sprung his trap and confronted us with what I think he believes is the truth about humanity: in our desire for power we are prepared to do anything to anyone. All the rationalisations and moralising about who we are and why we do things ultimately will make way for our drive to power when the opportunity for power comes. Power blinds us and, particularly when the drive to it costs us emotionally, it estranges us from others and makes us do things we initially never imagine we would be capable of.

  It is this shattering of the image of ourselves that is so unsettling. We are made to realise who was always behind the mirror.

  There has been mass disappointment among fans. In their bewilderment at being told that this is not merely how their hero is, but how they themselves all are, they go through the phases of grief: denial, anger, bargaining.

  The disappointment of the fans shows you how successful George has been in springing his trap (and in the amazing ability of HBO to have kept it a secret so long). The fans latch on to accusations of how the tv-makers have cheated them by rushing the story, not flagging enough that this was coming, betraying the essential character, or something else. The reason for this denial and rationalisation is obvious: they wanted to be allowed to distance themselves from Daenerys and hence not experience what they have just experienced – the momentary realisation that what she did is in all of us. The horror of war is the horror of what we are all prepared to do to others in our lust for power. We suffer when others do this to us and we inflict the suffering when we do it. Just for a moment George RR Martin has truly managed to drive home the message he has told us ever since the first episode some 10 years ago: power blinds all of us and corrupts most of us, except a few fools who get themselves and others killed by their naivete (Ned and John).

  Well done George, you have spent your artistic life well. You have managed to engender a realisation amongst millions, however temporary, that humans in modern societies have not often had and that they quickly forget after their brief glimpses of it.

  Just after World War I was another such moment. We knew that Great War was due to human stupidity. It was recognised as being a stupidity that belonged to all of us, not merely the elites who decided. We knew the leaders were stupid in sleepwalking into that war. We knew the soldiers were stupid for enthusiastically walking to their deaths and empowering their leaders by their obedience. We knew whole populations were stupid for being so full of themselves and so hell-bent in imposing their collective will on other people that they cheered on both leaders and soldiers, giving neither of them a choice but to follow-up on the collective stupidity. Power lust blinded whole populations and lead them to gas, bomb, maim, and shoot each other in unimaginable orgies of destruction. For a brief moment afterwards, surrounded by cripples and widows, we knew. In that moment, we vowed never to forget.

  Yet, we forgot quickly. The truth was replaced by parades of glorious soldiers professing how noble their cause was, organised by elites that wanted the population to keep empowering and obeying them, egged on by populations that wanted to believe in their collective glory and infallibility. The window for truth was short because humans in modern societies are trained to be blind to their own powerlust. That blindness is part and parcel of a society where we are nicer to others within our society than we need to be prepared to be towards enemies outside that society. That duality is solved by having most people believe they would not be violent and ruthless unless it is for a just cause. The lie that we are all fluffy bunnies to some degree ceases to be a lie when it comes to our behaviour inside our group. Yet, we normally do not really look closely at whether the cause is just when we murder the enemies outside. We behave like feral beasts to outsiders, but we try not to know.

  Yet, our power lust remains undiminished. We are not fluffy bunnies. Our desire for power is what makes us cheer on and identify with powerful rulers on screen, no matter what they do. When we see films about him, we forgive Alexander the Great his great cruelty, which included the burning and rape of entire cities, because we imagine ourselves to be him and have that power. We fawn over stories of Henry VIII with his many wives because we revel in the idea that we are also so powerful and adulated, conveniently blotting out the fact that he was a genocidal murderer on whose orders the North of England was pillaged. We cheer on ‘our leaders’ when we look at war films, choosing not to remember things like the bombing of Cambodia or the genocide of the Khoisan. We cheer on butchers because, in the end, the power attracts us more than the butchering repels us. That doesn’t make us evil, it is just who we are. It is the job of artists to remind us. It is the job of those who devise the institutions of society to keep that truth in the front of their minds.

  George Martin for a moment shattered our collective illusions. Thank you to George and to the thousands who helped him spring his trap. You reminded us of who we really are and of the human costs of what the game of power does to us. Lest we forget.

• Daniel Bowen Climate, money and politics

  I don’t often write about climate change, but here are a few thoughts as we go into the Federal election on Saturday.

  But first I need to get these points out of the way:

  • Climate change is real.
  • If you think climate change is a hoax because you think you know more than the 97% of climate scientists who say it’s real, that’s up to you – but I’m not interested in your theories. Don’t bother leaving a comment.
  • Australia’s share of emissions isn’t that big, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have influence, that we shouldn’t set a good example, or that we shouldn’t make an effort with everybody else.

  Okay then.

  So often it seems the politics of climate change in Australia comes down to cold hard cash: the cost, the impact on jobs.

  The Coalition’s rhetoric going into the election, and for literally 20 years now, has been to demand to know how the cost of reducing emissions.

  They never seem to consider the cost of not acting.

  What we thought we needed.
  My @smh @theage cartoon. pic.twitter.com/CDEAanGuat

  — The Cathy Wilcox (@cathywilcox1) May 6, 2019

  No matter how much I might dislike the rhetoric, for some people it resonates, and it seems in Australia, real action on emissions reductions may continue to be resisted for this reason.

  But what I think might (hopefully) get things happening is if it can be shown that actually, cutting emissions can save money.

  Technology is getting cheaper over time, and this is changing the equation.

  Some examples:

  Power

  Everyone knows the importance of affordable reliable power.

  Coal subsidies are huge, particularly the costs of keeping the existing coal power stations going.

  It’s even getting cheaper to build new renewables than to maintain existing coal power stations – let alone build new coal power.

  Recent power reliability problems such as on January 25th were caused by coal failures. Coal is becoming expensive and unreliable.

  No wonder coal is on the way out, with 13 coal power stations shut down in Australia since 2012.

  Meanwhile effective large-scale battery systems have emerged that are
  overcoming store and dispatch issues with renewables, contributing to stabilisation of the grid, which in turn demonstrably cuts power costs.

  This means I’m not convinced anymore that clean means unaffordable and unreliable.

  (People like to talk about baseload power, but what’s really important is dispatchable power – in other words, available when and where it’s needed.)

  Britain recently went a week without coal power. Okay, so it included 46% gas and 21% nuclear, but they still think they can regularly get by without coal and gas by 2025.

  The cost of PV panels is dropping, making both large-scale solar farms and household solar a good investment.

  Given labour is becoming the biggest cost in many industries, it makes sense that over time, the once-off installation and maintenance of renewable energy generation will end up being cheaper that paying people to continually dig stuff out of the ground and burn it.

  In fact the economics of it means that even people who don’t believe in climate change are jumping on this bandwagon.

  Tony Pecora, the now disendorsed Clive Palmer/UAP candidate for Melbourne, who believes that the IMF and the World Bank “are pushing the idea of climate change so strongly … because having a global-based carbon taxation system is one of the most effective ways of centralising financial power” (his actual words) and yet his day job is installing solar panels!

  

  Cars

  Meanwhile the cost of electric vehicles is dropping, with some models set to drop to the same price as their petrol counterparts by next year. That’s high-end vehicles initially, but even for models such as Toyota Camry it’s likely to be between 2022 and 2024.

  The Coalition’s bleating against electric vehicles is utterly ridiculous. They’ve gone in hard against them just because Labor has decided to support them – a reminder that politicians will say almost anything to get themselves elected.

  The key claim that electric vehicles are under-powered is just simply wrong. Here’s a video of a Tesla pulling a Boeing 787.

  With other countries moving on this, vehicle manufacturers are also moving off petrol. Mercedes just announced half of their new vehicles will be electric by 2030, with all switched by 2039.

  Electric vehicles won’t fix traffic problems, but do reduce pollution in cities, and if combined with renewable energy, will help cut overall pollution and emissions.

  Transport choice

  Transport investment has outcomes in emissions.

  Because transport is supply-led, funding more road infrastructure results in higher emissions (especially while the bulk of the car fleet is petrol) whereas providing better public transport (particularly when powered by renewables) gives people options to leave the car at home more often, helping to cut emissions.

  Victorians who consider transport infrastructure important have a stark choice in Saturday’s election. The Coalition says they’ll fund the East West Link. Labor says it’ll fund the Suburban Rail Loop.

  OK, so when it comes to transport infrastructure, Victoria has a simple choice:
  Coalition will fund the #EWLink – getting more cars on the road – the plan voters have already rejected twice
  Labor will fund the #SuburbanRailLoop – getting more people onto trains#auspol #ausvotes pic.twitter.com/DehVEniL38

  — Daniel Bowen (@danielbowen) May 11, 2019

  SRL isn’t perfect. Most would agree it isn’t as important as Metro 2. And the whole concept still needs fleshing out. But I’d rather have it than EWL any day.

  Follow the money

  Lots of people want action on climate change, but the way the economics are going, even those who don’t particularly care will soon be choosing to buy electric vehicles and rooftop solar – because it’ll be cheaper.

  And power industry investors will be building renewables, not coal, because it’ll be cheaper. The dinosaurs will be left behind.

  

  So I suspect climate change action will come, with of course plenty of other benefits from cutting pollution.

  But this is not an excuse for our political leaders to do nothing. On the contrary – they should be pushing harder for change, to help us ride the wave, not swim against it.

  It’s not just good for humanity, it can also ensure that Australia doesn’t miss out on opportunities to be at the forefront of a huge technological shift as the world decarbonises.

  More action needed

  So the good news is that money will force progress.

  The bad news it it won’t be enough.

  The science says CO2 needs to get down to a level of 350 parts per million to stabilise the climate. It’s just gone above 415, the highest in human history.

  Recently our planet hit a new all too serious record – 415ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. (If you remember from our name, 350 is the safe level to be at). The human species have NEVER experienced this before.
  
  We have gone from first hitting 400 to 415 in just 6 short years. pic.twitter.com/5An7BHEI9u

  — 350 dot org (@350) May 13, 2019

  Something has to happen, and quickly.

  It’s all very well for us to just follow the money to cleaner energy and reduced emissions, but stopping dangerous climate change should be a higher priority for our political leaders and policymakers.

  Vote well, Australia.

May 14, 2019

• Club Troppo Guest Post by Peter Dempster: A novel voting strategy for centrists

  Peter Dempster asked me to post this follow-up post to an earlier one of his. Nicholas

  A novel voting strategy for centrists

  Vote 1 for your preferred party but then do something very unusual – Vote 2 for the opposing party, symbolically joining the major parties on your ballot. Make this the trademark vote of the Australian CENTRE, a demand for much less division and much more compromise in Australian politics. 70% of voters agree … political parties should ‘meet in the middle’. (Essential Poll, 18 July 2017)

  If we can’t do this, how can they?

  Either: Vote 1 for LABOR & Vote 2 for LIBERAL/NATIONAL

  Or: Vote 1 for LIBERAL/NATIONAL & Vote 2 for LABOR

  If you Vote 1 for a minor party or independent, consider joining the major parties further down your ballot, say, at 2+3 or 3+4.

  CENTRE votes will be detected in poll results – polling station by polling station, suburb by suburb. Such that Australia’s CENTRE can stand up and actually be counted, not divisively assigned to one party or another as ‘their’ voters. Only 18% of Australians say they identify with either the left or right wings of politics.

  Most importantly, CENTRE votes suggest a readiness to flip, a quiet threat to unseat the most divisive politicians.

  It’s a symbolic vote but symbols are essential. Flags are symbols; hi-vis vests and school uniforms are symbols; hair styles and tattoos; handshakes and signatures; hugs and kisses. Putting the other party last, as instructed by each party’s how-to-vote, is also a symbol. But a symbol of disgust and mistrust, which is not what most of us want to say to each other; only 18% of voters identify with either left-wing or right-wing politics. So, on 18 May, let’s rally ourselves, come together, look around to find we are not alone, realise the strength in our numbers; proclaim the CENTRE from both sides of politics. It’s the start of a long road back to where we need to be.

  It is important to vote CENTRE for the Senate, not just the House of Representatives. There is an exhaustive reporting of Senate preferences, such that the CENTRE vote can be fully documented.

  The Senate ballot paper can be challenging. If you need a cheat sheet in the polling booth, you will find how-to-votes at thecentrevotes.org.  There are always three: one each for those who Vote 1 LABOR, those who Vote 1 LIBERAL/NATIONAL, and those who vote minor party or independent. All can adopt some version of the CENTRE vote, declaring what they have in common, not just how they differ.

  Then what happens?

  The CENTRE’s objective is to establish a political audience and constituency that is neither left wing nor right wing. Such that pollsters take an interest in what CENTRE voters think, rather than assign us to a party – LABOR, LIBERAL, GREEN and so forth. Political journalists do more stories that interest the CENTRE, focusing on the pre-selection, behaviour and abilities of individual politicians in respect of … meeting in the middle. Politicians better understand they must appeal to the CENTRE, most importantly, by creating non-partisan processes and institutions to resolve the many difficult issues that we face. Thus, a rejuvenated, and depoliticised public service, genuine public consultation, anti-corruption commission, evaluator general, independent commissions to deal objectively with tough issues, fewer rollouts of half-baked policies a few weeks or days before elections.

  The CENTRE may need a ‘big stick’ of the kind favoured by Teddy Roosevelt … speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far … to jointly threaten the careers of divisive politicians on both sides of politics. That requires more political innovation and will take some organising. Importantly, however, the CENTRE will have expressed a need felt on both sides of politics.

May 11, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Wall insulation

  Improving my house’s heating and cooling and energy efficiency is an ongoing project.

  • 2008 Solar hot water
  • 2012 Ceiling fans and roof insulation
  • 2015 External blinds
  • 2017 Air-conditioning (a backwards step for energy efficiency, but a giant leap for comfort on very hot days)

  This week it was wall insulation.

  Obviously this is best fitted when the house is built, but in a house built circa 1930, the only way is to retrofit it.

  They do this by drilling small holes in the walls all the way around the house, then spraying in filler stuff into the wall cavity.

  

  They’ve filled the holes, but they’ll need sanding and painting, which leaves me somewhat regretting I didn’t do this before I got the house painted in 2015. Not to worry, but for now the house looks like it has measles.

  Last year’s winter gas bill (covering 15th June to 15th August) was a whopper, at $489 ($7.87 / 354 MJ of gas per day) – similar to 2016. (In 2017 we were away on holiday for some of winter.)

  I’m hoping that by getting the new insulation in time for winter, the gas bill for winter this year can be reduced quite a bit – hopefully daytime warmth can be better retained into the evening and overnight.

  It might be a while before the investment (not insubstantial) pays off, but already there’s a noticeable difference, which is good.

  Future options around the house include:

  • double-glazing on the windows
  • under-floor insulation
  • PV panels for the roof
  • replacing gas cooking with electric
  • replacing gas central heating with more reverse cycle units
  • and one I learnt about recently which seems like an easy no-brainer: a balloon in the fireplace.

May 07, 2019

• Club Troppo History and economics: it was all there in the beginning …

  <SelfIndulgenceAlert>Stuart MacIntyre was kind enough to suggest me as a discussant on a paper on financial deregulation in the 1980s in a workshop focusing on Australia and the Bretton Woods conference put on by Melbourne Uni History and Economic History. (Yes I know it’s a little unclear how the 1980s get involved but there you go – this was the unpicking of the institutions Australia built around the Bretton Woods arrangements). In any event, after reading a fair bit of history for the workshop and talking to historians,  economic historians and economists over two evenings I checked out some work I did for my PhD and was quite taken with it. I never know whether I’ll think something I’ve written in the past is good or not when I return to it years later. Anyway, dear reader, I was pleased with my trip down memory lane. I was also surprised at how little the basic tone of what I’d written had changed.

  Anyway, I then thought I’d go back to my grad dip thesis, which I recall writing when I’d worked out a lot less. But one thing amazed me. For a long time I’ve been aware of the fact that, though I got some training in economics, the only education I ever got was in history. It was through doing history that I was first brought face to face with that thing that Steve Jobs mentions which is that at some stage in your life you realise that this vast info structure was built by other people just like you – just as fallible as you.

  Of course it sounds obvious, but if it’s properly felt or experienced then it can have an impact. In any event I fell in love with the way in which, when it is good, history involves theoretical reflection on the practice of history in the process of practicing it. Any discipline could be like this, but few are. In virtually every discipline you do – whether in the social or the natural sciences – you can do the “philosophy of” course, but they’re usually pretty lame in my experience precisely because they’re an add on. In any event economics is about as bad as it comes in that regard.

  Indeed it’s the only one I know of in which ‘theory’ doesn’t mean what it means as I’ve adverted to it above. It means formal models and the equivalent of ‘practice’ is empirical work. Reflection on questions like ‘what criteria determine what a good model is?’, ‘how much of economics is falsifiable in principle and how much is in practice, and what if very little of it is in practice?’. Is the analytical process of working out what the right economic policy is more like the engineering steps needed to get a person to the moon and back or working out how to win a football game (Hint: I think the answer is the latter, but that’s another post?). Well you can go and do a unit of ‘The Philosophy of Economics” but best of luck getting help with those questions.

  I reflected a little on this in a speech I gave a couple of years ago. In any event, going back to the preface of my grad dip – written in the late(ish) eighties, it turns out that it was all there – way back then. To do economics using the skills that history had taught me, and that were vanishingly rare in economics. The zen of trying to open one’s mind. Anyway, the preface to my Grad Dip thesis – on my experiences in car industry policy is over the fold.

  Oh, one more thing. The preface is my best answer to the pride that economists have in the aggressiveness of their intellectual culture. This is the idea that the stronger the competition – celebrated here – the better because it imposes stronger selection pressure in the market for ideas all the better to select the fittest ideas. I can only say I’ve never experienced that. It’s true that within some formally defined world one person can often by right, the other wrong. But most argument actually requires the skills of listening and searching for common understandings at least as much as it requires contest around disagreement. And that’s even true of a lot of argument about technical matters, which degenerate surprisingly often into some subtle misunderstanding.  

  This paper would not be the way it is without certain influences.

  My participation in formulating policy for the Australian automotive industry from 1983 till 1985 while working as private secretary to Senator John Button and consultant to the Automotive Industry Authority dictates the basic subject matter. Influences on my method have been less direct.

  A degree of familiarity with some of the central ideas of the ‘theory’ of social inquiry and knowledge acquired as an historian showed me why the rationality with which one pursues inquiry and knowledge – particularly in the social sciences – is inescapably and profoundly problematic. The reason for this is quite simple. Any model and any analytic apparatus actively selects, and by describing, identifies and organises facts and associates them with each other in explicitly stated or metaphorically suggested relationships of various kinds. On this foundation measurement, analysis and interpretation proceed. While this is necessary to acquiring the benefits of analysis and improved understanding, the selection, organisation and description of facts in one way necessarily excludes alternatives.

  Where the limitations of analysis go unrecognised, there arises the risk of what (I think)¹ Veblen called ‘trained incapacity’, which, in this instance will take the form of an analytical training which provides the benefits of analysis at the (possibly heavy) price of blindness to the necessary limitations and inherent selectiveness – and so myopia – of a particular analytic system. In this sense the essay is a plea for methodological toleration and arises from my experiences in learning about the car industry.

  I arrived on the scene a confirmed “Rattigan man”. Indeed it is not stretching the point to say that I was brought up as one! So the industry’s calls for assistance were all explicable to me as expressions of self-interest. Nevertheless, I made it my business to prick up my ears whenever I was surprised by something. Here, just as was the case with historical research, my surprises provided me with an opportunity to reflect on my assumptions. When a senior Toyota executive said to me that his company wanted to know what the government wanted so that Toyota could do it, that surprised me very much. That wasn’t quite how companies were supposed to express their interests. Given the state of the Japanese industry vis a vis our. own, I treated these ideas with respect. Slowly, I began to see things differently. When industry representatives argued for assistance of various kinds I began to see that, sure enough this was an expression of self interest, but that this was not the whole story. it was also a consequence of the practical conditions existing within what economists call ‘imperfectly competitive’ markets.

  I started to see the ‘inside’ of a story in which I had previously been an outsider. The experience was not unlike the opening of interpretive doors in history. Bailyn had a similar sort of experience studying the pamphlets of the American revolution.

  [T]hey are, to an unusual degree, explanatory.… They reveal not merely positions taken; they reveal motive and understanding. …  And I found myself viewing the[m] with surprise, for the ‘interior view’, from the vantage point of the pamphlets was different from what I had expected.²

  I came more and more to see the ‘IAC line’ as a partial perspective on the economics of the industry. Industry’s view was perhaps even more so, frequently involving a simple failure to understand or listen to IAC arguments, or even to try putting itself in the place of a government which, whatever its motives, must seek some consistency and fairness in its decision making. There seemed to be a fairly desperate need to do whatever was possible to put the two views together, or at least to initiate some genuine dialogue between the two worlds. I have attempted that in this paper.</SelfIndulgenceAlert>

  1. You can tell this is before the world wide web! ↩
  2.  Bailyn, B. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Cambridge, Mass, 1967, p. vi. Emphasis in the original ↩

May 04, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Weekend traffic

  A short rant.

  It’s Saturday, and I’m driving in heavy traffic.

  I’m making a trip that’s impractical using any other mode, alongside thousands of others, many also making trips impractical using any other mode.

  It’s not about options along that particular stretch of road. It’s about the whole transport network, supporting people’s trips end to end.

  On an overpass I see a train go by. It’s so crowded people are standing. Weekend frequency on that line: 20 to 30 minutes.

  Half hourly trains even at 11pm don't cut it Minister: standing room only ex Loop at North Melbourne. Fix PT @DanielAndrewsMP pic.twitter.com/g0gI16ePhB

  — MetroTrainsPassenger (@MetroTrainsPax) May 3, 2019

  If a road suffered 20 minute delays, it would be shown on real-time maps as a major delay. On Melbourne’s rail network, that’s the standard wait between trains on Saturday on most lines, and has been for decades. And they’re crowded.

  And 20 minutes is a good frequency on the weekend PT network. Most suburban bus routes are hourly. An hour in the car is a long trip, but it’s the wait just between buses for so many areas.

  

  Decades of road building made suburbs car dependent. Decades of neglect and cutbacks in public transport left no other options. Weekend traffic congestion in our city is a totally expected outcome.

  As I drive, I look at all the cars, my own included, stuck in the traffic, all burning energy. It just makes me angry.

  Giving people viable options is not about billion-dollar infrastructure. Better infrastructure helps (especially in the areas of walking, cycling and tram accessibility), but the biggest change needed (whether money is spent on infrastructure or not) to just get PT running more frequently right through the day, every day.

  All possible with the current assets.

  As it stands, if they ran the road system like they do public transport, two-thirds of freeway and arterial traffic lanes would be shut outside peak hours.

  Waits of 20, 30, 60 minutes are simply not good enough for a city of our size.

  Fixing it in every suburb, not just some, will provide options, and more people off the roads.

  But when will the decision makers do it?

  Update Monday 11am: the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has published a cost estimate of a Greens policy: trains and trams boosted to every 10 minutes until 9pm, 7 days-a-week. For trains this came out at around $200m per year (less $50m additional fare revenue). For trams about $50m per year (less $10m additional fare revenue).

  Nobody wants to doubt the PBO, but the train figure in particular is higher than some other estimates – for instance Infrastructure Victoria came up with $150-185m “on the basis of service kilometres alone”, but transport insiders believe it would be far lower.

  Did the PBO simply try to extrapolate out existing per kilometre costs as IV did, ignoring that existing assets would be used, and some staff (for instance on stations) don’t need to be boosted to run more trains? Unfortunately it’s not really clear from the document.

  Update Tuesday 7:30am: The Age: Trains, trams every 10-minutes on every line to cost just $200m a year

May 02, 2019

• Daniel Bowen More information = good

  Wednesday morning’s commute for me was one of those made easier via good quality real-time information.

  My usual train was cancelled. I knew this before I left the house thanks to checking the PTV app.

  The app also told me that other trains were delayed. It was going to be a messy commute. Bleugh.

  Sometimes in morning peak when there is a cancellation, you can backtrack from Bentleigh to Moorabbin and pick up an express train that gets you into the City sooner than if you just waited at Bentleigh. (It’s a trick that probably applies at a few other places on the network, and incurs no fare penalty now that Zone 1+2 costs the same as Zone 1.)

  The app lets you check departures at any station. Checking Moorabbin told me that no, this trickery wasn’t going to help today.

  At Bentleigh station the screens and announcements confirmed the delays.

  

  The next train arrived – heavily delayed, and crowded as expected. Completely packed? No. But with another six stops before the City (not served by other trains) it’s not hard to predict that there were sardine times ahead.

  Crucially – the screens on the platform confirmed what the announcements were saying: another train was 4 minutes behind it.

  Some of us on the platform used this information to decide to wait and catch the following train, which was near-empty as it had just started its trip. Scored a seat! Much better than being in a crush-loaded train a few minutes earlier.

  This kind of real-time information can make a big difference to your trip. So why isn’t it provided more widely?

  

  The good news is: there’s progress. The design seen last year at some stations is now appearing at more locations – recently at Parkdale, Moorabbin, Balaclava, Malvern, some of the platforms at Caulfield, and no doubt others.

  The app is helpful too of course – for trams and buses as well. And apart from the official PTV app, a few others have real-time departure information fed from the same API.

  But even if you’re not inclined to check an app, hopefully the improved screens are coming to your station soon!

  Good information can’t fix delays or undo cancellations, but it can help passengers make the most of a bad situation.

April 29, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Old photos from April 2009

  Another in my series of old ten year old photos.

  This turned out to be a bit of a bumper crop – a few months before I’d got the Nokia N95 phone, my first with a decent camera, so perhaps no surprise the number of photos was increasing.

  Melbourne’s first wind-powered tram had launched in 2008. Note the “Gone With The Wind” reference, and the pre-platform “safety zone” Elizabeth Street (at Bourke Street) tram stop.

  

  Bentleigh – directional signage for bus drivers. This one for rail replacement buses inbound into the City.

  

  A trip down to Geelong one Saturday…

  

  …to visit the special Myki Shop in Ryrie Street, so I could try it for the first time.

  

  I got to try out a Myki card, which you can read about here. I also came home with these amusing Myki wristbands, I guess to get The Kids on-side with the concept. Note the “scan on, scan off” messaging which later became “touch on, touch off” when they realised just how slow the first generation readers are.

  

  Spotted in Footscray: a special bus stop for Regional Fast Rail project rail replacement coaches. RFR had finished about five years earlier.

  

  An excursion to the in-laws farm. Like many farm practices, burning off a field was a bit of an eye-opener for this city boy.

  

  Federation Square. Note the pre-renovation mustard colour of Flinders Street Station.

  

  Flinders Street from another angle, showing the red Tourist Shuttle (not a shuttle) bus that was funded by the inner-city parking levy. When the bus was free, it could be quite crowded, but was virtually unused once they introduced a $5 fare.

  

  The Parkiteer cage at Brighton Beach Station was getting plenty of use, as was the fence outside. Prior to 2015, a lot of people from further out would use zone boundary stations like Brighton Beach to avoid paying a Zone 1+2 fare which was about 55% higher than just Zone 1.

  

  The old Bentleigh station in the autumn fog.

  

  Also at Bentleigh station, where walkway crowding was becoming an issue, authorities made an effort to discourage bike parking.

  

  Connex introduced its trial layout Comeng train, with a mini-launch for stakeholders one lunchtime. It had fewer seats; similar to later changes made across the fleet by Metro in 2015-16.

  

  

  I got Connex’s Lanie Harris to introduce the new layout.

  The students are revolting! I don’t recall how big this protest was.

  

  One of the contenders for the prize of most confusing bus route was the 627. It has since been split into two separate routes, and is much easier to understand. This was one of few recommendations of the 2010 bus reviews that actually got implemented.

  

  Finally, this moron in Bourke Street.

  

• Club Troppo Six tough institutional challenges this century

  In 1900, the modern nation states of Europe faced many challenges in terms of how they were run, with poverty and disease still prevalent. The largest problems were more or less successfully addressed by 2000. The road involved world wars and civil wars, but the essential recipe to the problems prevalent in 1900 has been found and implemented in most countries in Europe. In turn that recipe has been copied in many other places.

  The problem of how to organise the economy has been addressed via the mixed-market system and the general organisation of a national bureaucracy in large semi-autonomous institutions with specific roles, such as national police systems and national water supply systems.

  The problem of how to get legitimacy in the whole system and turnover amongst the elites has been largely solved by the universal democratic franchise, a non-religious non-ethnic story telling national identity, and a basic safety net for all.

  The problems of low health and low productivity in the general population have largely been solved via national health services and free state-organised education.

  The problem of over-militarisation and a highly disruptive nobility class oriented around land rents has been solved in Western Europe by having most of them killed or displaced by two World Wars. We have also outsourced the gravity point of the military to the Americans, greatly increased human capital investments, and been lucky to have had few natural resources. Combined, they have prevented the production of lots of new barons.

  What are the main challenges facing European countries today in terms of how our societies are organised? How might these challenges be addressed? Let us not bother with small stuff like Brexit or fake news, which are basically historical blips and part of the ongoing theater of politics, but only talk about general challenges to our survival and quality of life.

  One challenge is that of the internet to national identity, national taxation, and national truths. Our countries face the problem that the population in many ways lives and trades online in an international no-man’s land that is conducive to internationalism, tax avoidance, and the creation of truths on the basis of economic interests and religious ideologies rather than national interest.

  I suspect that the route now explored in Russia and China is going to win out, which is the emergence in each large region of a bureaucracy that controls the important aspects of the internet as pertaining to that country or region. This partly involves a nationalisation of some of the key functions now performed by private companies (search functions, social networking, market places), as well as the establishment of a national internet police service and a national internet identification service. You see a lot of steps in this direction.

  We cannot know how this nationalisation of the internet will go, but I suspect that we will end up with a system whereby anyone on the internet will have to wear a unique nationally-distributed device that identifies them and their activities. I am thinking of a biometric identification device that will unlock financial, democratic, and other functions on the internet, but that is of course also related to their taxes and propaganda behaviour.

  A quite different challenge is that of climate change and other international environmental problems like too much plastic in the oceans and too few fish.The ‘old approach’ of letting someone own the common resource (the oceans or the climate) is unlikely to work. The ‘obvious approach’ of having a world empire in which a world bureaucracy enforces an international solution is unlikely to emerge because I think nation states will continue to win the political battle for hearts and minds, beating all international ideologies, as nation states have done in the previous 500 years.

  I suspect that we will see coalition-of-the-willing engineering solutions to many of these problems. As a non-engineer I can only take a wild guess at just what the winning solutions will look like. The way the marine scientists in Australia are now planning to essentially (genetically) engineer a heat-resistant Great Barrier Reef ecosystem is a good example for how I think lots of other environmental challenges will actually be tackled.

  I imagine autonomous vessels with artificial intelligence that roam around the oceans to collect the surplus plastic, organised by a UN-type organisation.

  I imagine huge national marine ponds floating in the oceans to spawn fish and other marine life, with larger water territories emerging on the basis of regional cooperation, perhaps slowly converging on global cooperation.

  I imagine groups of large countries combining to pump reflective aerosols into the higher atmosphere to cool down the planet, resisted by other countries who want it to be warmer.

  I foresee both national and regional attempts to preserve and increase biodiversity, including the creation of new species (“how much diversity do you want? Labs can provide!”).

  Hence I suspect we will get a patchwork of specific alliances that try engineering solutions to specific global environmental problems.

  Another challenge is that of the disconnect between mobile international elites and the majority populations of the nation states. This problem has exacerbated elite tax evasion, attacks on the stories of national identity, widening inequality, and political corruption on a scale not seen after WWII.

  I suspect that we will see broadly the same solution to this in the 21^st century as we saw to a quite similar problem of elite-disconnect in the early 1900s: political strife resembling civil war culminating in the renewed supremacy of the national project as the dominant political organising force. I just cannot see any form of internationalism supplanting the nation states, though we might get large blocks of nation states becoming more and more like nation states.

  The challenge for those who mean well is not how to stop the coming wave of nationalism, but rather how to channel it in a way that maximises it benefits and minimises its damage. It might be that we go the Swiss route to involve populations much more in their own national stories via much more participative democracy. We might go the Chinese social-shaming route wherein everyone, including the elites, have a running social score telling the others how well they are behaving. We might get fascist utopias wherein a small elite enforces a very narrow conception of scientific and genetic purity on a whole population. We might get wild experimentation of hybrid humanoids and AI systems given the responsibility to look after the rest of the country.

  I think that there will be a great pull towards new systems that are seen to work in other countries, which at the moment means the systems in Northern and Central Europe. If they can show how to rope their elites back into the national fold, then I can see their examples getting a lot of traction elsewhere. The Dutch and German approach of mandating a limit to the incomes of the managers of state-connected institutions is an important example of new attempts to force the elites back into the fold.

  Yet another challenge is the continued increase in the number of ways in which small groups can kill billions of people by design and by accident, via the proliferation of nuclear technology as well as cheaper biological and artificial intelligence systems.

  I suspect we won’t do anything serious about this until at least one of these risks materialises in a big way, such as via a nuclear attack by an extremist group, a mistake, or a run-away AI experiment that manages to provoke a large-scale military conflict costing millions of lives. Even then, I suspect the solution will be very much hap-hazard and oriented towards the exact nature of the catastrophe, ie a band-aid.

  It is hard to see a general solution to this general problem emerge because national sovereignty and the strong incentives for leaders to grand-stand will be in the way of any more permanent solution that would require countries and elites to give up their power. I thus suspect this problem will not be solved this century and will be part of the luggage of the next one.

  My anticipated ‘solution’ in the long-long-run is the emergence of actual gods that will rule us and whom the human survivors will worship, ie the end of nation state supremacy and the emergence of a pluralist theocracy in which humans are no longer the dominant entities. However, that’s a highly uncertain future possibility and part of a larger and different conversation.

  Another international challenge is that the areas of the world producing more children are those with the least well-run governments, leading to a massive and disruptive migration flow from poor to rich, threatening the social integrity of some destination countries. In turn, this migration takes away the pressure on the elites in the countries from which they come to really reform.

  I see a combination of three factors that might solve this: i) dropping fertility rates even in the poorest and worse-run countries due to things like the increased presence of the internet and mobile technology, which in turn increases the returns to educational investment everywhere, which in turn makes kids expensive; ii) special economic zones in other continents set up by Western countries and China that effectively become well-run colonies that absorb most of the local migrants (pretty much like Hong Kong and Macau in previous centuries) ; iii) continued globalisation of languages and culture that will reduce the cultural distances which will reduce the disruption associated with migration flows making people in richer countries less bothered about in-bound migration.

  Finally, there are the dangers to world peace emanating from flaws to the political institutions of the main super-powers, with two main sub-problems that I see as the biggest threats: America will have to get used to its lost dominance, and China is inherently politically unstable because it lacks a separation of powers. This is really tricky. Very few realise that both problems exist and are serious; neither the Americans or the Chinese want to acknowledge the problem, making a transparent solution to them impossible; and I do not see historical solutions to either type of problem that did not involve large-scale blood-letting. They are design flaws, one inherent to national pride, and the other to collectivist empires.

  I am not aware of an historical instance where dominant nation states learned to get comfortable with being subservient without getting a bloody nose, or worse. The UK didn’t stop dreaming about its Empire till the Americans forced them to back down in the Suez crisis of the 1950s and even now some of the UK elites dream of the glory days at the expense of the present. French wounded pride was partially responsible for the Second World War via their insistence on German humiliation in the treaty of Versailles. It took a devastating defeat with millions of casualties to get the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires to get used to their lower status. Etc.

  Similarly, the Chinese political system never learned in their more than 2,000 year history as an imperial bureaucracy to avoid major civil wars as the only way to have significant leadership change. The Chinese suffer from an inherent problem with collectivist winner-take-all decision making systems, which is the lack of a separation of powers that makes it impossible for a previous elite to be secure in some of their property rights when a new elite takes over, which in turn makes old elites fight to the death to hold on to power.

  From 1945 till now there were three large internal Chinese conflicts directly caused by power-struggles at the top: the communist takeover of 1949; the Great Leap forward of 1960; and the Cultural Revolution of the 1970s.

  Part of the problem is that the Chinese are not taught in school that they lost over 50 million people last century because of elite power struggles. For instance, instead of being told that the Great Leap forward was a Mao-induced disaster that cost 30 million people, they are told there was unusual weather in that period leading to famines. There is hence no open awareness of the flaws in their political system.

  The tell-tale sign of increased pressure at the top is an ideological purity drive, invariably invoked by a threatened incumbent elite faction to marginalise another one. Mao in the late 1950s inflicted an ideology of a Great Leap Forward, and then in the Cultural Revolution inflicted the ideology of his little red booklet. Both heralded disasters.

  The Chinese were lucky in the late 1970s to be led by Deng Xiaoping who managed to get the Chinese Communist Party to adopt a system of gradual elite renewal that worked from 1980 to 2010, but with his death the natural tendency of winner-takes-all politics has been re-established.

  Xi Jiping has consolidated ultimate power in his hands and that of the group around him, just as Mao did in the 1950s. Mao needed a catastrophe every 10 years to fend off the opponents. With the death of Deng Xiaoping and his pragmatism, the Chinese leadership has now returned to ideological slogans of the Mao era.

  Mao used purity drives to mobilise idealistic young people against political opponents. There are indications a new conflict is brewing right now, with a new ‘social virtue’ drive sweeping through China. It probably won’t get too bad whilst growth is easy, but the inherent instability is there.

  So the odds are that the US problem will cost other countries a lot of lives and the Chinese will continue to have civil strife from time to time. I don’t think there is much we can do about either, so let us hope we are lucky and that both will be contained.

  On the whole, I am optimistic about this century, with many indicators of humanity’s progress looking very healthy indeed. Our population levels are likely to stabilise; our ability to feed ourselves looks guaranteed; poverty rates are falling; the incentives to be nice to each other keeps increasing due to the increased connections between our economies; and we are likely to live much longer too. The main dangers come from the same place as the solutions: technology and politics.

April 26, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Some Night Buses barely used

  The Age ran this story based on data FOI’d by The Greens:
  Running on empty: Secret data reveals Melbourne’s ‘ghost buses’

  I got to take a look at the data, focusing on Night Bus routes.

  The current Night Network commenced in January 2016, following a 2014 election pledge by Labor to introduce all-night trains (on all suburban electrified lines) and trams (on 6 routes), as well as coaches to regional destinations. Night Network started as a trial, but was made permanent in 2017. Night Bus routes were designed to complement the Night Train and Tram routes.

  Data has been scarce, but anecdotally the trains and trams have had reasonable patronage. In 2016 it was reported that there were 35,000 people using the Night Network each weekend.

  

  This newly available patronage data reveals details of how the Night Buses specifically have been performing.

  Here’s how it looks – the source data included patronage for the entire year, and an estimated average per weekend night. I’ve compared the latter to the number of services, which gives us the average number of passengers per service.

  Route	Description	2016-17 tota boardings	Outbound frequency	Passengers per weekend	Passengers per service
  941	City, Footscray, Sunshine North, Taylors Lakes, Watergardens	1,398	60	20	2
  942	City, Footscray, Sunshine, Deer Park, St Albans	3,205	60	54	2.7
  943	Watergardens, Caroline Springs, Melton	707	60	8	0.57
  944	City, Newport, Altona, Altona Meadows, Point Cook	2,387	30	38	1.31
  945	City, Geelong Road, Tarneit, Hoppers Crossing, Werribee, Wyndham Vale	3,236	30	51	2.13
  951	City, Moonee Ponds, Brunswick West, Pascoe Vale, Glenroy	2,432	30	46	1.77
  952	City, Footscray, Maribyrnong, Airport West, Gladstone Park, Broadmeadows	3,648	30	60	2.14
  953	Broadmeadows, Meadow Heights, Roxburgh Park, Craigieburn	116	60	2	0.13
  955	City, Brunswick, Ivanhoe, Bundoora, Mill Park, South Morang, Mernda	3,003	30	48	1.6
  961	City, Collingwood, Eastern Freeway, Templestowe, Doncaster	5,507	30	82	1.95
  963	Ringwood, Mooroolbark, Lilydale	90	60	2	0.1
  964	Croydon, Kilsyth, Mt Evelyn, Lilydale	67	60	2	0.1
  965	Lilydale, Woori Yallock, Healesville loop	435	120	6	0.75
  966	City, Kew, Doncaster Road, Box Hill	2,123	30	45	1.67
  967	Glen Waverley, Burwood Highway, Bayswater (returns via Bayswater North, Ferntree Gully)	448	60	8	0.36
  969	City, Caulfield, Ferntree Gully Road, Rowville, Wantirna, Ringwood	3,663	30	74	2.64
  970	Carrum, Frankston, Mornington, Rosebud	1,394	60	14	0.52
  978	Elsternwick, Ormond, Huntingdale, Mulgrave, Dandenong (returns via Princes Highway)	1,090	60	14	0.7
  979	Elsternwick, Bentleigh, Clarinda, Keysborough, Dandenong	541	60	6	0.3
  981	Dandenong, Berwick, Narre Warren South, Cranbourne	213	60	3	0.17
  982	Dandenong, Endeavour Hills, Hampton Park, Cranbourne	343	60	5	0.28
  	ALL NIGHT BUSES	36,046		588	1.26
  701	Oakleigh – Bentleigh via Mackie Road & Brady Road (For comparison – see below)	175,612	30-60	369	18.96

  Some conclusions from this:

  • The City routes do better than the suburban ones. No real surprise there – the suburban routes are timed to meet trains, but obviously people favour a one trip ride, especially at night. (See also footnotes below.)
  • The most-used routes are those running every 30 minutes (rather than hourly) except for the 941/942 which each run every 60 minutes but provide a combined 30ish minute service between the City and Braybrook.
  • But even the most used routes are only averaging 2-3 boardings per service. That’s really not very good.
  • Passenger numbers are probably higher for outbound services, lower for inbound services. But even 6 people per service isn’t outstanding for what are mostly quite long routes.
  • Hourly suburban Night Bus perform very poorly. Those routes are timed to meet hourly trains, so upgrading them to half-hourly may not help unless the trains switch too (which would be good).
  • For comparison I’ve included figures for regular daytime route 701, one of my locals. It only runs every 30 minutes on weekdays, 60 on weekends/evenings, but it gets 7 times the number of boardings per service of the best performing Night Bus route. And on a typical weekend that one route gets 369 passengers; more than 60% of the number of passengers on the entire Night Bus network.
  • The worst performing Night Bus routes are only getting a passenger on one in every ten services. 90% of trips don’t pick up anybody. That’s an absolutely appalling waste of money.
  • The total number of Night Bus boardings per weekend in 2017 was 1,133.
  • The Age reported in 2016 that there were 35,000 boardings each weekend across all of Night Network: train/tram/bus. If we assume these figures are comparable (at least for the purposes of a rough estimate) then that means only about 3% of night trips are on Night Buses. (And that’s with only six Night Tram routes, and Night Train running only hourly!)
  • In comparison, for all public transport boardings, buses usually account for about 21% of trips around Melbourne.

  So what can be done?

  It’s not hard to conclude that the Night Bus network urgently needs a shakeup.

  As noted in a previous post, a big part of the problem is that the route structure, unlike the trams and trains, is completely different to the daytime routes.

  This means that the routes are unfamiliar to passengers. It also means in some cases people can’t get a bus before midnight, but can after midnight. This makes no sense.

  They would do better to scrap the Night Bus routes and start again, by using those resources to convert the busiest daytime routes into 24-hour routes. This could include both buses and trams – since Night Tram only covers 6 of the 24 routes that run during daytime.

  Even running as nighttime variations of existing daytime routes would be better than the current situation.

  For instance, route 966 is similar to daytime route 207 (one of the busiest bus routes), but diverts along Tram 48 (which does not have Night Tram service) for some of the distance, and terminates at Box Hill at the outer end. So call it 207, or even 207a or N207 so that people know it’s basically the same route.

  And if service coverage is absolutely needed to areas which are barely getting any passengers, maybe other cheaper options can be examined, such as on-demand buses or carefully targeted taxi/Uber subsidies. (Noting that these can be even more expensive to run, and don’t scale up if they become popular.)

  With so much pressure elsewhere on the public transport network, including on buses, resources have to be carefully allocated. There’s no point running buses that nobody uses.

  

  Footnotes

  Some notes on the data as provided:

  • Any transcription errors are entirely my own fault
  • The data set included all Melbourne bus routes, with boarding data provided for 2016 and 2017. (I’ll look at non-Night Bus routes in a later post.)
  • It was broken up by weekday/Saturday/Sunday. In the Night Bus context, this appears to mean before 3am Saturday; Saturday 3am to Sunday 3am; and Sunday after 3am – this is complicated, which is why I’ve used total numbers for the whole weekend.
  • A few numbers appeared in the 2016 data for old Nightrider routes. This might be because it was by financial year. I’ve concentrated on the 2017 data, which only shows the Night Bus routes.
  • It is, of course, possible that some quiet routes have seen patronage growth since 2017. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
  • Some services only run part of the route. This is one reason I avoided trying to measure boardings per service kilometre, which is sometimes used to evaluate bus service performance.
  • Suburban hourly Night Buses are timed to meet outbound trains. But some Night Bus stops are located too far from “connecting” stations to provide a seamless connection.
  • What happens when Night Trains are replaced by buses for planned works? Well here’s an example: outbound Craigieburn Night Trains normally reach Broadmeadows at 55 past the hour, and the 953 bus departs five minutes later. But this weekend it’s bus replacements – arriving at 12 past the hour. The “connecting” 953 schedule hasn’t been changed. And planned works are not a rare thing at the moment.
  • Thanks to the Victorian Greens for FOIing this data, and to The Age’s Timna Jacks for passing this it on.

April 23, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Bike parking: the next generation

  This caught my eye: a commuter at Aircraft station:

  …uses the station five days a week and said she had given up trying to get a park at the station.

  “Because of the traffic congestion on Point Cook Road and because of the lack of car parking facilities at the station, I choose to walk or to cycle to the station

  Star Weekly, 2/4/2019 “No love for Aircraft train station“

  Aircraft is not unique in this regard. No suburban railway station has enough car parking to meet demand. It’s basically impossible to achieve. It’s extraordinarily expensive, and doesn’t scale up.

  

  If someone walks or cycles to the station instead of driving, is that actually a bad outcome?

  The caveat:

  “The footpath’s broken, it’s very narrow, the railings either side of the footpath are inadequate and inappropriate.

  “I lock my bike to the fence … there’s just no bike security.

  All of these could be fixed without just giving up and expanding the car park at huge cost, so it fills up a few minutes later each morning, and generates more car traffic into the precinct.

  Unfortunately, it looks like the nearby level crossing removal won’t provide upgrades to the station either way.

  

  Bike cages? Or something else?

  In Europe and Asia, you see huge numbers of bicycles parked at railway stations. Could we get the same outcome here?

  (The image above is from Singapore; the image at the top of the post is from Bruges, Belgium.)

  I’m not sure a cage is necessarily much more secure than locking a bike to a fence. Almost anybody can get a bike cage card key. And bike cages are pretty expensive to install en masse – around $100,000 for a standard cage (fitting 26 bikes). That’s a lot cheaper than car parking, but still quite pricey.

  I’ve been reliably informed that bike theft can be a problem, but it almost never happens if a D-lock is used – because D-locks can’t be cut through with bolt cutters.

  (Angle grinders are a different story. This is why many people use a cheap bike to park at the station, not an expensive one that may attract thieves.)

  The Aircraft commuter’s situation is not unique. Many people would like to drive to the station. They’ll never be able to do so, because providing a car spot for all of them is completely impractical.

  Station car parks are often very prominent, usually taking up more space than the station itself, but that’s because cars take up so much space. The statistics show that most people don’t drive to the station. Not even in Zone 2.

  Most people walk, cycle, or catch a bus or tram to the station because it’s the best (or least worst) option for them. Given costs of providing station parking make it impractical on a large scale, it’s good that most people can find another way.

  But the article is right – bicycle parking could be a lot better than it is.

  The next station out from Aircraft is Williams Landing, which has 666 car park spaces [1] – also full early each morning.

  It turns out that a lot of people are cycling to Williams Landing.

  

  When I took a look one weekday afternoon, I found the bike cage was packed full of bikes.

  …and nearby, this fence had a long row of bikes along it.

  

  This is good. The more people cycling, the better.

  So what’s the best way to encourage even more people to cycle?

  Better bike lanes and paths will help, but if every fence already has a bike chained to it, what about more station bike parking, on a large scale?

  The Wheelie

  If more Parkiteer bike cages are expensive, are there cheaper options?

  Turns out the Department of Transport and Monash University have been working on something: The Wheelie.

  “The Wheelie”
  A bike parking device (BPD) co-developed by Transport for Victoria and the Mobility Design Lab @MonashUni.
  
  Find out more: https://t.co/yv1IkVAdsz@monashada @figshare #monashfigshare #monashresearch pic.twitter.com/U38TnGbQTV

  — Monash University Library (@monashunilib) August 23, 2018

  It’s a simple metal structure that is compact – designed to fit into an area the size of a parking space – and can cater for up to nine bikes.

  It looks quite ingenious, and could help cater for a lot more bike parking around stations as well as places like university campuses.

  I’m told the cost is under $1000 to manufacture it, plus some installation costs – kept low by not needing excavation (which in turn can impact underground services) – it’s just anchored to a block of concrete. Unsophisticated, but effective. And the design is Creative Commons, so anybody can make and deploy them.

  The key is to target installation sites carefully: probably better at staffed stations, in view of CCTV, in a well-lit spot, and preferably undercover.

  Cycling’s not for everyone. (I don’t currently have a bike.) And connecting buses should be better.

  But if this new design provides a cheap affordable way to get more people to railway stations without them having to drive and add to local congestion, then that’s a win for everybody – even those who do have to drive.

  • [1] The new PTV web site just says the station has parking, with no detail. Only the old web site specifies the number of spots.
  • Lead photo: bike parking at Bruges station, Belgium

April 21, 2019

• Daniel Bowen The importance of contingency plans

  I could moan on about Friday night’s experience with the replacement buses (a combination of poor night-time service provision and inaccurate passenger information) but you can read about that on Twitter, so instead let’s look at Monday night’s south eastern train problems.

  It often takes multiple factors to result in a real mess.

  So it was on Monday.

  • The Frankston and Cranbourne/Pakenham lines were closed for scheduled works, replaced by buses between the City and Caulfield
  • Many passengers had switched to the Sandringham line to avoid problems with those buses
  • Around 4pm, tragically a pedestrian was struck by a Sandringham line train between Brighton Beach and Hampton, forcing authorities to suspend services
  • And… an infrastructure issue at Elsternwick meant it was difficult to terminate trains halfway along the line – so the entire Sandringham line had to be closed.

  This last one was the icing on the cake, resulting in huge queues on Princes Bridge and around Federation Square for buses.

  COMMUTER CHAOS: There are huge queues for replacement buses after trains on Sandringham line were suspended. #9News pic.twitter.com/KGfrWCXty4

  — Nine News Melbourne (@9NewsMelb) April 15, 2019

  In the past, they would have been able to run trains from the City out as far as at least Elsternwick.

  If this had been possible, it would have had numerous benefits.

  • At least half the passengers could still catch a train to their destination
  • Far fewer passengers would need to be moved by the limited buses available
  • Buses wouldn’t have got stuck in inner-city traffic
  • Bus round trips would have been quicker, allowing them to move more passengers more quickly

  Could they have run trains as far as Brighton Beach? It’s not clear. Some AM peak trains originate there, but sources say trains can only terminate on platform 1, which is not normally used, and is fenced off. This in turn would require the train to be emptied at Middle Brighton, where there are no staff – and this is not a great location to change large numbers of people onto bus replacements.

  

  So what was the problem at Elsternwick?

  Until recently, terminating trains at Elsternwick for planned works or unplanned incidents was a common occurrence.

  Sandringham line suspended berween South Yarra – Elsternwick due to an ill passenger incident at Richmond. See https://t.co/fE9E9Hyp10 for more info. pic.twitter.com/BgR3MhyYAM

  — Metro Trains (@metrotrains) February 20, 2018

  But back in January, Metro flagged to their people that it was no longer possible, except in specific circumstances, and required extra measures to be taken.

  Also this weekend: the entire Sandringham line is closed.
  Rumour mill says some kind of infrastructure issue at Elsternwick making it now near-impossible to terminate trains there. So works now close the entire line instead of half of it. #MetroTrains https://t.co/78Emnnv4ci pic.twitter.com/2E8Vkxg0cI

  — Daniel Bowen (@danielbowen) February 8, 2019

  Interviewed on Tuesday by ABC’s Jon Faine, PTV boss Jeroen Weimar gave an indication of the complications.

  We have a turning point at Elsternwick, but it’s a manual turning point, it requires people to go out under safeworking orders. It’s something that you can’t activate on the spur of the moment. … It’s an old-fashioned manual set of points. That introduces a number of risks for people working in that environment. … It requires people to be working on a live railway, and when you do that without going through a safe and effective planned process, mistakes get made, and things get a lot worse.

  Jeroen Weimar, 16/4/2019 on ABC Radio Melbourne (46 minute mark)

  So is it really more difficult to get the right staff on-site at Elsternwick to go through the process, or to conjure up hundreds of buses to move thousands of train passengers, knowing they’ll never cope with demand?

  In light of Monday’s mess, are they going to fix it? It turns out, yes. Jeroen Weimar again:

  There’s some work that we’re doing next month at that location in Elsternwick, so there’s an upgrade program in place, which … will replace and update that set of points into an automated system so that we can turn around trains…

  Jeroen Weimar, 16/4/2019 on ABC Radio Melbourne (48 minute mark)

  I doubt this upgrade is directly in response to Monday, but rather with the knowledge that during May and June, they’re going to close the Sandringham line for more metro tunnel works.

  Melbourne’s train pain in set to spread to the Sandringham line, shutting down for weeks in late May and June, as part of the metro tunnel project. @BrendanDonohoe7 #7NEWS pic.twitter.com/xfaFMzZkKZ

  — 7NEWS Melbourne (@7NewsMelbourne) April 17, 2019

  The upgrade is good news. It makes sense to make Elsternwick capable again of terminating trains.

  Obviously the less of the line gets closed, the less impact and the easier it is to manage.

  

  How many points?

  What of the broader network?

  In recent years, Metro have been removing points around the network, on the basis that less complicated track layouts result in fewer locations where trains need to slow down, and also mean fewer infrastructure faults.

  This has some merit, but some level of flexibility is needed. (Recent changes at Caulfield mean trains from Dandenong can only terminate on platform 3, for instance. This has contributed to long delays in peak during bus replacements.)

  Unfortunately, accidents will happen. An accident near one end of the line shouldn’t close the entire line – especially at the City end.

  Ultimately, when incidents or planned closures take place, the infrastructure and the broader network needs to be able to cope.

  • Lead pic: James Oaten, ABC
  • April 2014: A similar scenario, nicknamed “Trainageddon” knocked out the Sandringham, Cranbourne, Pakenham and Frankston lines between the City and Elsternwick/Caulfield

April 16, 2019

• Daniel Bowen PPTN – a good idea – in principle

  The PPTN is the Principal Public Transport Network. The state government describes it as follows:

  The Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) reflects the routes where high-quality public transport services are or will be provided.

  It supports integrated transport and land use planning by encouraging more diverse and dense development near high-quality public transport to help support public transport usage.

  In other words, it’s Melbourne’s attempt to tie good public transport into planning and land use.

  For instance, recent changes to the state planning provisions include relaxed requirements for parking near the PPTN (section 52.06-5), and discourage major facilities from being too far from the PPTN (section 17.02-2S).

  And it’s specific about what form the PPTN should take (section 18.02-2R):

  • A metro-style rail system.
  • Extended tram lines and the establishment of a light rail system.
  • Road space management measures including transit lanes, clearways, stops and interchanges

  It all sounds very positive. The theory of concentrating major development around good public transport, improving services, and allowing reduced parking can lead to good outcomes.

  In effect it’s trying encourage development that will lead to people using public transport over cars, at least some of the time.

  

  Residential parking

  Residential car parking can get people very riled up. My reading of the current requirements is there’s currently no difference to off-street parking for residents, whether the development is on/near the PPTN or not. In both cases it’s:

  • 1 car park for each one or two bedroom dwelling
  • 2 car parks for each three or more bedroom dwelling

  The only difference is that for developments not near the PPTN, there’s an additional requirement of one visitor car park per 5 dwellings in the development.

  All this is a minimum. Property developers are able to build more car parks if they think their customers will buy them.

  The problem is that car parks are expensive, especially the underground car parks normally associated with medium density developments of the type popping up around railway stations. Cost of parking adds to the cost of housing. And lots of car spaces encourages car ownership, and inevitably, car usage.

  There are cities in the USA where they are completely removing the parking requirement for some homes around mass transit.

  There’s no provision for this yet here, but the City of Moreland is seeking to override the rules, by allowing developments with no off-street parking in certain locations close to good public transport.

  It’s not a requirement for no parking. Again, it’s up to the developers to figure out what the market wants.

  These areas already have low rates of car ownership – so why not improve housing affordability for people who don’t want to own a car, or want to own fewer cars? As long as local streets have parking restrictions that prevent people parking lots of cars there instead, it can work.

  (By the way, the Age’s story opens with: It’s a brave piece of social engineering – as if seeking to imply that requiring lots of parking isn’t engineering car dependency.)

  

  Issues with the PPTN

  I think the theory is good. But there are some problems with the PPTN as I see it:

  The PPTN isn’t dense enough. It’s basically the existing train and tram networks, and some bus routes. If you assume that only the PPTN routes will be the ones that are really competitive with car travel, by providing long hours and fast, frequent service, there are some vast gaps.

  Okay, so it’s just the principal network. Not every route can be part of it. But for instance, the PPTN includes no routes at all south of Frankston – not even to Mornington. That just seems illogical.

  (More on this topic from Peter’s excellent Melbourne On Transit blog.)

  The PPTN’s implementation is patchy. In fact, some of it doesn’t exist at all.

  The PPTN mapping tool shows, for instance, a bus route along East Boundary Road, between Centre and North Roads. Good idea, except than no such bus route exists. One will be introduced in June, but it’s unclear how frequently it will run.

  #Bentleigh locals wondering what happened to the new bus route from Moorabbin to Chadstone: it's in the latest @NStaikos newsletter – starting 16th June.
  Note the route has changed a bit due to the difficulty of using the Tucker/South Road intersection. #SpringSt pic.twitter.com/X262HXtqC4

  — Daniel Bowen (@danielbowen) March 19, 2019

  Even where the PPTN does exist, service quality varies widely, and it’s improving only very slowly.

  It’s quite reasonable to assume that people living close to a railway station will (at least on the better served lines) be able to often use that service instead of driving. At the very least, they might be able to own fewer cars in their household than they would elsewhere.

  The same might even be the case along some tram and frequent Smartbus or other high quality bus routes. But it’s highly unlikely along the many less frequent routes on the PPTN.

  Buses can be improved, and relatively cheaply compared to major infrastructure projects. The bureaucracy has, or at least had, a plan to make them better. But it’s never been fully published, and there’s no hint of funding to make it happen.

  This is not helped by literally billions of dollars instead being built on new motorways – the West Gate Tunnel (which includes substantial government funding, despite it being privately built) and the North East Link – which will only serve to help grow car traffic.

  

  Great potential

  The PPTN, and the associated planning provision, have great potential to help coordinate public transport and urban development.

  But a lot more effort needs to be put into planning a more extensive PPTN, and of course actually implementing it.

• Club Troppo Adam Smith was a feminist economist: Care – the essay

  This recent essay in the Mandarin is a reworking of an essay I wrote in 2016 in a string of essays in which I developed the idea of the Evaluator General. I was following Gary Sturgess’ suggestion that governments should not think of themselves as producing complex services in a market, but rather as stewards of a supply chain as Toyota does. In that context it rather jumps out at one that the challenge isn’t to identify things that can be contracted out (though that should always be considered part of one’s repertoire) but to understand and so, try to improve what you’re doing. Of course the system pretends to do that via various bodgied up KPIs and so on, but the great guilty secret is that we keep restructuring things without attending to the most important thing of all. Knowing what we’re doing.

  Then a chance encounter with a book on The Ethics of Care led me in a new direction which arises from the observation that many systems of government service delivery or funding should be built as systems of care first and markets only to the extent that that makes sense within that broader context. It seems to me that this provides an excellent framework for building and delivering these services.

  Nicholas Gruen explores ways in which economics marginalises care for others and what an ‘economics of care’ might look like. This fills out part of the intellectual context for his proposal for an Evaluator General. 

  Late ‘second wave’ feminist Carol Gilligan’s 1982 book In a Different Voice argued that men’s and women’s ethical frames are different. Men tend to foreground justice and abstract duties or obligations; women empathy and compassion defined in concrete relationships.¹ This provided a springboard for ‘care ethics’ which is well summarised in this passage from a review of Virginia Held’s ‘The Ethics of Care‘:

  First, “the focus of the ethics of care is on the compelling moral salience of attending to and meeting the needs of the particular others for whom we take responsibility”. Second, from an epistemological perspective the ethics of care values emotions, and appreciates emotions and relational capabilities that enable morally concerned persons in actual interpersonal contexts to understand what would be best. Third, “the ethics of care rejects the view of the dominant moral theories that the more abstract the reasoning about a moral problem, the better because the more likely [to?] avoid bias and arbitrariness, the more nearly to achieve impartiality. The ethics of care respects rather than removes itself from the claims of particular others with whom we share actual relationships”. Fourth, the ethics of care proposes a novel conceptualization of the distinction between private and public and of their respective importance. Finally, the ethics of care adopts a relational conception of persons, which is in stark contrast to Liberal individualism.

  This offers a useful counterpoint to dominant paradigm, awash, as it is with abstraction, universalism, instrumentalism and so, manipulation.² So, here are some introductory reflections. We start with Adam Smith whose work is a constant reminder of how few of the intellectual riches he offered grew in modern soil. I then discuss the implications of ‘care ethics’ for what we’re all assured is the ‘market’ in human services. I conclude by asking whether, against the eclipse of this feminine perspective in our culture feminism should have a role in reasserting it alongside its legitimate role as an ideological vehicle for women’s interests in a world that’s unfair to them.

  Adam Smith and the ethics of care

  Adam Smith’s work was built on the ethics of care. He was very urbane and not easily roused to passion. But the two most passionate passages in all his writing are one referring to the tribes of Africa being captured as slaves as “those nations of heroes” and this one:

  What are the pangs of a mother, when she hears the moanings of her infant that during the agony of disease cannot express what it feels? In her idea of what it suffers, she joins, to its real helplessness, her own consciousness of that helplessness, and her own terrors for the unknown consequences of its disorder and out of all these, forms, for her own sorrow, the most complete ³ image of misery and distress. The infant, however, feels only the uneasiness of the present instant, which can never be great. With regard to the future, it is perfectly secure, and in its thoughtlessness and want of foresight, possesses an antidote against fear and anxiety, the great tormentors of the human breast, from which reason and philosophy will, in vain, attempt to defend it, when it grows up to a man.⁴

  This is philosophy as homage to care.The baby observes its dependence on its closest relations and from fear and love comes to crave approbation and fear disapprobation. The Theory of Moral Sentiments is built up from reflection on how people care for each other—and how they care most for those closest to them. Their care, their sympathy, radiates from them towards others with an intensity which is inversely proportional to their social proximity.⁵ Smith built towards universal values via concrete experience. One did not trump the other. But one—the universalist command of principle and policy—trumps the ethics of care today, both in economics and in policy.

  The ‘market’ in human services

  This perspective helps us see that the whole agenda for opening up human services to competition is built on the metaphor of human services as a ‘market’. And what are markets waiting for if not to be opened up? Of course, those weasel words ‘other things being equal’ are thrown about, and given them, who wouldn’t want services opened up?

  If one takes markets as the ‘ground’, the place in the chaos at which one sets intellectual anchor and tries to make sense of the world, we end up concluding that, because this market doesn’t meet the preconditions of efficiency, policy should provide them as it opens up service provision. At this point we might it’s reasonable to be suspicious that if the market at the end of our reform efforts will remain profoundly imperfect, reforming the few imperfections we can might not make things better. ⁶  Perhaps more to the point, empathy is of the essence in caring relationships. It is, as Smith argued, the principle mode of cognition of one human by another and the sentiment that binds both small and large groups together in a shared culture.⁷ Also, it’s integral to the efficacy of direct caring relationships.

  Further, in many human services we don’t really know what we’re doing. Though bureaucrats run up benchmarks against which they can administer programs with every sign of pursuing ‘best practice’ and being ‘evidence based’, the KPIs that emerge tend to meet the needs of those who designed them.

  They look good on the ‘dashboard’ that’s shown to the minister, who then brandishes it publicly to demonstrate that they’re delivering on their policy. If it’s an employment program like JobActive there’ll be plenty of data about the activities of the program – helping with interviews and job-readiness. If it’s a child protection program there’ll be lots of data about notifications of children at risk, and activities to detect problems and fix them.

  But will the data throw light on critical counterfactuals? If it’s Job Active we need to know what would have happened without JobActive – is it helping or just being given credit for what would have happened anyway? If it’s a child protection program are the children being removed from neglectful or abusive parents doing better once removed? Even data from well-functioning private markets – which are generated between buyer and seller – don’t typically throw light on these kinds of system questions. Further questions include these: Will the program measure the right things so that it can generate unfolding insights about how to improve its efficacy, whether its metrics are being gamed and if so how, whether the conditions of the program are changing as it unleashes its own incentives or as other developments unfold and so on?

  None of this is to defend arrangements as they are. Indeed I’d offer precisely the same critique of the existing system— that it isn’t generating the kind of information that’s necessary to understand how well it’s working and how to improve it. Put differently, the preeminent task is not to configure ‘the market’ as open or closed but to understand what we’re doing and then try to improve it.

  Alternatives to ‘market’ thinking in human services

  Here is a list of the four ethical elements of care provided by Joan Tronto. From Wikipedia:

  1. Attentiveness
     Attentiveness is crucial to the ethics of care because care requires a recognition of others’ needs in order to respond to them. The question which arises is the distinction between ignorance and inattentiveness. Tronto poses this question as such, “But when is ignorance simply ignorance, and when is it inattentiveness”?
  2. Responsibility
     In order to care, we must take it upon ourselves, thus responsibility. The problem associated with this second ethical element of responsibility is the question of obligation. Obligation is often, if not already, tied to pre-established societal and cultural norms and roles. Tronto makes the effort to differentiate the terms “responsibility” and “obligation” with regards to the ethic of care. Responsibility is ambiguous, whereas obligation refers to situations where action or reaction is due, such as the case of a legal contract. This ambiguity allows for ebb and flow in and between class structures and gender roles, and to other socially constructed roles that would bind responsibility to those only befitting of those roles.
  3. Competence
     To provide care also means competency. One cannot simply acknowledge the need to care, accept the responsibility, but not follow through with enough adequacy – as such action would result in the need of care not being met.
  4. Responsiveness
     This refers to the “responsiveness of the care receiver to the care”. Tronto states, “Responsiveness signals an important moral problem within care: by its nature, care is concerned with conditions of vulnerability and inequality”. She further argues responsiveness does not equal reciprocity. Rather, it is another method to understand vulnerability and inequality by understanding what has been expressed by those in the vulnerable position, as opposed to re-imagining oneself in a similar situation.

  This seems to me to be a more promising list of considerations than the list of requirements for market efficiency—which are a lot longer than this list of requirements for perfect competition:

  1. All firms sell an identical product;
  2. All firms are price takers—they cannot control the market price of their product;
  3. All firms have a relatively small market share;
  4. Buyers have complete information about the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm; and
  5. The industry is characterised by freedom of entry and exit. Perfect competition is sometimes referred to as “pure competition”.

  In this vein, the UK Institute for Government offers a list with some family resemblance to the abstract list from the economics textbook here:

  To support effective market stewardship, government departments and other commissioning organisations should:

  1. Clarify roles, responsibilities and accountability arrangements
  2. Be more considered, open and flexible in design
  3. Focus on competition, market structure and market dynamics
  4. Increase transparency.

  The (masculine) psychopathology of economics and management

  What’s going on here has its analogues in psychology. The book Love at Goon Park tells the story of Harry Harlow of the ‘terry towelling’ monkey experiments which rescued Adam Smith’s point from the scientism of mid 20th-century behaviourist psychology:

  Professor Harlow has already been asked to correct his language: He’s been instructed on the correct term for a close relationship. Why can’t he just say “proximity” like everyone else? Somehow the word “love” just keeps springing to his lips when he talks about parents and children, friends and partners. He’s been known to lose his temper when discussing it. “Perhaps all you’ve known in life is proximity,” he once snapped at a visitor to his lab at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. “I thank God I’ve known more.” … Who wouldn’t believe that love was, at its best, a safe harbor — a parent’s arm scooping up a frightened child, holding it heart to heart? It’s hard to believe, in retrospect, how many powerful scientists opposed this idea.

  What (the hell!) was driving this? Clearly not science, but a kind of scientism, in which ‘love’ was somehow tainted – to be ruled out by the framework itself – peremptorily, not on its merits. I had a milder, but similar frisson of resistance myself when I came across the centrality of the idea of empathy in design, but on understanding it, came to support the idea.

  Technologies of empathy

  What we need to deliver care are technologies of empathy.⁸ There’s little empathy in the existing system which is an unpromising foundation on which to open it up or otherwise marketise it. Opening these systems up to competition might make things better. It might make them worse.⁹

  What we do know is that we’re not focusing on what matters. And what matters is whether we can become properly intentional (or to adapt the term above, attentional) towards the caring role when it is not being provided organically within the society.

  In this regard, there’s a deep lacuna in our ideologies. If you’ll permit these ideal types, to liberalism (and its mathematisation – neoclassical economics) the problem is largely invisible. To socialism or social democracy it’s a task for government to be overseen by a bureaucracy (rather than a task looking for institutions that might learn to perform it). Only in (Burkean) conservatism does what is provided by families and civil society come into full focus as a foundational quality of a functioning society. But, having made the giving of care in families and the maintenance of traditions of social concern, cooperation and coordination central to a functioning society, it has nothing to say about how to build such things where they’re damaged or require development in some way.

  And it seems to me that the ethics of care offers some resources for developing that – for conceiving, developing, proving and resourcing technologies of empathy with which we can tackle those issues intentionally, rather than ignore them (as liberalism does) or assume governments can deliver them (as social democracy does by default) or consign them to a private sphere which is then effectively shunted off the stage of public concern.

  The feminist roots of the ethics of care

  In this regard, it seems that feminism’s relation to what I call technologies of empathy has been a little like conservatism’s relation to family and civil society. It acknowledges their centrality. Unlike conservatism, it stresses the marginalisation of care from political and economic life (this might be expressed in critiques of the low wages going to the ‘feminised’ jobs in our economy). But where conservatism then offers nostalgia for the good old days when Big Government hadn’t damaged family life coupled with reticence towards any political project focused on using the resources of the state to rebuild and maintain it, feminism offers naturalism and culture war (I’m offering a caricature to make the point clear).¹⁰

  Feminist care ethicist Folbre puts it this way:

  Liberal feminism has demanded greater individual rights for women. Social feminism has demanded greater social obligations, especially for men.… Women know they can benefit economically by becoming achievers rather than caregivers. They also know, however, that if all women adopt this strategy, society as a whole will become oriented more toward achievement than care.

  Our economy, and arguably our society more broadly rewards care more poorly than self-assertion.¹¹  This is a dilemma indeed, shared by all men and women with an interest in living in a more balanced society, but particularly by women who are more often expected to make the necessary sacrifices. By contrast, finding ways to inject the ethics and the technologies of care and empathy into government funded social programs (not least by paying proper attention which includes building and honouring the evidence) carries only benefits: Benefits to those delivering the services, those who receive them and to the economies and societies of which they are a part.

  References

  1. From Wikipedia: Subsequent research suggests that the discrepancy in being oriented towards care-based or justice-based ethical approaches may be based on gender differences, or on differences in actual current life situations of the genders.
  2. I note parenthetically, or footnotically, that care ethics seems to make a lot better sense of the ethics of our ethical responsibilities to animals, than Peter Singer’s claimed utilitarianism which I can’t make head or tail of.
  3. At this point Grammerly helpfully highlights the last three words indicating that there’s a “qualifier before non-gradable adjective” – I suggest Grammerly take it up with Adam Smith.
  4. It seems reasonable to speculate that the passage is really about his own mother. Smith was a sickly child whose mother feared for his life as an infant.
  5. Smith’s simpatico with care ethics has been noticed in the literature—indeed Annette Baier dubbing Smith’s friend and mentor David Hume the “women’s moral theorist.” Baier argues that Hume denies “that morality consists in obedience to a universal law, emphasizing rather the importance of cultivating virtuous sentimental character traits, including gentleness, agreeability, compassion, sympathy, and good-temperedness”. These ideas about Smith as a ‘proto’ care ethicist have been pointed out since the early 2000s and dealt with in this plodding essay. Incidentally, Annette Baier married Kurt Baier, Dunera Boy and my Dad’s closest friend, confidant and mentor in the camps and in Melbourne after the war – at least until he met my mother.
  6. The ‘theory of the second best’ tells us to be suspicious that addressing any one source of market failure improves things if one doesn’t address all the sources of market failure. But since that’s generally impossible, I think this is a reasonable way to proceed so long as you keep your wits about you and understand, as Hicks did in a different context, that you’re taking a dangerous step. But here there will remain numerous profound imperfections in the market after any reform we can manage. In any event there are more compelling, commonsensical reasons for being suspicious of this approach to which I now turn.
  7. He used the word ‘sympathy’ as the singular fulcrum or engine of society aspiring to the ‘Newtonian method’ of rhetoric in which “an immense chain of the most important and sublime truths, all closely connected together” were explained “by one capital fact, of the reality of which we have daily experience”.
  8. I note here, by way of aside that empathy can’t ‘scale’ mechanically, it has to be grown. I suspect one attraction of ‘contracting out’ is the idea that it scales.
  9. Folbre offers this point about empathy and choice: Choice is a funny thing, affected by both moral values and by social pressures. Often what we choose depends on what we think other people will choose. It’s harder to stay honest if we see other people cheating. It’s harder to engage in teamwork if other team members are shirking. It’s harder to take on responsibilities for the care of other people if those responsibilities don’t seem to be shared. This is why too much choice—or too little social coordination of choice—can lead to outcomes that can be just as problematic as having no choice at all.
  10. My definition of culture war here consists of these elements: 1) the world is separated into goodies, or those on whose behalf the culture war is waged (in this case woman) and baddies, those standing in its way (in this case men and established structures of power and patriarchy); and 2) the benefits we seek will be delivered by the goodies winning. Any transformations that are necessary to delivering the benefits are either not considered, or assumed simply to follow from the goodies’ success. (At its crudest and most pronounced we see this in the sentimentalisation of revolution. A more prosaic example is the idea that we’ll have more and/or better innovation by sending more money to universities and hiring more STEM teachers).
  11. This article offers an empirical illustration of the association of self-assertion with the masculine, something which marginalises the feminine and the ethics of care in our culture. Here’s a chart of the extent to which Hillary Clinton adopted ‘masculine’ opposed to ‘feminine’ mannerisms of language. Those years in which she campaigned her language became more ‘masculine’.

  

• Club Troppo War on empathy, war on confidence, war on context

  Cross posted with the Mandarin

  Nicholas Gruen has argued that it’s much harder to realise evidence-based policy – both institutionally and intellectually – than many calling for it realise. Here he explains how putatively ‘scientific’ and ‘objective’ approaches can, paradoxically, compromise their efficacy by squeezing out empathy and relatedness.

  Russ Roberts has (yet another) great interview on EconTalk. He’s always been gregarious in his interests, but is becoming more so—and also more sceptical of social progress and of economics as a master discipline. Be that as it may, on listening to this interview with psychiatrist Gary Greenberg on the placebo effect it struck me that a phenomenon of some interest to me might be far more general than I’d imagined.

  War on empathy

  Empathy tends to get squeezed out of interactions between bureaucracy and the life world. And even professions that one might imagine would be built on empathy — like social work — often operate according to other professional imperatives. Hence, the power of finding ways for the community to administer social repair through the empathic bond of peers rather than professionals, as The Australian Centre for Social Innovation (TACSI), which I chaired until the end of 2016, tried to do with Family by Family.

  In any event, the basic idea promoted by Greenwood (slightly extrapolated by me) is this: as medicine was made more scientific, the placebo effect was discovered, and then marginalised. Yet it was of unarguable therapeutic power. Of course it’s entirely appropriate that, if one is looking for drug therapies, one wants to find drugs that, other things being equal, do better than sugar pills.

  But in the process, the trail goes cold on keeping the placebo effect in the frame, not only for what it might help us understand, but, more remarkably, even for its therapeutic potential. There’s been vanishingly little investigation of the joint effect of the drug and the placebo acting together. And it turns out that, investigating the placebo effect more broadly, it seems likely that it has something to do with empathic bonds — between some source of authority like the doctor and the patient. Or perhaps from anyone.

  War on confidence

  We seem to do better when we feel ourselves to be of concern to others, not just mentally, but physically. Whodda thunk?

  Note also Greenberg’s comment, “confidence is probably one of the most poorly understood and one of the most important aspects of our daily lives”.

  Surely enough, confidence was critical in Family by Family. Single mothers had so internalised the description of themselves as bad mothers (and by any comparative standard they had certainly done some bad mothering), that they were crushed and unable to change. Every one of the success stories that I learned of seemed to me to operate very directly, through confidence.

  To extrapolate further, we’re at the stage in drug therapy that we got to with our understanding of genetic causes of disease. Having discovered lots of low-hanging fruit, it’s all getting a lot harder. And it seems the world is more complex—vastly more complex—than the relentlessly reductive models we’ve had in our heads but which generated the early successes.

  Of course, one of the things reinforcing all this is commercial interest. You can patent and market a molecule, so the ‘drug theory of physical wellness’ is well supported by the pharmaceutical capital market. Mobilising the placebo effect — much less so. (This is something that’s not handled as crisply as it might have been in the podcast, IMO.)

  The fruit that’s not hanging so low are all the chronic maladies that dominate our health discourse today — obesity, diabetes, anxiety and depression, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, to name a few. Drug therapy has worked poorly here. It’s possible, perhaps likely that, by understanding the placebo effect — or those things that drive it — renewed progress might be possible.

  The war on context

  This hasn’t just been a war (however inadvertent) on empathy and on the importance of confidence. It’s been a war on context.

  A certain paradigm of science is asserted in which science offers knowledge that is lifted from context. Of course, if you can do it, and your goal is mastery of nature, well and good. You’d expect this to be the low-hanging fruit and you should go pick it.

  Alas, the lavish rewards this produces — for outcomes, methodologies, disciplines and careers — then compromises what might be the next phase of progress in areas where context matters.

  I almost wrote ‘more difficult’ areas. But context-dependent knowledge also exists on a spectrum from low-to-high-hanging fruit (slaps wrist for mixed metaphor).

  A program like Family by Family isn’t rocket science. It makes a lot more sense than most standard practice now. It’s just countercultural in the empathy-starved careerist bureaucracy we’ve built to deliver child protection services — an environment that has been unable to even detect strongly above-average performance, let alone find ways to learn from and spread it.

  This kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge too, but arises when one adapts one’s scientific tools to the task at hand, rather than simply aping techniques that worked elsewhere.

  With the renewed enthusiasm towards evidence-based policy in the context of the Thodey Review (while we expand cashless welfare cards for political reasons contrary to all the evidence) the test will be whether anything we do will promote rigour, thoughtfulness and attention to what the evidence is telling us given our objectives and the multiple contexts in which we want to achieve them.

  The two alternatives to this are that nice words are said about the report and it’s ignored, or it provokes a new birth of scientism in which the quest for contextless knowledge generates little useful knowledge at all.

  Postscript: an interview with Leon Gettler on the subject of this post

April 15, 2019

• Club Troppo An unpublished column on Brexit: until now!

  From around January this year I’ve tried to get the column below published – in the Guardian UK where my previous column was published. Unfortunately, and even after endless cajoling via the Guardian at this end, I couldn’t get a reply which is piss poor but there you go. Martin Wolf tried for me at the FT. At least they responded – but with a ‘no’, which is fair enough given the oversupply of articles on Brexit. Anyway as the Brexit Brouhaha Burbles on I thought I’d pop it up here.

  The result of the 2016 Brexit referendum looms over the career politicians assembled in the Palace of Westminster as the black monolith loomed over the apes in the movie 2001.

  It’s taken over thirty months of thrashing through actual options – as opposed to the wild partisan imaginings in the campaign – for a ghastly, if entirely foreseeable realisation to dawn. Despite the people’s clear instruction to Leave, any specific way of doing so would command far less than the 48 percent vote for Remain.

  In the teeth of the greatest crisis of British statecraft since World War II, the institutional imperatives of political combat ensure the politicians perform rather than deliberate. Not only Corbyn, but extraordinarily enough, May has clung to fantasies about getting a better deal, though the end game will presumably see her change her tune.

  How did it come to this?

  A year ago, I argued for a ‘Brexit Deliberation Day’ in which ten citizens’ juries of around 50 people each, selected as legal juries are, by lot from local communities around the country would consider Brexit. In such circumstances, citizens’ opinions move systematically as they better understand the issues in discussion with peers.

  Isn’t this a job for parliament? Well yes. But they aren’t doing it. In fact parliament forsook deliberation for ‘the numbers’ as the party system consolidated in the nineteenth century. In the last half century the struggle for the consent of the governed has become as professionalised, as optimised to win votes as McDonald’s use of salt, fat, sugar and advertising is to win customers.

  Like other aspects of our fast food culture – the linkbait to deliver clicks, internet and tabloid trolling to deliver outrage – it’s slowly poisoning us. Today’s politico-entertainment complex makes parliamentary deliberation impossible – as rare and pointless as playing chess with a badger.

  Many people supported my proposal but said it was too late. It should have happened before the people voted. Indeed: As it does in the US State of Oregon in which citizens juries deliberate and advise the electorate before any citizen initiated referendum: As has occurred in Ireland’s recent string of successful referendums.

  Whenever my proposal has been considered by those with the funds to make it happen, the answer’s been the same. If only we’d seen you earlier. It is too late now. Instead they’ve funded the usual political campaigns – with all their self-righteousness, manipulation and polarising propaganda that the pro-Brexit vote was a protest against – however careless, however futile that vote was.

  And here we are. As each day passes, the need to find a new way grows more, not less urgent. If you’re focused on March 29 thinking it’s too late to organise a Brexit Deliberation Day, you’re probably right, though a citizen assembly chosen by lot is still possible and would reflect the people’s considered will in contrast to the polls.

  But this crisis will morph into new dramas well beyond March 29th with no obvious end in sight. And, beyond Brexit, modern democracies are turning to self-harm with increasing regularity. Pursuing similar imperatives as Corbyn and May, the greatest achievement of Australia’s parliamentarians of 2013 was abolishing carbon pricing against the better judgement of an overwhelming majority of them. It’s given up on climate change, paralysed the energy market generating soaring energy prices and robs the budget of $10 billion each year. The Republicans in Congress are waving through a trade war against their better judgement. Who would have believed it?

  We must look beyond March 29th if we’re not to waste this crisis. It gives Britain the chance to begin the process of healing its own democracy and showing others how. From a Citizens’ Assembly or Brexit Deliberation Day, a cadre would emerge that was well informed on Brexit and, as a group, enjoyed popular legitimacy as embodying ordinary Britons’ considered will. It could be polled to determine ordinary people’s considered opinion as developments unfold.

  Imagine that cadre doing what a citizens’ assembly on nuclear power in South Australia did, selecting representatives of the best among them as spokespeople. That council of citizen jurors could have been operating, shadowing negotiations in Brussels, and parliament, shaming our representatives to put our interests first.

  Surveying the scene on another occasion when Britain was searching for its soul, and fighting for its life, George Orwell wrote “The past is fighting the future and we have two years, a year, possibly only a few months, to see to it that the future wins”.

  Whether they knew it or not, the apes were in the same situation as they stared at the inscrutable black monolith that came among them.

  It’s the situation Britons again find themselves in today.

April 14, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Parking in the bus zone

  I’ve mentioned this in passing before, but what the heck.

  This is a bus stop on Jasper Road in Bentleigh, opposite Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College.

  Normally it’s used by local bus route 701. It’s also used when there are planned rail replacement buses running, as the designated stop for Patterson station. These ran this weekend just gone, and will run again over the coming Easter long weekend.

  

  Back in 2006, under a government plan called Meeting Our Transport Challenges, route 701 was one of the first to get extended hours, with services until about 9:30pm, and the introduction of a Sunday service – only hourly, but better than nothing.

  When the rail replacement buses run, they are scheduled until about 1am outbound, with services all night on weekends.

  Here’s the bus zone for this stop:

  

  These hours apply on both sides of the road.

  Not only can someone park their car in the bus stops after 7:30pm, two hours before the last bus, but they can also park here all day on Sunday and on public holidays, blocking buses.

  This could make it near impossible for someone with mobility difficulties to board or alight the bus.

  Most other stops in the area have been changed to full time bus zones. It’s only this one (one of few that actually gets 24-hour buses during rail replacements) that hasn’t been updated.

  Some local stops have just a bus stop sign – no specific bus zone is marked. This is actually better than having a part time bus zone – regulation 195 prohibits stopping/parking there, regardless of the time (though plenty of people don’t understand this rule).

  I’m not even sure whose responsibility it is to update the signs to reflect bus timetables. In this case it’s not the council; it’s a Vicroads-managed road.

  Over the years I’ve raised this multiple times with various people via back channels, but today I’ve tried putting it into Vicroads directly. Will see what happens.

  But I’m amazed it’s gone unnoticed for more than 12 years. And I’m wondering how many more there are like this?

  • Update 1pm. I sent an enquiry about this to VicRoads. They have referred me to PTV, so I have forwarded the enquiry to them. (Obviously the merger has only just been announced!)

April 09, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Train Pain

  If you were following me on Twitter on Monday morning, you’d know that I made a decision I came to regret: I travelled to work on the train to Caulfield and the express rail replacement bus into the City.

  In short: the buses were hopelessly swamped by people. It was a long wait (43 minutes) in the bus queue; then a bus trip from Caulfield to the City that took more than an hour.

  The trip that normally takes about half an hour from Bentleigh to the City instead took two hours.Read this Twitter thread for the grisly details.

  In the cold light of day, here are some thoughts on this.

  

  The good stuff.

  The information has been pretty good. Lots of signage. Lots of staff making announcements on the train, on the station before the works started. It was pretty clear where to go.

  There’s also been no shortage of advance warning: signs at local and CBD stations (the latter perhaps a little overwhelming), flyers handed out at stations, announcements on stations and trains, TV and radio advertising, press calls, web site updates.

  There have been some errors along the way, and some of the media messaging was overly alarmist – leaving for instance some people assuming the Sandringham line is closed every day. It’s not – it’s only closed on some weekends. A simple calendar might have helped.

  On the ground at Caulfield, they seem to have tweaked the verbal messaging from announcers to say “to the City”, which is much clearer (and more correct) than the previous “to Flinders“.

  The massive tents at Caulfield are a smart idea. Ideally you don’t want long queues. But if you do have them, you especially don’t want people in long queues in the rain.

  It reminded me a bit of the queues for rides at an amusement park. But not as fun.

  I found passengers were remarkably calm while queuing. Maybe they were all posting furious messages on social media, but nobody got visibly shouty or upset, nobody jumped the queue, and (gods be praised) nobody lit up a cigarette inside the tent.

  Metro was taking the operation seriously. I know this because I saw Metro CEO Raymond O’Flaherty walking around checking things out, with a suitably serious look on his face.

  It’s school holidays and university mid-semester break (at least for some). This helps reduces travel demand, especially in the morning peak. The trains were quieter than usual. If these disruptions have to occur, now is the right time.

  Running a stopping-all-stations every 7 minutes service from Frankston to Caulfield made sense to keep things simple and minimise passenger waits for trains. It’s similar on the Pakenham line, though Cranbourne passengers have to change at Dandenong, which adds to their travel time.

  Happily for outbound passengers, trains on the Dandenong line run at least every 10 minutes until almost 10pm; until about 8pm on the Frankston line. High frequency makes outbound connections off the buses fairly easy.

  On the bus there were delays due to traffic, but it seemed minimal delays due to just traffic lights themselves – apparently Vicroads was making some effort to cut delays to buses at lights, which was good… except…

  Buses still faced long delays getting across Princes Highway because someone decided that cars on the highway are more important than scores of buses packed with people.

  Edit: As far as I can make out, the express buses were split between Federation Square (via the M1) and Arts Centre (via Dandenong Road/St Kilda Road).

  

  The problems

  Train delays approaching Caulfield. Ours stopped for about six minutes, but this was nothing compared to some of the delays on the Dandenong line, with some trains stuck for an hour or more.

  A big factor in this was crowding on the platforms. Caulfield station is not a modern design. Especially on platforms 2 & 3, the gates and ramps cause a bottleneck. (With the metro tunnel likely to increase Caulfield’s interchange role, an additional concourse would be a welcome upgrade.)

  The track layout is also problematic – sometime in the past few years, the layout has been altered so that trains from Dandenong can only terminate on platform 3. The less busy Frankston trains could use platforms 1 & 2.

  The sheer number of people meant crowding in the subway. The crowding in the subway backed up onto the ramp, and then up onto the platform, preventing empty trains from departing.

  But the biggest problem was bus throughput. Standing in the queue for that 43 minute wait, there would be times when no buses at all would arrive for 5-10 minutes. Then a few would appear and fill up.

  The crowds could have been handled much better if the stream of buses was constant.

  “Buses replace trains”
  No, they really don’t. #TrainPain #bustitution #MetroTrains pic.twitter.com/k65FAL2PKt

  — Daniel Bowen (@danielbowen) April 7, 2019

  Bus delays

  Some express buses earlier in the morning had departed with spare capacity aboard, despite people still queuing. (This was actually shown in the timelapse in Channel 7’s news story.)

  This needs fixing urgently – apart from making some in the queue needlessly wait, it wasted bus capacity that could have been used later in the morning to keep more people moving. Express buses shouldn’t leave unless full if people are waiting. Only stopper buses need to leave with space for more passengers.

  

  Bus throughput was also affected by severe traffic delays – buses despatched to the City had a slow trip in, limiting the number of trips they could run.

  • Unbelievably, Normanby Road in Caulfield was still available to general traffic in both directions, with buses having to negotiate a sea of bollards. Did they seriously not think to just close it off?
  • There were also delays on Sir John Monash Drive for buses trying to enter and leave the precinct. Given the numbers of passengers, it would easily be justified to close down that section of the road (from Queens Avenue to Dandenong Road) to other traffic – or allocate an extra bus lane that can be used to get onto Burke Road.
  • At the very least, more time should have been given for buses getting across Princes Highway.
  • Each morning peak the M1 has been clogged. On my trip was a crawl from joining the freeway at Burke Road, up until about Toorak Road. (Can the automated signage on the “managed motorways” be programmed to show bus lanes? If not, maybe this should be factored into designs for future rollouts.)
  • After leaving the freeway there was another crawl along Batman Avenue, mostly caused by the sheer number of buses.

  At this point on my trip I was looking on Google Maps at the traffic further along and onto Flinders Street and thinking/hoping they’d route some buses over to the Arts Centre to avoid it – as has been the case during previous rail closures.

  Unbelievably, they didn’t. Instead our bus and all the others headed straight into a kilometre-long queue of buses and other traffic.

  You know how some people claim that unlike rail transport, buses can easily adapt to changing travel demand and traffic patterns. Yeah. Not unless someone tells the drivers.

  

  Eventually bus drivers started letting passengers out to walk the rest of the way. As I walked, I found a long queue of buses all the way to Federation Square.

  Authorities implied it was because of the vegan protestors occupying the intersection at Swanston and Flinders Street. I don’t buy that.

  • Any westbound traffic delayed by the protest was separate from the bus route, because the section of Flinders Street used by the buses (from Exhibition to Russell Streets) was closed to other vehicles
  • Exactly the same problem happened again on Tuesday morning – with no protestors. And again on Wednesday morning.

  Introducing temporary dedicated bus lanes for commuters during the mega rail shutdown has been ruled out. @DougalBeatty #9News pic.twitter.com/jJvHKxWr6l

  — Nine News Melbourne (@9NewsMelb) April 9, 2019

  To me it looked like the bus jam was due to a slow turnaround at Federation Square. They should have been getting buses unloaded and out again as quickly as possible so they could get back to Caulfield and pick up more passengers. Again the despatch procedures seem to need reviewing.

  The lack of a dedicated bus lane on Batman Avenue didn’t help either, though it wasn’t as big a problem as on the M1.

  For a bus and it’s driver, the round trip would have been at least 60 minutes inbound plus 30 minutes outbound. No wonder there were queues at Caulfield.

  

  Is the strategy right?

  The government says 600 buses and coaches are being used this week for rail replacements, and presumably most of them are on the Caulfield to City run. But are they being used in the best way?

  Getting everyone to Caulfield by train and then using lots of buses to the City worked during quiet times on the weekend when passenger numbers were lower. It struggled a bit with football crowds, but it really struggles with peak hour commuters.

  It’s a firm reminder that buses can’t replace trains. It re-created the mess that occurs every weekday on the Doncaster corridor, where buses try to do that job.

  The Doncaster buses are incredibly messy, but at least they have bus lanes on the freeway inbound, and along Hoddle Street and Victoria Parade. This was specifically ruled out by authorities – who chose instead to rely on traffic light priority (but then didn’t provide it crossing Princes Highway).

  If they’re not going to give hundreds of packed buses the priority they deserve, would a better strategy be to shift more people onto the neighbouring rail lines, and run extra train services?

  • A bus connection from Moorabbin to Brighton Beach on the Sandringham line (as used in the past) for people from stations further south
  • Another from Westall to one of the Glen Waverley line stations for the Dandenong line passengers

  With reduced holiday demand, and extra services, would they cope? (The Sandringham line is running extra services anyway – the usual 8 trains per hour in peak is 10 per hour during the works. These have been pretty crowded.)

  There would be some level crossing impacts from more trains of course, but the shorter route for buses would mean fewer delays for them, and if enough extra trains could be provided, they would cope with passenger numbers so much better. (A packed train would be about 20 bus loads of people.)

  For passengers closer in, the mix of stopping and express buses from Caulfield to the City would get a better run thanks to reduced passenger numbers and congestion – in the station at Caulfield and on the roads into Federation Square.

  This sort of operation might use fewer resources, making the overall rail closure cheaper.

  Boosting regular routes

  A more radical change would be to run the above Westall and Moorabbin shuttle bus connections, but also deploy some of the hundreds of buses being used to boost local cross-suburban routes that connect the train lines, more widely distributing passengers across more stations.

  Some passengers are seeking out these local tram and bus routes anyway, including some prompted by advice from Metro staff who knew about the chaos unfolding at Caulfield.

  There have been reports of crowding on the 630 bus (North Road) and 67 tram (Glen Huntly Road) thanks to no extra services and (some) use of small trams. Presumably this is also an issue on the inner-suburban tram routes in the southeast.

  For me, I used this method to get home on Monday. It was 58 minutes from Flinders Street to Bentleigh (via Middle Brighton and the 703), and that included a 17 minute wait for a late bus. Far better than the two hour trip in the morning.

  

  Boosting those local bus routes and encouraging their use would be making the best use of buses – which are not really suited for long haul high capacity routes. It would also help educate passengers on their alternate routes during future unplanned shutdowns.

  Obviously it’s a fine balancing act to try and make sure the swarms of passengers displaced by the rail shutdowns don’t swamp other services and replacement buses.

  A good balance has not been reached this week.

  

  The first weekday is always the worst. The queues at Caulfield have moved better on subsequent days. But that’s not an excuse.

  It’s like when they say the first week of the university year is worst. Waiting for people to give up and try something else (such as driving) is not a good outcome. (Fair enough, for universities, sometimes travel patterns genuinely change after the first week or two.)

  As of day three, the bus delays haven’t gone away – on the M1 and Batman Avenue, and around Caulfield, they have continued each peak hour.

  The strategy used for this works period needs to be reviewed.

  With continuing (and very welcome) works on level crossings, the metro tunnel, and upgrades for the new trains, these major rail closures will keep happening. While they do, the city and its transport network need to continue to function.

April 07, 2019

• Daniel Bowen The monetary cost of driving

  One of the issues that contributes to excessive car use is that it’s not straightforward to calculate the cost of driving.

  Once you have the car, the cost of each additional trip you take in it is obscured. Apart from tolls and fuel costs, many might see an already-paid-for car sitting in the driveway as “free”, making it an easy option. This is why good alternatives are not based around park and ride, but instead aiming to replace the entire trip, enabling households to own fewer cars.

  I thought I’d have a go at calculating the total cost per kilometre of my car.

  Obviously there are a lot of variables, so each person’s result will be a bit different.

  Depreciation: The Lancer I bought last year cost me $18,000 new. If I assume it’ll be near-worthless by the time it gets 200,000 kms on the clock (I’m not actually likely to drive it that much while I have it, but later owners might), then that’s depreciation of 11.1 cents per kilometre.

  Some of the other costs are annual fees, so the cost per kilometre will vary according to how much I drive. The Australian average is 15,000. We’re well below that in my family, though it’s increasing a bit since one son got his P-plates last month. I’m going to use 8,000 km as an estimate.

  Insurance: $708.20. (It’s definitely gone up since having a P-plater behind the wheel!) That’s 8.9 cents per kilometre.

  

  Registration: having just bought the car, it was paid for the first year, but ongoing annual cost is $816.50. That works out to 10.2 cents per kilometre.

  Servicing: This will vary a lot, and will get more expensive as the vehicle gets older. But for now, because I bought a brand new car, this is capped at $230 for each of the first three years = 2.9 cents per kilometre.

  Petrol: The car’s got an information display which can tell you various things. One is how many litres per 100 kilometres it’s burning. From my observation this usually varies between 6 and 10, depending on whether we’re driving on country freeways with little traffic, or start-stopping along a busy city road. (On the bright side it never gets driven in commuter peaks.) The official government number for a 2017 Lancer is 7.4, but let’s be a little pessimistic and use 8.

  How much does petrol cost? The Australian Institute of Petroleum reckons in Victoria the average price in 2017-18 was 135.2 cents per litre, which seems roughly right, though I wonder if it’s creeping up.

  So every 100 kilometres we’re using $10.816 of fuel, or 10.8 cents per kilometre.

  

  What about tolls? We only use tollroads occasionally, perhaps about $50 per year, so I think I’ll exclude this for now.

  So the cost for me is: Depreciation 11.1 + insurance 8.9 + rego 10.2 + servicing 2.9 + petrol 10.8 = 43.9 cents per kilometre.

  (Contrast: public transport within Melbourne is generally $4.40 for any individual trip of up to 2+ hours, with a cap of $8.80 per day, but it gets a lot cheaper if you buy a Pass and use it regularly.)

  Obviously there are a lot of costs that motorists don’t pay for directly. Driving is very heavily subsidised.

  But having a number, even if it’s only an estimate, means I can quantify how much it’s costing each time we use the car.

  Did I miss anything, or mess it up? What’s the cost in your household? Leave a comment!

April 04, 2019

• Daniel Bowen The merger

  The Victorian Department of Transport is expanding, absorbing Vicroads and PTV to one big agency.

  We’ll have to see, but potentially this could be good. Better integration of different transport planning roles could benefit street-based public transport in particular.

  Recent changes, moving some PTV roles into DOT (and/or the apparently shortlived Transport For Victoria) were just confusing.

  Major projects authorities, such as those delivering the metro tunnel and the North East Link, will stay separate.

  

  The most visible thing to the public is the branding. Does this change mean yet another expensive re-branding exercise, putting new logos on everything?

  If that happens, hopefully they won’t go for the nuclear approach. Since the 1980s, we’ve had (just in metropolitan Melbourne):

  • Victorian Railways/Vicrail
  • Metropolitan Transit Authority/The Met
  • PTC
  • Bayside Trains/Hillside Trains /Swanston Trams/Yarra Trams
  • M>Train/M>Tram/Connex Trains/Yarra Trams
  • Connex trains/Yarra Trams
  • Metro trains/Yarra Trams
  • and now PTV.

  What next?

  The current PTV designs are mostly good – the colours, lines/patterns, typefaces all work quite well. The PTV logo itself is a bit meh – maybe it’s possible to start by just removing it.

  If it’s replaced with something new, I’d prefer a more compact logo, with a name that’s easier to drop into conversation. (The Met might have been the best recent one for this.)

  But the whisper is that the branding already seen on the Mernda line extension and the Huntingdale and Monash bus interchanges shows the way forward – most signs with no operator branding.

  What this means for Vicroads branding is another question.

  Of course, it’s how this new body works, and whether it provides improved planning and delivery, that really counts. Time will tell.

  • PTUA: State concludes its re-centralisation of transport planning: but to what end?

April 03, 2019

• Club Troppo We know WHAT we need to do. Will someone tell us HOW?

  When policy problems are complex, we need to understand and learn from the front line. With desperately need to improve the early, middle and late stages of institutional learning and change-making, to enable successful policy development.

  From the recent Mandarin article.

  It’s election season in Australia.

  I can feel the announceables coming on; indeed whole focus groups of them.

  Pilots make an easy announceable. They’re cheap, they sound innovative and they’ll be conveniently off the books by the time some new announceables are needed. Pilots are to policy what start-ups are to innovation: cheap, worthwhile and almost invariably around for a short time before they’re replaced by new ones. And most of them are unsuccessful.

  Innovation policy has a name for the problem. It’s called the Valley of Death, and refers to all those byways and traps that must be navigated before the Good Idea can make it into a successful product. A similar valley of death bedevils innovation in government.

  And while these problems are frustrating in markets, at least markets are an open system capable of being disrupted (as we say now) by competitors with enough nous and other resources to do so.

  Innovators in government face a similar thicket of obstacles, but in a centrally planned system, it can be virtually impossible to get through — because if you’re a small new initiative, you’ve got few champions fighting for you, and plenty of people within the system to whom you’re an inconvenience or worse.

  Through thick and thin: Improving policy in Australia’s regions

  These things came to mind as Lateral Economics was working on a report to the Regional Australia Institute, Through thick and thin: Improving policy in Australia’s regions. Yet just as Australia has managed some commercial start-up successes, a few Atlassians and Seeks, so too there are a few government innovations that have scaled — although only one in regional policy.

  Not only does this prove that it’s possible, it helps us understand how such success might be replicated.

  At least during the reform glory days from 1983 to 2001, Australia excelled at top-down economic policy reform. This included the setting of tax and benefit levels (whereby Australia has the most targeted welfare system in the world) and adapting existing infrastructure like the tax and benefits system in new ways, as we did with HECS and the Child Support Agency.

  Scrapping stuff that probably never made economic sense — like tariffs, shopping hours and the two-airline policy — was also something we led the world in. However beyond this, we’re coming to realise (aren’t we?) that even back in the glory days we weren’t so flash where problems are complex.

  The obstacle course

  When problems are complex, we need to understand and learn from what’s happening on the ground.

  Adapting language from anthropology, we call the former policy problem, which is amenable to top-down reform, ‘thin’, and the latter, more complex problem, ‘thick’.

  Whereas thin problems can be effectively designed and managed from the top, for thick problems, institutional learning must travel up the chain of command as well as down — from the outfield to the centre and also in the other direction.

  However, there are profound institutional and cultural obstacles preventing this from occurring, and where it does occur, preventing it from being embedded or properly institutionalised.

  The greater status given to policy-making compared with delivery is a central obstacle to achieving what must be achieved if small-scale variations and experiments in the field are to be learned from — which is to say:

  • assessed and understood; and
  • scaled on their merits.

  In our report, we anatomised these inadequacies in terms of the early, middle and late stages of the necessary process of institutional learning and change-making — which we summarised using a rhyming triplet: Will — Skill — Fulfil

  We found deficiencies of practice in each of these stages:

  Will: Governments frequently announce their intention to introduce some new policy or approach. Then, poor attention to detail often follows and the initiative quietly dies. Sometimes little progress is made beyond announcement or some stated intention. On other occasions, a pilot proceeds and appears successful but is not continued further as priorities change.

  Skill: Pilots, trials and other small-scale initiatives are often used to develop new skills and investigate the value of various new approaches. Some pilots have trialled integration of service delivery and funding streams between agencies — one of the holy grails in ‘joined-up government’ — but this has been very rare. More disconcertingly, the scaling of such learning into larger programs with learning feeding back to agencies has been rarer again.

  Fulfil: For innovation to be truly ‘fulfilled’ in our lexicon, it needs to be grown to the appropriate size and to become incumbent — embedded within organisational and political expectations and business-as-usual.

  The Landcare example

  We can think of only one example where this has occurred for regional Australia: Landcare.

  Landcare was a highly successful initiative in which a range of success factors coalesced:

  • It had high-level political support throughout.
  • This coincided with its being a very cost-effective and popular response to a policy and political enthusiasm of the time, ecologically sustainable development.
  • It was not expensive and was seen by the government as saving money in a range of respects.
  • The above factors led to early scaling, which was not difficult to do as the principles and administration of the program were relatively straightforward.
  • It did not require any difficult cross-agency collaboration or funding.

  Partly because of a political culture that valorises announceables, pilots and small-scale policy innovations are relatively easily established, but then tend to disappear, often irrespective of their merits, to be replaced by new announceables, many of which are also pilots.

  The need for accountability: some recommendations

  Governments urgently need to establish greater accountability for the extent to which the system as a whole supports a healthy process by which trials, pilot programs or just variations within existing programs are widely learned from and grown in scale and impact where appropriate.

  In light of this we offered the following recommendations:

  • Existing regulatory ‘sandbox’ approaches offer some promise but risk repeating the mistakes of the past. Policy ‘labs’ such as NESTA, Y-Lab and the Auckland Co-Design Lab, offer worthwhile models for pursuing thick policy problems, within which regulatory ‘sandbox’ ideas could happily sit.
  • As many of the issues relevant to regions span federal, state and local government, such bodies should have a federal remit. They should then work with governments at all levels and other stakeholders including users and the general public to make the thick journey to better policy and delivery.
  • Where pilots are established, their monitoring and evaluation should be provided in a way that is:
    • expert and collaborative with those in the field to help them optimise their impact; and
    • independent.
  • A unit like a behavioural insights unit could be a useful base from which to build such independent capability, ensuring the rigour of the process. But an additional objective would be the transparency of the project from outside. This will be important for the local community to be aware of the progress made. And this will assist the prospects of expanding small projects where they’re generating strong benefits and embedding them in the community’s expectations, and so in the minds of politicians ultimately responsible for decisions on the projects’ destiny.
  • There should be a register of such projects and small policy initiatives, with reporting each year by the auditor-general on the quality of the knowledge they have generated (and by implication the quality of the monitoring and evaluation being undertaken), their success or otherwise and, more importantly given the failings in the current system, in applying the lessons learned, including by adapting and growing the initiatives.
  • It would make sense to limit such an approach on regional initiatives as a trial, though if the ideas in this report have merit, they should have a wider impact.
  • An innovation fund should be established by the federal government to fund innovative programs that vary existing mainstream programs in ways that establish better knowledge about the impact of those programs under different conditions. Thus, for instance, one might trial more generous means-testing of welfare to understand the behavioural responses to such changes, and to optimise the impact of tapering welfare payments as people transition from welfare to work.
  • We should tackle the dominance of policy over delivery in the values of public service beginning with an audit of the extent to which leading successful learning and innovation in policy delivery is considered an important qualification for promotion in the public service, and take concrete steps to improve perceived problems in this regard.

  This article has been adapted from a report commissioned by the Regional Australia Institute. RAI’s Regions Rising Conference will be held in Canberra on April 4-5.

April 02, 2019

• Club Troppo Paul Krugman’s incredible invisibility trick

  It’s impossible to avoid misjudgements in life or to get all one’s predictions right. But should economists get caught out quite so often. 

  Paul Krugman is honest and self-critical. So he’s up for identifying what economists missed about globalisation – including himself.

  Of course, everyone’s wise in hindsight. Still, Krugman keeps reporting that economists ignored things that were … kind of obvious.

  For one person to miss something is a misfortune.

  But a whole profession doing it, again and again, seems like carelessness.

  I’ve previously locked horns with Krugman regarding his own tolerance of economists ignoring things that were staring them in the face — about which more shortly.

  In any event, Krugman was in Melbourne recently to give an informative and enjoyable lecture in Max Corden’s honour (watch below).

  One of his central points was to defend trade theory against ignorant critics.

  As he pointed out, although some critics accuse economists of arguing that free trade is good for everyone, that’s not economics speaking, but certain economic zealots pushing a barrow.

  Standard trade theory suggests that freer trade will generate winners and losers. If imports decimate an industry, investors and workers in that industry will suffer harm. This is inter-industry trade expansion such as we’ve seen in Australia recently with increased imports of cars wiping out Australian car manufacturing, paid for by increased exports — mostly of iron ore and other primary commodities.

  This was the trade that was implicit in economists’ models. But as Krugman points out, economists started realising that something else was going on from around the 1960s on.

  The fog of clear thinking

  Turns out Krugman blames clear thinking.

  If you think clearly — well you kind of just miss stuff. And it turns out that this clear thinking — which, of course, all your best colleagues are doing — leads them to miss stuff too. Even more worrying, they miss exactly the same stuff.

  Here’s Krugman explaining how economists twigged to new realities of trade from the 1960s on:

  “If you look at where trade was growing, it was growing within Europe at the time and between countries that look quite similar. It was intra-industry trade among similar countries.¹ What was that about? Actually, that was an interesting thing because it was really very hard for people to … It was very hard for economists with formal models to even talk about that. For a while there, there was an advantage to not being, not thinking too clearly because if you didn’t think too clearly you could say, “Oh yes, obviously there’s advantages of large-scale production and you can produce a smaller number of products at large scale, export those, import other stuff.” But then economists would say, have you modelled that in general equilibrium? How do I handle the market structure? I can’t do that so it must not exist. Well, actually, we managed to pull that together.” (Emphasis added).

  I’ll expand on the invisibility of intra-industry trade shortly, but Krugman is on his way to explaining another disappearing trick.

  As he argues, just after his own ‘new’ economic theory of trade and geography made it possible to ‘see’ intra-industry trade, a kind of intellectual Murphy’s Law intervened. Just as the discipline was coming to understand what was really going on … what was really going on changed.²

  The 1990s saw the transition from Pax Americana to Pax Sinica, with the most populous and fastest growing country in the world, China, exporting its way to prosperity. And this intensified inter-industry trade with all its disruptive potential.

  But isn’t it kind of obvious that, once China gets in on the act in a big way, the magnitude of things is going to change and that, with China’s very different labour costs, a lot of the trade expansion will be inter rather than intra-industry trade?

  There was a further problem.

  As we’ve known since at least the early 1900s, when Alfred Marshall documented it, manufacturing industry is very regionally specialised. So that means that, even where impacts are small at the national level, they can be very damaging for specific towns and regions — as it was for Hickory, North Carolina faced with a surge of Chinese furniture imports.

  

  Krugman acknowledges his own failure to anticipate this.

  “Having been a participant in a lot of the debates about trade and wages in the 90s I can say … I certainly missed … I wasn’t thinking at all about the dynamics of rapid change.”

  So good on him. And I’m not particularly critical of him for not foreseeing it. He’s a busy guy writing two op-eds a week — #Srsly! — but he only does that in his spare time. His main job is thinking about stuff, and he happened to be thinking about other stuff. No-one can think about everything.

  One can’t ignore the dynamics

  But I am critical of him for is for his continuing complacency about his profession.

  Note how he says he and his fellow economists weren’t focusing on dynamics. Well, it was those dynamics that the community was anxious about — they’re really everything in the political discussion of trade.

  Krugman wasn’t thinking about dynamics because he was doing ‘comparative statics’ or comparing one long-run state with a counterfactual long-run state. And that was because that’s how trade theory has been built.

  That great prize of modelling imperfect competition in ‘general equilibrium’, for which Krugman got another Great Prize, wasn’t the most important thing we needed to know about trade. Indeed great economists of the past had warned us it was unlikely to tell us much — warnings which were vindicated in hindsight. But that was what floated the discipline’s boat.

  As Keynes famously said regarding similar problems in macro-economics (and some readers may not be familiar with the whole quote):

  “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run, we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if, in tempestuous seasons, they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.”

  It seems to me all this is entirely forgivable for any one person. That’s why we have professions. And if a profession is too myopic, that’s why we have other professions. And if those professions are too myopic, that’s why we live in an open society. If it’s commonsensical, someone will point it out. But here it turns out that, for Krugman none of these resources were available.

  Reflecting on whether or not economists should have considered the dynamics of change Krugman says this:

  “I think I can say with a fair degree of confidence that basically, nobody was, that this was just not the way that economists were thinking about the issue. We were thinking … in terms of long-run equilibrium models, which seemed reasonable but was actually missing a lot of what was going on.”

  So, things that were both obvious when you thought about them even informally, and obviously important were invisible. They were invisible to a whole profession and … well, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. I guess that’s clear thinking for you.

  To show you this invisibility trick in all its glory, here’s Krugman’s Nobel acceptance speech commenting on his theorising about intra-industry trade and the importance of industry-specific economies and scale and specialisation in driving trade:

  “You may think all this is obvious, and it is — now. But it was totally not obvious before 1980 or so — except for some prescient quotes from Paul Samuelson, you really can’t find anyone describing trade this way until after the theory had been laid out in mathematical models.”

  The plain English version came later:

  “And you should bear in mind that economists have been thinking and writing about international trade for a couple of centuries; to come along and say, “Hey, we’ve been missing half the story” was a pretty big thing.”

  As I wrote in my article on Krugman’s reaction to my speech launching Max Corden’s memoirs:

  For all his brilliance, I’m repeatedly shocked at Krugman’s complacency regarding his own discipline.

  What could Krugman possibly mean when he tells his Stockholm audience that “the plain English version” came after his theory?

  What’s his response to the list I mentioned in my speech?

  • Hicks (1959)
  • Linder (1961)
  • Elkan (1965)
  • Vernon (1966)
  • Balassa (1966)
  • Drysdale (1969)
  • Grubel (1967)
  • Gorden (1970)
  • Lloyd (1975)
  • Bhagwati (1973)
  • Gray (1976)
  • Krueger (1978)

  I’m genuinely baffled, given Krugman would be familiar with most if not all these authors.³

  There were plenty of canaries in the coal mine regarding the China Shock. They just weren’t giving seminars in the economics departments of the Ivy League.

  All of this reminds me of Robert Solow’s devastating observation, “Sometimes I think it is only my weakness of character that keeps me from making obvious errors”.

  Solow was a passionate believer in an older style of economic thinking, in which formal analysis developed in close dialogue with — and ideally was enveloped by — close discursive reasoning, though in the passage just quoted he was speaking about the pull of left and right wing ideology.

  Still, sometimes I think it’s Paul Krugman’s and his professions ‘clear thinking’ that leads them to make obvious errors — at least until after the event.

  References

  1. As he pointed out, economists have always argued that even though freer trade can be expected to lead to aggregate gains, it comes with substantial adjustment costs. This is because the standard understanding of trade was that it was driven by comparative costs. And this was always understood to involve expanding inter-industry trade. Thus Australia would export more coal, wool and iron ore and import more cameras clothes and cars. That’s obviously disruptive for the poor souls employed making clothes and cars (I’m not sure how many cameras we ever made but we probably made Box Brownies at least.) But if Australia exports Commodores and imports Mercedes it’s a very different story.
  2. As an aside my favourite example of this law is Malthus’s Principle of Population — perhaps we should call it Malthus’s law in his honour. It took until 1798 for someone to come up with an explanation for why human beings stayed close to substance despite considerable growth in economies and in technology — which was that population grew geometrically and would eventually absorb any additional production — which Malthus assumed would grow linearly. This was a very powerful explanation for a stylised fact which applied more or less to the whole of human history. But it was changing just as Malthus cooked up his theory. Today our living standards are around 25 times subsistence — smashed avocado brunch, anyone?
  3. The only way I can think of to rescue some semblance of sense in Krugman’s assertion is to say that by ‘no-one’ he means no-one who matters. But even this is hard to square with the list. He described Max Corden as a great economist in his lecture. And John Hicks is amongst the greatest economists of the twentieth century. So it’s not even economists in the top draw. It seems like a kind of tautological statement that economists who thought about trade in a particular way didn’t see it.

March 31, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Mobile Myki – not available for uni students

  UPDATE: SEE BELOW

  Mobile Myki was made permanent last month. Even though for now it’s only available on Android phones, it’s great that it’s increased the options for public transport ticketing.

  So if you’re a senior (60+) and you want to use Mobile Myki?

  No problem – grab your Android phone with NFC, install Google Pay and load it up.

  If you’re a tech-savvy tertiary student, with a PTV Tertiary Student Concession Card, and you want to use Mobile Myki?

  Not so fast! It turns out only a few specific types of concession fare can be used with Mobile Myki.

  The following concession categories are currently available as a Mobile myki:

  – Child (Code CH) – customers aged 16-18 years only;
  – Victorian Seniors Card holders (Code VS);
  – General Concession (Code GC) – Interstate Seniors Card and Interstate Pensioner Concession Card holders only.

  For all other concession categories, Mobile myki is not currently available, and another type of concession ticket must be used.

  – PTV Fares and Ticketing Manual 2019, page 12

  This is not an April Fools joke.

  Apart from tertiary students, Health Care Card holders are also excluded from the list, as well as some other types of concessions. Children under 16 are excluded, perhaps because Google Pay needs to be linked to a valid credit or debit card.

  Why is this? I don’t know, but I’ll see if I can find out.

  Given it works fine with Visa and Mastercard debit cards, there should be no concerns about the use of credit cards for low income earners.

  Maybe there’s a good reason. But it seems completely illogical to exclude a huge number of tech savvy public transport users who happen to use concession fares.

  UPDATE Monday 5:30pm: The government has been in contact to advise that tertiary and other concession card holders can use Mobile Myki, by choosing the “General concession” option in the app. It appears the Fares And Ticketing Manual, normally the bible for these types of issues, is incorrect – perhaps the new Mobile Myki information was added in a hurry.

• Daniel Bowen Old photos from March 2009

  Here’s another one of my regular posts of ten year old photos.

  That month I upgraded to a Nokia N95 phone, which took far better photos than its predecessor, the Nokia 6230i.

  Swanston Street opposite the City Square – the old pre-platform tram stops. I’d actually been trying to take a photo of my London Oyster card with the trams in the background. The camera consistently failed to get the Oyster card in focus, but the crowds packing onto the trams are probably more interesting to look at now. (Remember, this was before the Free Tram Zone was instituted.)

  

  At the time I regularly used Glenhuntly Station some days, after dropping the kids at school. Here’s the outbound platform one morning…

  

  …and the level crossing in the afternoon.

  

  Easter was approaching. In Centre Road we see a rather cruel way to treat the Easter bunny.

  

  Supermarket trolley as art? As in the photo above, the level crossing (now gone) is in the background. It also appears at the time that Telstra didn’t take great care to keep their payphones clean. This is also adjacent to the old electorate office of then state member for Bentleigh, Rob Hudson.

  

  A trip to the Yarra Trams control centre, then in Eastern Road, South Melbourne. I’m not sure these days that they’d let me take a photo.

  

  Footscray station, before 2009-2010 pedestrian bridge upgrade, and before the Regional Rail Link added two extra tracks (and resulted in the upgraded bridge being partly demolished so it could be extended). These photos were taken for an April Fools Day gag.

  

  

  I must have been up early this morning. Hot air balloons over the City.

  

  I went to the Grand Prix. I have little interest in Formula 1 cars – I went to see The Who perform after the race. Here we have trams to the GP departing from outside Southern Cross Station.

  

  I wandered around the GP circuit waiting for the concert to start. I’d have to admit the cars are impressive from an ear-splittingly-loud and very fast perspective.

  

  The Who was excellent.

  While the tram shuttles back into the City were very good, those heading outwards were less impressive (this is St Kilda Junction), and the rest of the network was running its standard poor Sunday night frequencies, so I had to wait ages for a train home. The next day I got this point into Hansard.

  

March 27, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Private operator, private profits

  My blog’s RSS feed has been having problems. This has also affected some email subscribers. I think I’ve found the problem, so hopefully both are working again now.

  Just a quick post:

  The Age and Herald Sun reported yesterday that Metro Trains Melbourne made an annual profit of $29 million, on $786 million of revenue — despite still regularly missing punctuality targets.

  I’m not sure the fact that they’re taking a profit is really a surprise. They’re a private company, and they wouldn’t be in this game otherwise.

  Is the 3.6% profit high, or low, for a company earning $786m in revenue per year? I dunno.

  Metro Trains is defending winning a big pay rise from the taxpayer, while delivering services below official targets. The Hong Kong based company missed targets for running trains on time in most of the past 14 months. @BrendanDonohoe7 #7NEWS pic.twitter.com/xr12Sb7p72

  — 7NEWS Melbourne (@7NewsMelbourne) March 27, 2019

  Of course, if Metro misses targets, a lot of the blame should really be on the poor state of rail infrastructure – owned by the government. Upgrades are finally happening, but that follows decades of neglect.

  I think the broader question is whether the taxpayer is getting value for money overall from the train network (regardless of whether the operator is private or public).

  I’m particularly concerned that there’s such a huge amount of infrastructure/fleet investment (capex), as well as the fees to the operators (opex), but the service provision still has a strong concentration on commuter peaks.

  This means that a lot of the assets are only being fully used for a few hours a day, despite strong travel demand at other times (both on the roads and on the trains).

  

  A moderate increase in opex would provide for all-day high frequencies (eg most stations with trains at least every 10 minutes for most of the day) that make much more effective use of the overall spend, and better match current travel demand by making the system so much more useful for people.

  How much money are we talking about? One estimate I’ve seen is $100m per year. To put that in perspective, that’s about the same cost as the 2015 fare changes that capped zone 1+2 fares, and introduced the Free Tram Zone.

  While people welcomed the two-zone discount, it’s not clear if it made a big difference to patronage. The Free Tram Zone benefits CBD motorists, and crowds out fare-paying users – it might be a good example of what Chris Hale wrote in The Age last year: a public dollar frittered on fare discounting is invariably a waste, whereas that same dollar invested in better off-peak service gets great results.

  And any increased spend on services would be offset by additional fare revenue from increased patronage, of course.

  The idea that trains only run every 30 minutes after 7pm (and 20-40 minutes in daytime off-peak/weekends, despite crowding) is just crazy for a city of 5 million in the 21st century.

  It’s high time it was rectified.

• Club Troppo Crikey group sub: it’s on again
  

  Put in “Crikey” to DuckDuckGo’s image search (Google is for data donating chumps) and you mostly get Steve Irwin and crocodiles. And Pauline, who, as we speak, is, between takes of Dancing with the Stars, fighting for second amendment rights for terrorists and us law abiding folks, so we can shoot them before they cause too much trouble to our way of life.

  The ClubTroppo Crikey Group sub is on again.

  Please email me on ngruen at G mail if you’d like to participate.

  Please put ‘crikey’ in the subject heading to reduce your chances of your email getting lost in translation

  (All emails are translated – for obvious reasons).

  Those getting a subscription will also be flown First Class to the city of their dreams to meet Camilla Parker Bowles and her fictional Great Aunt Sally Bowles of Goodbye to Berlin for the unveiling of the latest vehicle in ClubTroppo’s Garage of automotive delights.

March 21, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Some thoughts on high speed rail in 2019

  There must be a Federal election coming.

  The Greens have declared their support for funding and building a full fast rail network on the east coast of Australia, serving Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne (as per the official study from a couple of years ago).

  Yesterday Labor made a pledge to get started on buying the corridor for the same network.

  And today the Coalition has pledged $2 billion for fast rail between Melbourne and Geelong – upgrades and additional tracks so that trains run at an average 160 km/h (rather than this being the top speed, as now). The investment would also include business cases for other projects.

  The proposed east coast HSR network

  The study is well worth a read if you’ve never had a look.

  It would run between Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Gold Coast and Canberra would both be served by spur lines. This means compromising on timetable frequency and operations. The study says this design reduces the required station footprints, and speeds up the journey for through trains.

  

  Let’s assume this plan is the most feasible. Fast rail has shown proven benefits in many countries. If all this investment occurred in Australia, it could cut air travel and spark development along the route – at least in the areas served by a station.

  But there’s a catch. There are doubts about HSR’s viability for interstate travel in Australia. Our geography – the distances involved – makes it really difficult.

  Unlike in Europe or Asia, the planned line between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane is, I suspect, with current technology, a bit too long to be really competitive against air travel, with too few large intermediate destinations.

  Will conventional rail technology increase speeds in the coming years? It’s hard to say. Regular service speeds of about 320-350 km/h seem to have been the maximum for about 20 years. (But I’m a terrible futurist.)

  It probably makes sense to reserve the corridors, but I’m less sure about trying to build the whole east coast network right now – especially with such a backlog of public transport projects in major cities and along regional corridors.

  

  What’s most viable right now?

  Rather than try and take on building a full HSR system which might cost tens of billions of dollars with sub-optimal travel time outcomes, what if the most obvious portion, Sydney to Canberra, was the focus for now?

  That’s the sector that’s relatively straightforward. At an expected 64 minutes by train, it is a short enough distance to be competitive with air (55 minutes plus transit time, which could easily be another 30-60 minutes), and long enough to be competitive with road (about 180 minutes).

  There are also fast-paced improving local connections at each end.

  It would be a good first project, and if done well, gain good political support for further extensions or lines elsewhere, thanks to serving Canberra’s politicians.

  To be fair, the study actually said this should be the first section. I’m just not sure the politicians are paying attention.

  Think local and regional

  While we wait for east coast high speed rail, there’s a compelling argument for upgrades to the existing regional lines for intra-state travel (such as Melbourne’s commuter lines to Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Seymour/Shepparton, Gippsland) to get ensure the existing fleet can attain and stick to their maximum speeds for more of their trip: full duplication, for a start, and provision and separation of metro services, especially to Melton and Wyndham Vale.

  In this respect, the Federal Coalition’s pledge today makes some sense. It seems like quite a lot of money for only a moderate time saving – if the train fleet needs to be replaced, should they be aiming for higher speed than average 160/top speed 200?

  Of course, assuming it includes track amplification, there would also be capacity benefits for Melbourne’s west.

  With any of these plans, high speed rail needs to be accompanied by boosts to local public transport connections around the regional stations. If a major rail line is reliant on park and ride, that will severely limit patronage.

  So, as always, excuse my rambling. What I’m trying to say is this:

  A full interstate HSR network along the east coast has a lot of potential… eventually. But I suspect shorter distance projects are probably more viable right now.

  • I see Albo recently claimed that Sydney to Newcastle by train is slower now than 50 years ago. I’d be interested if anybody has fact-checked this claim. Every such claim made in Victoria is invariably wrong.

March 18, 2019

• Club Troppo The Guru recipe

  [I just read a self-help book and, like Don Quixote, need to vent…]

  My 10 rules for becoming a successful guru:

  1. Appear popular at the start: humans are just like dogs that follow other dogs. So have a legion of disciples and followers. Make them up when you start out. Don’t hesitate to hire actors and internet helpers.
  2. Give the audience the keys to the universe: flatter your audience by giving them a story wherein they are the heroes capable of great feats as long as they follow a recipe that you are a part of. A good guru knows the secret worries and desires of his audience and orients his stories towards those. If the audience fears asteroids, spin them a story about how the mind can influence the forces of the cosmos responsible for the trajectory of asteroids. If the audience secretly wants to control the weather, tells them about the magical rain dances. If they want to be healed, tell them your theories cure cancer or whatever else they worry about.
  3. Fit the story within the culture of the audience so that the mechanisms sound familiar and validated. Truth is completely irrelevant for this and is often a hindrance, so you only need to use familiar words and concepts, replacing the actual theories with whatever suits your story. When you talk to a Western audience where science is the source of truth and power, you thus stack your story full of the latest terms in Western science, whether that is gravitational waves, Higgs-Boson particles, intergenerational epigenetic transmissions, blockchain, Modern Monetary Theory, or whatever it is that your audience is likely to have heard of in the news. Use those terms, explain them in a way that is roughly right, and then claim some theory about them that is complete nonsense but suits you.
  4. Do not tax the intelligence of the audience for if they were smart enough to understand all the things you refer to, they wouldn’t be interested in what you had to say in the first place. So explain things in a very light and emotional storytelling manner. Speak of quantum waves as if they are friends with whom you can have a conversation. Talk about the mysticism of the carbon cycle as if your audience was born with the buttons in their hands that ruled the minutest details of that cycle. Your audience will love you for it because it will make them feel they finally understand these things in a way that makes them feel smart and powerful. Indeed, you basically cannot overdo this part: all that happens if you are spectacularly wrong in one story about some part of modern science is that you lose those members of the audience that really know that part, a negligible number.
  5. Set your audience up slowly with a hook: offer them something cheap that draws them in and only when they are in so far that they become slightly dependent on more do you increase the demands on their purses. The key thing here is that the audience will trust you if they want to trust you and hence only after you have managed to create a continued need for your message. This is a subtle game of hints, ‘proof’, personal ‘testimonies’ of your previous disciples, stories of how you really are uninterested in money, etc.
  6. Your appearance is everything so look the part and be seen to believe yourself, ie walk the walk. Whether you truly do is irrelevant because what matters is the appearance. Truth is no obstacle at all. If your audience needs you to have travelled the stars, simply tell them aliens abducted you and took you for a ride. If the audience wants to hear you spent 10 years in a cave in Tibet, then just tell them that is what you did. If they need you to have 100 kids and 50 wives, just make them up. If there is too much well-known information out there to prove you couldn’t possibly have done what your audience wants to believe, pretend you were in contact with someone who did who was your guru and that you are now following in his footsteps. Similarly, dress and behave the way the audience expects you to, whether that means you must have an enormous beard or a weird antenna sticking out of your behind. Remember the important lesson of Machiavelli: people believe what they see and hear. Don’t worry about the very few who look at your actions and deduce who you truly are: they are not into gurus anyways so you lose nothing by not appealing to them. Your potential followers resent such skeptical characters, so they are no threat to you at all (indeed, the more noise skeptics make about you, the better).
  7. Entertain and be charming. You have to make the audience want to be you or sleep with you. If you can’t be entertaining and charming, don’t even start.
  8. Have a bible. If need be, you can have a follower write that bible, but you need a holy book that people can pick over and worship.
  9. Be ambiguous: no two people truly want the same thing. So in order to have many followers you must create enough ambiguity in your story such that they can all believe something different. Like the bible, tell many different sides of the same story such that different members of the audience can buy into different aspects.
  10. Be scarce: a guru is like a Ferrari and must not be seen to be available to everyone because that limits the value to the audience of having one. They want to feel special. So when things take off you must become sparing with your time and your new public utterances. Indeed, the best thing is then to die.
• Club Troppo Scaling knowledge: Should our disciplines have mesh or tree-like relation to each other?

  I’ve just been reading some of Tim Berners-Lee’s Weaving the Web about building the World Wide Web and it put me in mind of Paul Frijters’ recent post on teaching the social sciences. Paul argued that:

  The biggest change needed is to teach the material in terms of basic patterns, with more complex arguments taught later as combinations of basic patterns. Another change needed is to enforce a single language on the entire curriculum. Finally, what is needed is far more use of virtual reality-teaching and field trips so that students experience the phenomena they are meant to understand, unlocking their visual acuity and emotional skills as learning tools. Students should learn with their whole being, not merely with their abstractive capacities.

  Regarding the first two points, ¹Berners-Lee’s frustrations with the world before he changed it seem to mirror Paul’s. He was frustrated with the ‘tree like’ organisation of knowledge ². and wanted to invent a looser, more ‘associative’ form of knowledge architecture which he called ‘mesh’.

  Be that as it may this seems like quite a big deal to me. Indeed, as the internet grew in order to effectively scale it needed to move away from ‘tree-like’ architectures for sending data packets through the net as outlined in this write up of the Border Gateway Protocol (or as us aficionados call it the BGP – some of us have only been aficionados for the last couple of minutes, but we’ll leave that to one side).

  Anyway, the way knowledge started being classified in the 19th century was by discipline. Sometimes a discipline disappeared because it was discredited – as in the case of phrenology. But mostly the disciplines stayed in place and each spawned endless sub-disciplines. The disciplines are tree-like structures of knowledge, sometimes paying obsessive attention to their unitary structure as in the case of micro-foundations in economics and selfish genes as in the case of neo-Darwinism.

  There are occasional cross-overs, as in the case of behavioural science and economics or imaging and psychology or evolutionary psychology for instance. Interdisciplinarity is spoken of at least by some with reverence, but all the disciplinary incentives are against it and the tree-like structures of each discipline remain in place. Thus these crossovers might be likened to rhizomes rather than any real challenge to the tree-like structure of disciplines and plantation like structures of knowledge generally.

  As knowledge has proliferated over the last two centuries, you’d expect some re-architecture of the relations between disciplines, but there’s been no systematic change whatever, and what occasional change there has been, has been limited to ad hoc marriages of sub-disciplines where new technical possibilities present themselves or where exhaustion with the sterility of one discipline sets in and some (usually very limited) reaction is in order. An example of the former is where MRI imaging is now used in psychology and even in philosophy and of the latter is behavioural economics or the empirical or ‘Freakonomic’ turn in economics (though this is also to some extent the response to the new technical possibilities of ‘big data’ and desktop computing).

  1. I won’t comment on his third point other than including it here because of its importance and my strong agreement with it. ↩
  2. The paper proposing that he work on what became the World Wide Web had a heading “The problem with trees” and began “Many systems are organised hierarchically” ↩

March 17, 2019

• Daniel Bowen Metro tunnel and level crossing works

  I was going to blog a few quick things from the past couple of weeks. That post grew too big, so I’m splitting it up…

  Bustitution is coming

  With the number of rail projects underway, it should be no surprise that there seem to be major works happening somewhere, every school holidays.

  In fact for the April school holidays there is so much going on that they’ve scheduled some works to happen beforehand, and labelled it an “autumn construction blitz“.

  The big (weekday) shut downs include:

  • Werribee line (Werribee to Laverton) closed for two days last week for level crossing works at Aviation Road
  • Mernda line (Epping to Bell) for four days next week and then again (Epping to Thornbury) for a week in early April for level crossing works at Reservoir
  • Frankston line (Mordialloc to Frankston) for three days in early April
  • …and the big one: the Frankston and Cranbourne/Pakenham lines (Caulfield to City) will shut for more than two weeks around Easter

  And that’s leaving aside a host of evening and weekend closures affecting numerous other lines, as well as V/Line.

  

  On Friday some detailed bustitution flyers were released. They’re worth a look if you’re on one of the affected lines. You’ll find them via the PTV page or on Metro’s web site.

  One particular unfortunate change from previous shut downs is that recent infrastructure issues at Elsternwick now mean the entire Sandringham line is closed during works, even when they only affect South Yarra.

  As usual, it’s worth checking information before you travel, and considering alternative routes rather than assuming catching the replacement buses is the quickest way to get where you’re going.

  

  Cheltenham and Mentone crossings

  Last week some details of the Cheltenham and Mentone grade separations were released.

  Mentone: One thing I’m less than happy about is that the station entrance will be a long way from the bus interchange. Currently the buses stop right next to the entrance to platform 1.

  

  I hoped this might just be an issue with the artists impression. It’s not.

  Hi, we worked closely with transport agencies on the best location for buses & investigated a range of options. For reasons including not splitting bus stops, we are leaving the interchange where it is. There will be electronic displays to help guide passengers between services.

  — Level Crossings (@levelcrossings) March 15, 2019

  Cheltenham: I haven’t had a close look at this one yet (there’s precious little detail on either, in fact) but they have gone ahead with the plan to include a third platform.

  The existing station has a third platform already. The difference is this one will be connected to the main line from both ends – enabling more operational flexibility. That why there are some references to a “third track” – this will not include an actual third track to Southland (to the north) or Mentone (to the south).

  Dandenong area crossings

  Designs have also been released for South Gippsland Highway at Dandenong South (Pakenham line) and Evans Road in Lyndhurst (Cranbourne line).

  In both cases these are elevated road over rail – sky road!

  

  The problem with road over rail is it’s generally terrible for pedestrians, making them walk a long way in a hostile environment to get over the rail line.

  I don’t know the area well, but this might be more of a factor in Lyndhurst (mostly residential?) more than Dandenong South (mostly industrial?).

  Again, the lack of detail means it’s unclear to me if either of them include bike lanes over the bridges.

  They both seem to only have a pedestrian path on one side of the bridge, and on South Gippsland Highway, it’s not clear where the existing bus stops will be moved.

  If you’ve got feedback about the newly released designs, be sure to send it in via the Level Crossings web site.

• Left Focus The Prospects for Socialism Today
  
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  Dr Tristan Ewins
  
  
  Writing in the Herald-Sun, Chris Collins (11/1/19 ) argues that the Nordic countries have never been “socialist” because they have not conformed to the original Marxist definition of the centralisation of the means of production in state hands. In reality, though, there were always a variety of definitions, and even Marxists themselves have revised their understandings.
  
  
  Socialist aspirations include ending exploitation and the class system ; and reducing inequalities to a fair level. In Marx’s words, to advance the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need’. That should include a strong welfare state and social wage ; involving not only natural public monopolies and strategic state ownership ; but also producers’ and consumers’ co-operatives, democratic funds, and a mix of competition, markets and planning.
  
  
  Socialism also means building an economy focused on ‘use values’. (ie: not just maximising abstract exchange value ; eg: preserving the natural environment) But we’re in a global economy: which means we have to live with the transnational corporations. They are at best ‘a mixed blessing’: at times spurring innovations and job creation ; but also unacceptable inequalities in wealth and power ; as well as collusion, monopolism, planned obsolescence and so on. But also arguably the consequence of bourgeois dominance is that we live in a ‘One Dimensional Society’ where substantially different social alternatives are excluded from mainstream discussion. What’s needed is robust pluralism: where socialism is part of the debate ; and hence a genuine option in the broader context of democracy.
  
  
  In response to writers who attempt to put Swedish Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism in opposition to one another: for key Swedish thinkers and politicians such as Wigforss, Palme, Rehn, Meidner etc the Nordic Model was definitely a kind of socialism. The 'high water mark' was with the Meidner Wage Earner Funds proposals of the 70s and 80s. That marked the end of a 'corporatist consensus' (institutionalised consultation and co-operation) which developed over several decades starting from the 1930s. The model has been in slow retreat since. But its past successes over many decades still give a sense of what is possible.
  
  
  Importantly, the wage earner funds were to be structured in such a way as to compensate workers for prior wage restraint. But the extent of that wage restraint had been such that the funds would eventually deliver economic control to workers over many years. One of the biggest problems with the funds is that they focused on workers alone rather than the broader category of 'citizens'. (hence excluding pensioners for instance) In 1983 Australian Leftists like Laurie Carmichael wanted ‘Nordic Style’ policies in return for wage restraint under the the Government of Bob Hawke and 'The Accord'. Unfortunately nothing of the sort was actually delivered.
  
  
  That said: what kind of state is in a position to deliver on socialism?
  
  
  Leninists are inclined to oppose the ‘liberal bourgeois state’ to the kind of state which existed under the Bolsheviks. A ‘workers’ state’. Trotskyists would argue it had become a ‘degenerated workers’ state’ under the domination of Stalin.
  
  On the other hand, by certain interpretations a genuine workers' state is a democratic state ; where we can interpret 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' as a 'manner of applying democracy' ; the 'democratic dictatorship' of the working class majority. (widely misinterpreted, the term always referred to the democratic rule of the working class as opposed to the rule of a single man such as Stalin) The ultimate aim is to create a ‘pure democracy’ where the state represents all people ; and the class system is permanently transcended. Finally, the State itself is presumed by Marxists to ‘wither away’ with the end of all class divisions and antagonisms. One flaw of this thinking, however, is the presumption that over the long run 'only class antagonisms matter' to such a degree that some kind of state power is necessary either as arbiter ; or to enforce interests.
  
  
  Arguably Sweden enjoyed a decades-long 'equilibrium in the class struggle' or otherwise what Korpi called a 'democratic class struggle'. Where the class struggle was in some ways 'institutionalised' between social democrats, unions, employers. Concessions were made based on ‘the balance of class forces’ ; but open escalation of conflict was avoided as being in no-one’s interest. Then in the 1970s and 80s the Social Democrats and the LO (‘Landsorganisationen’ ; or Swedish Trade Union Confederation) attempted to assert their democratic leverage to achieve previously unheard of economic redistribution and democratisation. Again: even with over 80% unionisation coverage they still failed. And Social Democracy has been on the defensive there largely ever since. If anything, this gives an idea just how difficult the struggle can be.
  
  What we need is a democratic state which is not a medium for direct OR indirect bourgeois rule. Nicos Poulanztas wrote about a 'logic of the class struggle' which 'imprinted itself upon the state field'. I'm not a structuralist (as Poulantzas was) ; but in a way that makes sense. The state tends to defend bourgeois interests ; but not totally. It is not a 'simple instrument'. It is much more complex than that. Rather, it has its own internal contradictions and internal struggles. What we need is a state which is fully committed to the implications of democracy: as opposed to the direct or indirect rule of the bourgeoisie.
  
  The problem is that capitalism is supported by a clear majority of states ; as well as by the transnationals which are an expression of and foundation for global bourgeois dominance. Even assuming a state which breaks POLITICAL bourgeois dominance at a local level ; there are still the remainder of bourgeois states internationally; and global bourgeois economic power ; and economic co-dependence.
  
  
  Think about revolutionary France. The Revolution was diverted into Bonapartism. (the rule of the French Emperor, Napoleon I) And eventually with the Congress of Vienna there was total Restoration of the "Ancien Regime" in France, and the consolidation of monarchies and their traditional bloodlines elsewhere in Europe. Liberal Democracy did not really take hold through much of the world until the Bolsheviks put much of the European bourgeoisie under such pressure as to implement the crucial concession of universal suffrage. This had long been a key Social Democratic and Marxist demand. We're talking about a period spanning over 100 years. (throughout which we had other revolutions and struggles ; eg: 1830, 1848, 1871) Thereafter the bourgeoisie and its representatives have spent another 100-odd years thinking of ways to divide the working class against itself to prevent it from realising the potential of the suffrage. The splintering of the working class culturally and economically has made it increasingly hard to realise the solidarity we need to bring about the change we want. Narratives on ‘political correctness’ and ‘left elites’ have just this effect ; and sometimes by neglecting class interests we play into the bourgeoisie’s hands.
  
  
  Critics of socialism often declare that they don’t want ‘statism’ or state domination. And this they associate with socialism. Well, no - we don't want Stalinist-style 'statism'. (though I hate the term 'statism' as it is commonly used to stigmatise any place for the state ; even a democratic state) But 'wresting capital by degrees' from the bourgeoisie still sounds like a good idea - if done properly – and if only it were possible. The problems of exploitation and economic polarisation still demand our attention as practical and moral questions. And after all, radical redistribution of wealth is what the Swedes were attempting with the Meidner wage earner funds in the 1970s and 1980s .
  
  Arguably the Mixed Economy represents progress towards that goal. Though the ‘mixed economy’, social wage and welfare state can be supported by far more ‘moderate’ forces who want nothing more over the long term than to ameliorate inequality and ‘save capitalism from itself’.
  
  
  "Wresting capital by degrees" from the bourgeoisie can imaginably involve a mix of public, co-operative and other democratic ownership - as opposed to 'Stalinist Statism'. But the process cannot be finished because bourgeois interests reinforce each other globally. Currently, there is no (acceptable) ‘way out’ of capitalism. But if we mobilise we can at least force compromises which are in workers' and citizens' interests. And we can convince the bourgeoisie that compromise is sometimes in its own interests. (again ; 'saving capitalism from itself') For example: natural public monopolies can reduce cost structures not just for citizens/consumers/workers – but also for business. And a state-owned savings and loans bank (with a charter promoting competition and ethical banking) could inject competition into the sector of benefit both to business, and to most ordinary people.
  
  
  Importantly - forcing compromise through struggle is in some ways more involved than just 'gaming the system'. Over the long term who knows what's possible? Again: think about Revolutionary France - and the hegemony of liberal democracies which only finally arose more than 100 years later. We can only hope it will not take a catastrophe such as the First World War was to provide enough impetus to drive qualitative change ; to challenge the class system and the ‘defacto rule’ of Capital.
  
  If anything the Global Financial Crisis gave a sense of capitalism’s enduring instability ; and that (should another crisis occur) radical interventions may be necessary ‘to save the system from itself’. But public dissatisfaction with “bailouts at the peoples’ expense” may drive strategic socialisations sooner than we think.
  
  
  Socialism is not ‘inevitable’ as the old Marxist Centrists used to insist. We cannot anticipate all the policy innovations which may help ‘save the system from itself’. But over the long term a more generalised breakdown cannot be ruled out either. Socialists need to stand prepared for all manner of contingencies. Global organisation and dialogue are necessary to best prepare for those contingencies. That means not responding to discourse on ‘globalisation’ as an excuse for defeatism. It means working out the possibilities of domestic social democracy/democratic socialism ; but also building the organisation and dialogue necessary to give rise to internationalist responses. The current Socialist International is not an effective vehicle for this. Can it be reformed? Or do we need new forms of international organisation and dialogue?

March 14, 2019

• Club Troppo Review of Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline: Guest Post from Simon Molloy

  Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline could upend our thinking about our future of planet Earth with far reaching implications for policy on climate change, immigration and border control, defence, education, child care, and jobs, to name just a few.

  In the face of Hollywood’s habitual dystopianism we have become inculcated with familiar mantras: we are facing a global population crisis, humans are a plague on the planet, we are poisoning the Earth and so on.

  These population mantras are wrong. Not just wrong; diametrically wrong, according to the book’s Canadian authors, Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs, and journalist, John Ibbitson. They say, “We do not face the challenge of a population bomb but a population bust”.

  Based on extensive research aimed at assessing the trajectory of global fertility rates, they argue that “one of the great defining events of human history will occur in three decades, give or take, when global population starts to decline. Once that decline begins, it will never end”.

  Even before the arrival of Bricker and Ibbitson’s new work, the population pessimists were overstating their claims. The UN forecasts that population will peak at around 11 billion in 2100 then settle into gentle decline.

  But Bricker and Ibbitson assert that the UN has got it wrong. Their investigations suggest that fertility rates are falling much more rapidly around the globe than the UN thinks.

  They point out that populations are already declining in two dozen countries – by 2050 it will be three dozen. Japan’s population is expected to fall from 127 million to 95 million by 2053! They say that global population will peak at about 9 billion or less between 2040 and 2060 – a lower and earlier peak than the UN predicts. They also say population post-peak will decline much more quickly that conventionally thought.

  Their conclusions are based on published statistics and a series of interviews on every continent supplemented by recent survey data about planned family size.

  It has long been known that increasing per capita incomes, economic development and urbanisation led to declining fertility. But in developing countries, fertility rate declines appear to be running well ahead of what could be expected on the basis of their stage of economic development. Why? The answer is female education and information technology. Female school enrolment is rising rapidly and access to information is exploding. Women are being better educated younger, both formally and informally, than ever before. As a result, they are choosing to have fewer babies.

  Interviewing a group of women from a slum outside New Delhi, Bricker and Ibbitson report, “From time to time, the women reach under their robes and glance at a backlit screen. Even in the slums of Delhi, women can access a smartphone, a carrier plan, and a network. Even in the slums of Delhi, they hold the sum of human knowledge in their hands”.

  The authors dismiss claims that religion and culture dominate other drivers of fertility rates. Claims that, for example, Muslim countries, have higher fertility rates than elsewhere due to religious factors can’t be sustained. The 2010-15 fertility rates for Iran, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Bahrain and Kuwait are all at replacement (2.1) or below and are probably continuing the fall. Developed Muslim countries have low fertility rates just like non-Muslim developed countries. They also argue that immigrates adopt their new homes’ birth rates in one or, at most, two generations.

  Economics and education trump religion. Remember when Catholics used to have big families? This is another reason to prioritise education, connectivity and economic development on the global agenda.

  What does this mean for governments and policy in Australian and elsewhere in the world? It changes almost everything.

  On climate change, other things remaining equal, falling population means we can be less worried. The costs associated with any set of carbon mitigation policies are less justified in the face of lower projected population. Bricker and Ibbitson point out that “if the UN’s low variant [population growth] model played out, relative emissions would decline by 10 percent by 2055 and 35 percent by 2100.”

  Notwithstanding the tragedy and visibility for refugees fleeing war, the long-run trend of immigration is downwards. This is because of falling birth rates in developing countries but also because of rising incomes there – there will be fewer people with fewer reasons to leave. Immigrants will become scarcer and, as any economist will tell you, this means their value will rise. Countries will, in future, compete with each other to attract a diminishing supply of immigrants to shore up their falling populations. Countries will compete on the basis of their average incomes, quality of life, and the successfulness of immigrant integration.

  Governments will, no doubt, attempt to raise domestic fertility rates. In other countries, the authors report, such efforts are very costly and only very marginally successful. As average incomes rise, the opportunity costs associated with having children do likewise. Perhaps one of the outcomes of population decline will be the emergence of a comprehensive accounting of the costs of child-rearing for parents. These costs include, not only all the usual expenses, but the enormous child-related detriments to career paths, borne mainly by women. A ‘baby bonus’ of, let’s say, $20,000 – per year – anyone? Maybe more.

  Population decline is likely to lead to geopolitical instability. Bricker and Ibbitson says that, following its disastrous one child policy and its prohibition of immigration, China’s population could be, astonishingly, as low as 650 million by 2100 if its fertility rates fall in line with those in Hong Kong and Singapore at 1.0 or lower. The associated changes in economic and military power will redefine strategic priorities.

  Economic growth will be slower. AI, rather than being a threat to jobs, may come just in time to complement a shrinking workforce. The economic and social consequences are too complex to predict.

  And what of the collective psychological implications? It’s one thing to recite platitudes about the ‘human plague’ but it’s entirely another, and somewhat chilling, prospect to contemplate a shrinking human footprint on Earth with no end in sight.

  Bricker and Ibbitson’s ideas are a huge reset on thinking about the future, presenting a radical vision of the most important parameter that there is – the number of us that there are.

  Simon Molloy is an Australian economist who consults on telecommunications and technology in Australia and the developing world. He is Managing Director of consultancy, System Knowledge Concepts Pty Ltd.