This will hurt me...

Having been privy to some rather frank updates on current budget estimates, I think that the low cost option may be more popular in the coming years... [Thanks, of course, to the good folks at Married to the Sea .]

Here is a photo of Tasmania Police's Hobart HQ right in the middle of town. Following on from the earlier post, ABC radio have had a story on loop all day saying how I have “ criticised ” Tasmania Police’s decision to utilise sniffer dogs at an upcoming music festival. I guess that I have, but I thought that what I offered was far more constructive than. I’d like to think that I have an excellent working relationship with the local constabulary. I certainly think that they do a good job more generally. But the thing with the gigs and the sniffer dogs is that it just isn’t very effective. The ABC quoted Tasmanian Police as saying they have a “no tolerance” rule for all drug users at the festival, but that doesn’t fit with how they deal with drug users in a general sense. Public policy is not a neat, simple business, and it generally doesn’t fit with black and white visions of how things work, so in this sense, I don’t envy the police when it comes to something like drug use. The law...

Occasionally this job throws up a few interesting studies my way, and I thought that I’d share one with you. I’m preparing a document for a hearing on a liquor licensing application, and was trawling the literature looking for information on the correlation between outlet density and community outcomes (negative and positive). So the case study that I’ve been looking at involves Rodney King, angry youths and a burning sensation that one might feel downstairs after a top night out. I know what you are thinking, “what are you talking about, you stupid, stupid man?” Well, after the 1992 riots in Los Angeles that emerged from the verdict in the trial of the police officers charged with assaulting Rodney King, it was found that many liquor stores were looted and burned out. In fact, liquor outlets tended to be specifically targeted, and copped over and above the average when it came to rough treatment. For many local community groups this presented an opportunity to achieve something that ...

Apologies for the late posting today, but I was otherwise occupied out at Hobart’s TECHNOPARK with the bigwigs from HQ, looking to solve all of the problems in our small part of the world. Unsurprisingly, my easy-going and gregarious nature (coupled with the tendency towards being an opinionated know-it-all) ensured that I was chosen as spokesperson for a number of the ‘breakout’ groups. This is just what you want when you’re on famine rations of sleep due to a new baby. I’d like to think that I battled manfully through the pain. However, I do not want to talk about that this evening. I want to talk about the TECHNOPARK . I know what you must be thinking, but no, the TECHNOPARK is not some sort of supersized converted cattle shed cramming in the kids and pumping in equal parts bitchin’ beats, strobe lights and a cocktail of ketamine, ecstasy, methamphetamine laced with generous dosages of Viagra. No that’s not what the TECHNOPARK is about. [That said, a touch of this may have livene...

A number of days ago I spoke about a concept often used in teaching political science called The Tragedy of the Commons . To illustrate, I used one of my stock examples, that of whaling. Today, I could not help but photograph another of my hoard of examples to demonstrate public policy problems, which may be more readily apparent to people the world over. The building in which my office is located houses a number of businesses. Each floor of the converted warehouse has a small kitchenette, shared between offices. There are just three offices on the top floor, ours; a barrister/solicitor office; and an IT crowd who seems to do some sort of animation. As one might expect, the barrister and staff are all very neat and tidy, and for the most part our lot buy their lunch and don’t really use the kitchenette. I do, however, enjoy an instant coffee on a cold morning, so regularly use the kettle. That is generally the extent of my usage. The IT crowd, predictably, consists of a group of young,...

I have taught political science to hundreds of undergraduates over the years (don't I sound old?) One of the things that I have most enjoyed talking about is both the challenge and beauty of the public policy process. One of the most common misunderstandings about public policy is the assumption that problems will inevitably have solutions that are one hundred percent effective. The reality, of course, is that every potential solution will generate new problems that they themselves must be responded to. Thus, the public policy process is better viewed as cyclical rather than linear. This has always been the problem of some of the dialecticians that I have met. Perhaps indicative of the circles that I have frequented, they are often, although not always, of the Marxian variety. Last night, I was presented with one such example. The photograph above demonstrates both the success and failure of a response to a problem. Problem Heavily pregnant mother is tired and sore. Solution Hot ba...

This is just a very quick post on matters of public policy. I wanted to voice my ongoing displeasure with the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and their seeming inability to separate self-interest with the interests of Australians more broadly. I think (actually, I know), the key thing that frustrates me with this organisation is their constant refrain that “we care, we’re doctors, we help people” as if they practice their profession out of the goodness of their heart. Don’t come the raw prawn fellas, doctors are actually pretty well compensated for the hours that they work. They also work in what must be the most highly protected industry in the entire country. There would be unions across the country that would love having the power to bully and intimidate ‘bosses’ in the way that the AMA regularly does. Anyway, I am glad that we are starting to have this debate . I can only hope that the fact that the AMA appears to have ‘ declared war ’ on the Commonwealth Government might mean...

If there is one thing guaranteed to get my goat, it is the continuing tendency of people – often people employed in the media – to immediately blame the state of the road for fatalities. You know what people; highways don’t lurk about in the dark, plotting and scheming before cunningly setting about to “ claim victims ”. If the road DOES happen to be dodgy, show more bloody caution! On this theme, it is about time we got rid of this word ‘accident’ from the reporting of car crashes. Someone falling asleep at the wheel and running headlong into another car is not an ‘accident’. Someone four times over the legal limit flying off a cliff because they can no longer see straight is not an ‘accident’. Someone doing 175 kilometres an hour in an 80 zone losing control and hitting a wall is not an ‘accident’. To my mind, an ‘accident’ is a quite specific, identifiable, unexpected and unusual external event, without apparent or deliberate cause but with marked effects. The person that drives...

I was playing with some numbers yesterday that came across my desk and fed into the Department of Health and Human Services State of Public Health 2008 report and was surprised by a little quirk that I really hadn’t thought about. Now, we probably are all intrinsically aware of the clear divergence in health status between the most disadvantaged and most advantaged groups in our society. Statistically, lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with higher disability levels and higher premature death rates. Low SES – whichever way you choose to measure it: income, educational attainment or occupation – means poorer health, a higher incidence of chronic conditions and higher levels of health care utilisation. Moreover, health inequalities do not just indicate disadvantage, they tend to drive further disadvantage. Now for those who do not know, Tasmania – for a lot of historical, geographical, economic and sociological reasons – trails the rest of the country (bar the Northern Terri...

I am not sure the extent to which the world has been exposed to current art versus child porn debate that has been raging all week in Australia. I have been mulling over whether to post some thoughts on the current debate over the exhibition of Australian photographer Bill Henson . The Prime Minister has had his say , as had the art crowd . As is always so very useful, they appear to have set their tents in polar opposition to each other. I have not commented mainly because I have not really had the time to devote to expressing myself with the clarity that I would like. As might be expected, venturing into the mine field that is a discussion that pits the notions of ‘artistic merit’ and ‘contextuality’ versus ‘the rights of the child’ and the legislative and judicial protection of minors is not one that I want to go in half arsed (not that this has stopped many commentators!) Moreover, my footing is not too sure when I venture into the legal notions that appear to underwrite the shu...

As an unapologetic man of science, I am (of course), an enthusiast of immunisation. Whatever the standpoint that I try to attack it from – historian, scientist, logician, economist, philosopher, parent or just plain old gambler working the odds off the pure metrics that we have – I can come to no other conclusion that immunisation has been a boon to human society. As it is my blog, I can assert this with total and utter unyielding authority. In this manner then, I always find that the best World Health Organisation campaigns are those that are blunt and to the point. Thus, I really, really like this immunisation campaign poster from 1975. I apologise for the poor quality of the image, but the pictures should be clear. Here we see two new mothers, one trusts the health worker and chooses to immunise her child. The second is not so sure and chooses to not do so. Of course, baby number one now has a glowing protective halo, and baby number two does not. When disease strikes (as it inevit...

Over the past few years I have heard a reasonably famous quote from a controversial character being bandied around by people as an example of political nonsense. Without wanting to get drawn into the relative merit (or otherwise) of one Donald Rumsfeld, I cannot help but feel that he gets a raw deal on this score. You see, I have never really understood why people think it is nonsense. I am not sure whether my brain is hardwired to think in a convoluted and ambiguous way (it could be true, I have been accused of this, and I have also spent time locked in rooms with French post-modern feminist thinkers), but from the moment that I heard it, I couldn't see the fuss made about the quote. it seemed to make perfect sense to me right off the bat. Let's go over the quote again before I move on: ...there are known "knowns". There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also un...

I have strenuously avoided talking about the Australian Commonwealth’s Budget that was ‘handed down’ this week . It is obviously an important one, being the ALP’s first of this term, but went pretty much along with the script. Incoming social democratic governments have generally played it safe in their first budgets over the past twenty years in the Anglo-European context, so there was nothing too hair-raising or surprising. What does frustrate me (although not nearly as much as it frustrates Jen), is the tendency these days for every kind of interest group , business and indeed individual to come out and bemoan how much worse off they are than everybody else and how unfair it is because they personally did not come off better. You know what people, it doesn't always have to be about you . Anyway, I just wanted to say that and then link to Mark Bahnisch at Lavartus Prodeo , who has bothered to say in greater depth what I have been thinking, but don't have the time to writ...

As a self-confessed lover of the hills hoist , I can only say that I am bemused by this story in the Sydney Morning Herald coming out the US. The notion that drying one's washing in the sun and fresh air would constitute an act of civil disobedience is insane to me, especially if you factor in the whole kerfuffle concerning human-influenced global warming. The article is well worth a read, and cites New York State, Vermont and New Hampshire as states which limit your ability to dry clothes outside. I particularly like that last line quoting Vermont Senator Richard McCormack: "I so love my country. But I look at [it] from time to time and say to myself, 'This place is insane'." I would be interested to hear how people manage to dry their washing where you are, and if you live in any of the places mentioned, were you aware of these laws? I mean, do people just get on an ignore it and dry their clothes any way they like, or are people actually punished?

I have been dismayed to read much of the comment around the Commonwealth’s plan to raise taxation on ‘alcopops’ in an effort to curb the risks associated with binge drinking. While there should be no surprise that the opposition have rubbished it and alcohol industry groups are unhappy , the general critiques that I've seen are very poor. As ever, of the commentaries, the Herald Sun leads the way in outrage . One that really got me riled up (enough to post about it here), was a piece in Crikey titled ‘ Voodoo tax policy on alcopops ’. In it, Bernard Keane speaks of ‘handwringers’ and ‘wowsers’ with a set against kids having fun. He claims that “we’ve still yet to see any evidence that binge drinking is now any worse than in the past”, and makes particular note that the tax ‘attacks’ young women unequally. In not sure where he has been looking, but a quick note of the stats around alcohol-related hospital admissions, alcohol-related family incidents (mostly domestic violence), al...

I wanted to say something about Pru Goward's 'interesting' public comments on paid maternity leave of late. Aside from an unhealthy self-indulgence – in that any model bar her own is seemingly unacceptable – it makes some rather awkward assumptions about what it means to be a feminist. At any rate, I wanted to say something about it but haven't had the time. Fortunately though, Kim at Larvatus Prodeo has done so, and expanded into some of the margins of the maternity leave debate that also interest me. It may also interest you, so if so, pop along and have a gander!

Today’s ad is companion piece to very first one I posted. To be honest with you, there’s not much I can add to the wise words of the Soda Pop Board of America. Click on the picture and read the blurb. I wonder whether this would this pass muster for those advocating new laws on junk food advertising.

Unlike DMX, I've heard of him. And I know that the guy has admirable qualities, and I know that it's very much against the trend (at least the global trend), but I just don't get the whole Barack Obama thing. I know what it means for people to have a viable African-American candidate, and I know that many Americans appear to be looking to make a statement that the US is capable of choosing a 'progressive' and more articulate alternative to the current occupant of the White House. But Obama? He just leaves me cold. For a while I wasn't sure what it was that left me that way. And then it clicked. I've figured out what it is that makes me unsure about Barack Obama. No, not the cult-like behaviour of some of his followers (although that too freaks me out a bit, but it's not unknown in US politics). What turns me off is who he reminds me of when I hear him speak. And who is that, you may well ask. Johnathon Livingston Seagull . That's who. And if you re...

Back on the bad public policy bandwagon, I'll be interested to see where the Rudd government goes with regards to the baby bonus. Despite the fact that Jen and I are sitting on a nice little earner come August, I think that it is yet another good example of terrible public policy from the Howard government. There is no real social or economic rationale to the policy (in its present form), and really stands out as a crude inducement to win votes. These are generally where the most obvious public policy failures occur.   Thus, I was interested to read this piece by Professor Joshua Gans on his Core Economics website . In it, he argues that the bonus can be eliminated with little political cost. It is an interesting take on how government might phase out the bonus, and if there is one thing to be learned from the media's appalling presentation of the issue of carers' bonus payments, the purging of previous government's bad policies ('inducements') will have to be ...

In the most depressingly predictable manner, bad public policy has won the day again. I can't say that I blame the government, but in their pursuit of a 'fair go for carers', the media's simplistic bombast has only extended a less efficient, more expensive means of delivering what ultimately is a small amount of money. The most shameful part of the whole thing is how wholly unsurprising it has been.