AMMA National Conference

It gives me great pleasure to officially open AMMA’s 2013 National Conference here at the Melbourne Crown Convention Centre.
My former political opponent Paul Keating once stated that, “If you are not living in Sydney, you are camping out”. He got that wrong.
In 2012 The Economist magazine rated Melbourne as the most liveable city in the world. The good news is that our new Premier Denis Napthine and his dynamic new Treasurer Michael O’Brien are in the business of supporting the growth in Melbourne’s population with record levels of new infrastructure. And, in contrast to the fiscal shambles in Canberra, they have done so whilst keeping the State’s triple A rating and a surplus. With our world class galleries and the birthplace of Australian Rules football, I am sure you will enjoy your time here in this international sporting and cultural centre.
It is my pleasure to pay tribute to the policy leadership that AMMA has provided with distinction for resource employers since 1918. This legacy of 95 years places AMMA amongst the most experienced industry groups in the land.  AMMA’s steadfast voice for industry is a valuable mainstay in the public debate and makes a significant contribution to our country. I also pay tribute to your members like the iron ore companies in WA who took up the options of individual agreements under WA law and then under the Howard governments reforms in 1996. Your industry demonstrated that harmonious relations between employers and employees can provide win/win outcomes for everyone and that AWAs worked well in your sector. Your industry demonstrated that under the Howard IR policies you could make irrelevant the unions approach of “them and us”.  And on top of those achievements you also showed how a great industry can provide real jobs for indigenous Australians. To AMMA and its members, I say you are an industry that all Australians can be proud of.
The work you do on workplace relations is more important than ever. It is at the heart of good economic policy. As Paul Krugman said famously "productivity isnt everything but in the long run it is nearly everything". And as Gary Banks (Chairman of the Productivity Commission) said at the end of 2012 "…..productivity begins in the workforce".
So that is why I can’t say I was happy with the Coalitions IR policy. But I was not surprised and the only consolation for a very limited policy is the reality that if Labor were to be re-elected then the situation would be even worse than it is today.
Abbott's policy (P4) starts with this endorsement of Julia Gillard's legislation “A Coalition Government will keep the Fair Work framework...."
In other words, Abbott’s policy is basically Labor's policy. Abbott says Fair Work has 'many positive aspects' so his policy is to deal with 'some problems'. In other words, Abbott's policy is a series of band aids.
But there are some useful band aids including a return to the right of entry provisions as originally promised by Julia Gillard and the resurrection of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. (I now note that Labor’s budget has cut funding for Labor’s paler version (FEWBC) of the ABCC by $6m pa so Joe will have to find that). The measures to tackle “strike first, talk later”, the proposals to review the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal” and the intention to “put productivity on the agenda” are worthwhile aspirations.
The attempt to confront the pro union bias of existing greenfields agreements is also laudable although proposing more arbitral powers is unfortunate. Arbitration is a step back into the past. Under Howard, the direction of policy was for a system based on minimum standards but now both sides want to provide arbitration for some of the highest paid workers in the economy. To me, that is unacceptable.
Two other measures ; one for bullying and one for an appellate jurisdiction within the Commission have some rationale but personally I’d prefer to see a smaller Commission not a costly  burgeoning bureaucracy meddling even more.  I commend the move to tighten up union governance including penalties that are the same for companies and directors.
The proposed IFAs (Individual Flexibility Agreements) are nothing like the Australian workplace agreements that were used by over 1.4 million people in the Howard years and of course AWAs were introduced well before WorkChoices. In Western Australia, a large proportion of workers in the mining industry enjoyed high wages on individual agreements and employers found they dramatically reduced the incidence of industrial action and strikes.
And as you know better than I, the mining industry is a prime example of where a reliable supply of product is crucial to the negotiation of contracts with foreign investors – if supply can be guaranteed, a premium price may be able to be secured. AWAs worked and we need them back in your industry.
Also in the policy is the proposed paid parental leave. It is wrong in principle because it is well beyond minimum conditions and anyway we can’t afford a new tax when government policy should be to reduce tax on business. On the same theme of more costs, Labor’s massive budget tax hit on the exploration industry will be a huge blow to Australia’s future prosperity.
Australia has lost a lot of its competitive position in the last few years. We can’t afford to fall further behind. There is currently over $300 billion of investment under consideration in the Australian resource industry. Our policy makers don’t seem to realise that the $300 billion is not all guaranteed to come online. With this week’s budget deficit shambles and uncertainty remaining in the global economy, shoring up our resources investment should be a very high priority of both sides of politics to ‘future-proof’ our nation.
 According to a recent Reserve Bank paper your industry accounts for over 1.1 million Australian jobs, both directly and indirectly. That is more jobs than manufacturing, as many as in retail, and twice as many as in tourism. You are not asking for a billion dollars to keep you afloat you only ask that the government does not make you uncompetitive.
With the Coalition now committed to delay any further consideration of major reform until after the 2016 election, we are entering a dark period of at least five years for those who want Australia to have a modern labour market suited for a modern economy. The Coalition’s decision to adopt a band aids approach for now is a purely political decision. Regardless of that decision, the need for reform remains a high priority for pursuing more jobs and higher living standards.
I say to your industry, it is vital that you keep up the pressure for change. Do not let up on the issues; individual agreements, protected industrial action, adverse action, the details on trade union right of entry and greenfield agreement making, penalty rates, unfair dismissal, paid parental leave and anything else that undermines your right to manage your business in a private sector economy. Keep up the fight for your business but also for the Australian community.
I believe the public will be looking to the business community to take the lead. In the last three years you did what was asked of you. You gave government and opposition the evidence to justify reform but they turned a blind eye. Now business needs a new more aggressive approach. You need to be campaigning from October. The unions are always campaigning – you need to do the same.
And for Tony Abbott, the more the public realise the disastrous state of the budget the more they will expect the Coalition to advocate real solutions.
So as soon as the September election is over, assuming Abbott wins, I urge you to press the government to act quickly in giving the Productivity Commission (PC) its reference on workplace reforms. A double dissolution is possible on the carbon tax and mining tax bills so the government will have many distractions in its first months but that should not delay the PCs work. Business should be offering a draft of the terms of reference to the government. In addition, it will be important that the PC report is handed to the government within 18 months so that if an early election is ever called the government will have no excuse for not having a real policy at the next election. The other point is the importance of the PC appointing the right people to conduct the review. The new head of the PC might or might not have the same enthusiasm for IR reform as his predecessor so the appointment of more than one commissioner would be reassuring as well as practical given the size of the task.
The terms of reference need to reflect the reality that Australia competes globally for skills, technology and limited investment capital – something all too clear to you as a resource industry audience. Australia cannot afford to allow complacency to let us lose our competitive edge. And we would be negligent to think that we can only win support for reform by waiting until things get so bad that only then might we address our economic inadequacies.
Good policy equals good politics. Ask Gillard or Swan – their failure as economic managers as demonstrated in this week’s budget will be the final nail in their political coffins.
The trouble with a lot of today's politics is that too many people start by worrying about the politics before they consider the merits of good policy. The better approach is to first focus on what would make good policy and then worry about how to manage the politics.
And don’t anyone tell me that reform is too difficult. Abbott’s win in the September election will be as much about getting rid of Labor as it will be about the alternative policies. But once in government, Abbott will find that the quality of his management including vital IR reform will determine his future. And in that regard the sooner he fixes the IR system the longer he will last as PM.
 What the current Coalition needs to remember is that the WorkChoices ‘bogeyman’ is nothing new. The bogeyman was alive and well in the period leading up to the '96 election but we never walked away from labour market reform.
If you have a good policy you can win the debate.
In the months leading up to the 1996 election, the Coalition was constantly taking the fight up to the Keating government on workplace reform. We won that debate because we never gave up on our small business constituency, and equally we never gave way on supporting reforms that were vital such as those in the resource industry. At no stage did John Howard announce that he would not have individual agreements. We managed the policies and won the politics. And we did the same with the GST and on the waterfront. Now the challenge for Australia on labour market reform is even greater than it was in 1995/6.
In 2013 the system has gone backwards.
Union militancy is on the rise, with strike levels at their highest since 2004. Union access to the workplace has opened right up. It was no surprise to see the re-unionisation of Bell Bay in Tasmania on the back of wholesale union recruitment drives in the workplace. The adverse action provisions make unionists a protected species and employers face often unmeritorious claims fuelled by unlimited compensation and a reverse onus of proof on employers to disprove allegations.
Agreement-making options have been reduced and the ACTU is pushing for more arbitral powers and the return of a 'them versus us' mentality. Productivity has all but been pushed off the bargaining table. And clauses can be put forward to restrict the use of contractors and other business arrangements essential for an employer’s competitiveness.
On top of all that, the Government has been stacking industrial tribunals to a level unheard of under any previous government.
But it is never too late to advocate good policy. Whether it is Labor or the Coalition, Mr Shorten or Mr Abetz – who will debate each other at this Friday’s Great Debate Luncheon – the need for genuine labour market reform is becoming more pressing every day in the national interest.
This is why organisations like AMMA play such an important role in industry and policy advocacy, and our national progress.
Workplace relations reform has been exaggerated as a bogeyman and it is time to get back to the real debate, which is not about Work Choices or any other policy of the past, but about fixing the real problems that exist now.
Our future depends on it. Remain determined, remain focussed and continue the professional contribution that your industry makes to informed debate. Australia needs to hear what you have to say more than ever and so on that note, I wish you a very successful National Conference.

paid parental leave, IR and referendum

Tony Abbott should heed the advice of his colleagues and rethink his policies on parental leave, workplace relations and local government recognition, writes Peter Reith.

Yesterday morning one of the Coalition's younger MPs spoke out on AM radio. His name is Alex Hawke and his seat is in Sydney. He will be an MP of increasing influence in the Federal Parliament because he demonstrated that he had the guts to speak out on a matter of fundamental policy. He voiced his concerns about Tony Abbott's paid parental leave scheme. His comments were common-sense, and they were measured. He is one of a number of younger MPs in the Coalition who are both ambitious as well as being "economic rationalists".

The dying days of the Gillard Government will be especially remembered for its dreadful and costly economic mismanagement, and the Coalition will want to be known as the party that fixed the mess. To promote good solutions will require well thought out and consistent policy positions, and the young rationalists will be the ginger group that not only argue the case but will demand, by their intellectual force and predominance in the internal debates, to be the ones to implement the necessary policy changes.

This process could be difficult for Tony Abbott unless he is assiduous in working with colleagues rather than trying to shut them down.

The Hawke criticism of the paid parental leave policy was inevitable because, on its merits, it is obviously bad policy but also because it was thrust on the parliamentary party without proper discussion and without the mandate of the shadow cabinet and party room. Hawke was gutsy to speak out because when your side looks like winning, some MPs understandably keep quiet because they don't want to throw away their chances of a ministry. But at the same time, if the leader forces policy on the colleagues knowing that the closer to the election the more sway he has over them, then he must expect some will resent unilateral decision making.

The paid parental leave proposal is a unilateral policy imposed by Abbott. There are at least two other Abbott unilateral policies that are difficult.

The biggest is Abbott's decision to ban any thought of individual agreements in the Coalition's workplace relations policy. The ban was announced on ABC TV without reference to the shadow cabinet or the party room. At a time when the policy is most needed to turn around Australia's poor productivity performance, Abbott has closed that option for the foreseeable future. Abbott has acted on his perception of the politics but the only way to lift living standards is to lift productivity so avoiding workplace relations may be bad politics as well.

The second is Abbott's reported negotiations with Minister Anthony Albanese to rush through a change to the Australian Constitution; another decision without shadow cabinet or party room approval. The intention has been to hold a referendum concurrent with the September 2013 election. Recognition of local governments was opposed by the Federal Council of the Liberal Party in July 2012 and will likely be opposed by the states who all opposed the idea when it was put in 1974 by Whitlam and in 1988 by Bob Hawke's Labor. If Abbott forces the party room to support a referendum, there is no doubt he will split his Coalition premiers and organisational supporters.

Apparently the Liberal National Party in Queensland, allegedly promoted by Barnaby Joyce, are supporting the proposal because they think that local government recognition would somehow advance their standing in rural municipalities. How this would happen is not obvious.

In my experience, as a former shire president of a small rural shire, the idea of interference from Canberra bureaucrats telling the local council how to run local affairs would only annoy councillors, not encourage them to vote for the National Party. And if they think they can get more money from Canberra, they have rocks in their head because there is nothing legally stopping Canberra today from funding local government at any time.

If the proposal is meaningless then there is no reason to vote for it, but if it means more power for Canberra, which has been Labor's real intention for decades, then it should be rigorously opposed.

Local government is the responsibility of state parliaments and there is no reason or evidence to think that allowing the central government to meddle with local government will in any way improve the delivery of local services. It is much more likely that the more Canberra controls local government, the more there will be duplication and red tape, which will only increase the costs of administration of local government and clog up local decision making.

A more general cause for concern about the proposal has been eloquently advanced by the Institute of Public Affairs. Chris Berg from the institute (The Age, May 5, 2013) sees the local government ploy as part of a broader plan by the Commonwealth to expand its rights to spend taxpayers' money by neutralising the limits set out in the Constitution.

He makes a strong point; if you want the Gillard Government to continue on its spending spree, vote yes. He says:

... the real story here is how the Commonwealth is trying to erase all parliamentary, legal and constitutional impediments that limit its spending. The referendum is just a small skirmish in a larger war. (p19)

Time is running out on this issue. If Abbott is determined to press ahead then I would expect him to try and railroad his parliamentary party next week at the party room meeting in the shadow of the budget. I have no doubt that a large number of Coalition MPs, including senior members of the cabinet, are opposed to a referendum. The only question that remains is who is prepared to stand and oppose any attempts to cosy up to Labor to support its push for more central government.

Defence will suffer from Labor's poor performance

Australia's financial circumstances are the responsibility of the Labor Government's dreadful mismanagement of our economy and the country's defence is paying the price, writes Peter Reith.

Get ready to feel the cold winds of Labor's self-induced austerity. But austerity will not mean just lower living standards; it also means compromising Australia's sovereignty.

The solemn responsibility of every government is to protect our country. But under Labor, Australia's ability to protect itself is likely to take another blow in this year's budget.

It was bad news yesterday on revenue and more bad news on defence is likely. In a sense Labor has no choice. It started cutting last year. As Grattan says:

Labor has so much bad news for the budget; it is trying to dump all the bad stuff before the budget so that the budget can include a few baubles for the headlines. But don't expect that anything that Labor says about the budget before the election will be an honest assessment of the true situation strategically or in regards to economics.

Yesterday's speech by Prime Minister Gillard was not to give the public an open statement about the budget, it was all about trying to minimise public reaction to the budget. Labor's only plan is not to fix the budget but to fix Labor's political problem that no-one believes what Ms Gillard or Wayne Swan say about the budget.

There are three basic contradictions in what Labor now says. Firstly, how can a revenue decline of $12 billion be the problem when the extra spending since Howard left office in 2007 is now nearly $100 billion more than Howard's last year? Secondly, Gillard says, since October 2012, there has been a $12 billion fall in revenue but revenue this year is still $25 billion more than last year? Thirdly, if the revenue 'fall' is such a problem why has Gillard not announced that the budget will have to match the revenue drop with a corresponding cut to spending? So Gillard can't say revenue is the problem, the problem is more spending and Gillard has again pledged more spending.

There is a fourth contradiction. Gillard says the underlying reasons for the revenue situation are the high dollar and softening commodity prices. But this is not new. This describes Australia's circumstances for the last three years. The real reason that the numbers have been so wrong is because Labor has been spinning a line that it would get the budget back into surplus this year. Labor's figures have been adopted to meet the political objective, not to inform the public.

And don't kid yourself that Australia's burgeoning debts and falling living standards are somehow also the Coalition's fault. Australia's financial circumstances are very much the responsibility of the Rudd-Gillard Government's dreadful mismanagement of our economy for the last seven years. And it follows a pattern.

In the 1970s, after three years of Whitlam's economic chaos and massive spending, the Coalition under Malcolm Fraser had to clean up the mess. Initially Hawke was a better manager but Keating, as PM, dumped his fiscal credentials and left another round of massive debts. From 1996 to 2007, the Howard government had to clean up for the second time since 1945. Howard's challenge was not easy; when he came to office the budget had not been in surplus since 1989, our region was hit hard by the Asian financial crisis, living standards were stifled by an antiquated labour market and the unions were constantly dictating government policy and attacking key parts of the economy like the wharves and resources. Howard left office with no debts.

In 2007 Labor took over a budget in surplus and a strong economy. That record has been squandered with serious consequences for our Defence.

Under Hawke Labor, Defence had a mixed record. It gave higher priority to the Navy and the Air Force. As a result the Army was under pressure due to lack of resources. But the decision to build Collins Class submarines was problematic and we never got the capability that we paid for. All that changed with the Howard government because its reforms improved the economy and thus revenues and Howard had the political will to rebuild Australia's military capacity.

When Rudd took office, his 2009 white paper promised a strong position on Defence. But he was soon spending on a grand scale and priority for Defence was slipping. It slipped further under Gillard. At least Rudd wanted to upgrade the submarine fleet. The objective for 12 new submarines was kept alive under Gillard although with the proviso that the option of nuclear powered vessels was disallowed for political reasons.

Unfortunately, the underlying financial mismanagement of the economy and the federal budget is quite rapidly denying Australia's ability to defend itself. This came to public attention in last year's budget when the Defence budget was cut by $5.5 billion and thereby dragging Defence's percentage of spending as a proportion of GDP to 1.56 per cent. This is the lowest since 1938 and much of the spending cuts have occurred in capital items thereby directly undermining military capability to defend Australia. Australia should be seriously considering the purchase of US nuclear powered submarines. There is no excuse that when it comes to Australia's security we should have the best that money can buy. Sadly, Labor has neither the money nor the political will to protect our country in the future.

In the Australian "referendum proposal"

FROM The Australian's front page story yesterday, it seems likely the federal Labor government will soon announce a referendum to coincide with the September election.

The referendum will propose the recognition of local government in our Constitution. The excuse for the referendum is that a recent decision by the High Court has put in question the legality of commonwealth funding direct to the states. But this is a ruse. Labor has wanted this change for decades and there is nothing to stop the commonwealth funding local government via the states.

If, as expected, Tony Abbott supports Labor's proposal by dragooning the partyroom, he will do so without any discussion with his MPs or the party organisation and will split Coalition premiers, rank-and-file supporters and a swag of his MPs.

Just because the major parties support a proposal does not mean success is guaranteed; ask Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, who joined hands in the 1970s. Nor do polls foretell the results. When Labor's 1988 local government referendum was first announced the polls showed public support but it was soundly defeated. Only eight referendums have passed to change the Constitution and Labor has succeeded only once.

I do not understand why Abbott would want to muddy the political waters with an unnecessary referendum when the one priority for the September election is to terminate the worst Labor administration in living memory. If the proposal is meaningless then there is no reason to vote for it but if it means more power for Canberra, Labor's intention for decades, it should be opposed. Local government is the responsibility of state parliaments and if the central government meddles with local government it is likely that there will just be more duplication and red tape, increasing the costs of local government and clogging up local decision-making.

There are four common reasons for the failure of referendums and all are relevant here.

First, the public does not like proposals to give the federal government more power.

Second, part of the problem has been poor process. This proposal has been considered by a federal parliamentary committee with a majority of Labor MPs, which is not an adequate forum for review. The best way to conduct a referendum is first to hold a convention so that the people are not only responsible for the outcome, they are also involved in the first steps for change. This was relevant in 1988 when the record low for a referendum was set at 30.79 per cent.

If Abbott unilaterally announces the Coalition's support, then the Coalition's own lack of good process will further undermine the chances of success of the proposal.

The Constitution is not the plaything of government or opposition and effective process is essential to good government.

Third, most Australians don't like politicians fiddling with the Constitution; if the bike is not broken, why fix it? And there is evidence the public doesn't like being harassed for a third time for a change that has been rejected twice.

Fourth, the public has a well-founded fear about the consequences of change, especially after the judges of the High Court have decided to interpret any change differently from what the public expected. This was a factor in 1988 when the Catholic Church recommended a no vote partly in fear of how the courts might interpret the meaning of religion, burdening the country with unforeseen outcomes.

It applies equally to managing local government.

If the Coalition and Labor rush through the legislation to change the Constitution, not only will good process be abandoned but, with no dissenting voices, the rules of the parliament will ensure that there is not even a formal no case committee to put the alternative point of view. The debate will then be biased in favour of the yes case and a noisy election will smother the right of the electorate to hear both sides. If Mr Abbott wants a referendum, he should defer the proposal until the public can carefully consider the arguments within a better process, as John Howard provided for the republic debate.

Peter Reith is a former Howard government minister and chairman of the committee for the successful no case in the 1988 referendum on local government.

The economy is the main game

The polls could tighten before the September election but Labor is still destined to be severely punished for incompetence and woeful economic management.

It has been a bad week for Labor but at least policies have been centre stage. The economy will be the main issue and Labor's behaviour has not helped.

It seems the public refused to fall for the phoney fast train idea. The origin of this latest proposal came in the deal with the Greens in 2010. You would think that Labor had worked out by now that cuddling up to the Greens is politically disastrous.

A fast rail track down Australia's east coast would cost $114 billion. The project would not generate a return until 2060 or thereabouts and so taxpayers would be paying more taxes for 40 years for a service that most people would never use. It would stop at every marginal seat from Brisbane to Melbourne and, at best, would be no quicker than flying. And that assumes that all the estimates of traffic and cost are realistic which is highly unlikely. If someone really thinks it is a good idea, let them waste their own money, not the wages of the average Aussie.

No wonder the Nielsen poll was so emphatic; this style of politics is especially galling from a government that has just abandoned its promise to reach a surplus in 2013 and now has abandoned the objective altogether for the foreseeable future. The government likes to claim that the economy is in good shape, so how is it that the government can't reach a surplus?

The fact is that Labor has abandoned any pretensions about economic management - Labor will lose the next election having not produced a surplus at any time since federal MP Wyatt Roy was born.

The second phoney ploy was better disguised. Presumably John "457" McTernan thought up the idea to send John Howard to Thatcher's funeral even though Howard was going anyway. McTernan must have been smiling because the announcement worked a treat.

I reckon there were two real reasons Gillard would not go. Firstly, in her younger days Gillard would have preferred to be with the radicals in Trafalgar Square celebrating Thatcher's death and secondly, to the extent she would be noticed, comparisons between Thatcher and Gillard would be odious. In particular, unlike Gillard's train, when the French/British channel project was devised, Thatcher made sure the investors would be more responsible for the losses than the taxpayers. Thatcher was committed to private enterprise not massive government expenditures on white elephants like government trains and a government telco with costs already skyrocketing towards twice what was forecast and well behind on schedule.

The cancellation of the massive Browse project in WA was yet another straw in the wind even though an offshore platform might be a better, more commercial plan. But all the same, at one time, the investors wanted to proceed with a plant on the coast and it would have been especially beneficial to the local Indigenous community. Unquestionably, the blowout in costs, in part due to Gillard's industrial relations changes in 2008, are now wreaking their impact on the resources sector.

The loss of 500 jobs at Holden was yet another reminder that governments, state and federal, have been throwing away good money after bad. Jac Nasser, respected chairman of BHP and formerly head of Ford in Australia, made it very clear that car manufacturing in Australia is inevitably going to come to an end.

Prime Minister Gillard can't admit the blindingly obvious because she can't afford to disappoint the unions that have propped up her government in return for taxpayer monies propping up the car companies.

Labor's policy puts up the price of cars that are an input for many businesses. There is a fundamental disconnect between saying you support jobs and then burdening business with costs of car transport or taxes like the carbon tax. Additional costs undermine jobs.

Then along came the unemployment numbers showing that trend unemployment is rising. This was not news. Nor is it surprising that more and more people are now dropping out of the workforce and more women are going into part time work. These are the very outcomes railed against by Labor and the unions but which have been the consequence of the Labor/union alliance.

Maybe the one thing that Labor might get right is the weekend announcement of cuts to university students. It certainly makes a mockery of Labor's complaints about Victorian cuts to TAFE funding.

Labor's plan exposes how government funding changes behaviour. The Australian yesterday had a front page story of students stating that they will no longer be given $2,050 cash p.a. under the Student Start-Up Scholarship and instead will have to repay the substitute loan. Apparently students defer starting university just to become eligible for the $2,050.

A policy that rewards students for deferring their education must surely deny the workforce of qualified workers, thereby reducing productivity and the revenue to government that follows. So it might be justified although it will be interesting to see the details.

The savings are to go Gonski but what is a Gonski? I know it is more money the government does not have but surely education reform should be about the quality of teaching, not the money per se? Until Labor can explain what will be done by the states, who run the schools, to improve education, the whole scheme seems to start from the wrong premise.

It has been an action packed week for Labor. If they are to do better in the elections than suggested by the latest poll, then Labor certainly would not want another week like last week.

Margaret Thatcher Vale in AFR

Margaret Thatcher was one of the greats of our time. She came to office when the UK was on its knees and needed a Prime Minister to pull the UK out of the economic mire. In doing so, she became an inspiration to millions of freedom loving citizens around the world. Her basic theme was that economic freedom was an essential ingredient of political freedom. Thatcher was a true believer in free markets and, in consequence, she wanted the economy to be guided by citizens not government bureaucracies. Her objective was not so much driven by ideology but the belief in a system that actually worked in practice to promote jobs growth and higher living standards. It is a quest that still drives many people around the globe.
A lot of people still yearn for a Thatcherite leader. I can’t help but look at today’s political landscape and wonder why the western democracies have not been able to produce the leaders needed now to drag the first world out of its economic troubles. Just when they needed a real leader, the US voted for Obama, a good man in many ways but not a man with a feel for economic management. If ever the Tories should have won in a landslide, the UK ended up with a minority government and David Cameron. I never liked Cameron since one of his whips told me that when organising a function at which Thatcher and Cameron (the then Opposition leader) were to sit side by side, Cameron insisted that he not sit next to the “Iron Lady”. His tactic in his Opposition days was to distance himself from Thatcher. One of the few times he was seen with Thatcher in public was only after Gordon Brown stood on the steps with her at Downing Street. I did not forget Cameron for that either – but it demonstrates that for a conviction politician like Thatcher it is difficult not only dealing with the official Opposition but with your own team as well. Too many politicians today approach issues with the question being how to manage the politics of the decision to be made. Thatcher’s approach was to decide what was right first and then work out the politics. The former represents the pursuit of personal interest; the latter is the pursuit of national interest.
Whilst Thatcher’s resolve in dealing with the Argentinians over the Falklands affirmed her “Iron Lady” status, Thatcher’s contest with militant unionism in the early 1980’s was a reason why the UK public came to respect her as a leader. The same thing happened with Ronald Reagan who stood up to the flight controllers in the US. In Australia, todays politicians shy away from a political argument with the union movement. Major reform is not expected until a second term if the Coalition is elected in September. In the UK, Thatcher was elected in 1979 and introduced labour reforms in 1980, 1982 and 1984. Thatcher never blinked when she faced the miner’s violent strikes, the Wapping dispute and the eventual reform of the docks.
Whether you call it economic rationalism or Thatcherite economics or otherwise, Thatcher’s proselytising of good economics encouraged not just right wing politics but many others from across the political spectrum. Both sides of politics in NZ were certainly influenced by Thatcherism.  The first major economic reforms in NZ, like privatisation, were introduced by the Lange Labor government and in particular the treasurer, Roger Douglas.  NZ was like the UK, in dire economic circumstances and the Douglas reforms basically saved the day.  NZ was then lucky because when the inevitable change of government arrived, the incoming Nationals picked up from where Douglas left off. The issue that Lange had been unable to confront was labour market reform. The Nationals then abolished NZ’s compulsory arbitration system that had for years burdened Australia and NZ. The next NZ Labour government left individual agreements in place.
Similarly in the UK when John Major finally lost office to Tony Blair some of the structural reforms of Thatcher years were kept. Blair never overturned Thatcher’s labour market reforms. When I was arguing for labour reform in the Howard years in the late 1990s my favourite speech was to quote Tony Blair speaking to the UK Trade Union Council and compare Blair’s speech to Kim Beasley at the ACTU promising to overturn not just the reforms from 1996 but Keating’s minor reforms as well.
It will be a long time before we see anyone in Thatcher’s class and it beats me why the Poms will only give her a ceremonial funeral when a State funeral is the highest honour. No wonder the UK needed the daughter of a grocer when all they had were blokes still worrying about their old school ties.

Stop treating sport as a religion

I enjoy watching sport and I barrack for Essendon but I don't think sport is a religion and it certainly is not what it once was.

In his day Sir Donald Bradman was up there on a par with prime minister Robert Menzies in public standing. Even more recently, in 1996, I thought it was great when John Howard resumed the tradition of the PM's XI in Canberra. I thought then it was great because it accorded our cricket team a standing that befitted the national team. But sadly, I don't think these days will last.

It's time politicians started treating sport as the business it is, not a religion. Children should be taught that sport is good fun and a healthy activity for body and brain, but it is only a game.

Senior people in sport e.g. Australian Rules Football describe their sport as an "industry". Of course they are right, but an "industry" is rather different to the idea of sport for the glory of the club or country.

The truth now is that most elite sport is principally a form of entertainment. Players play for the money; I don't begrudge them for that but the idea of playing elite sport for the love of the game is now different.

As the ACC report says, the sport and recreation industry was worth $8.82 billion in 2006. And money changes everything, including attitudes to winning and fair play, as suggested by the ACC and doping authority:

The ACC and ASADA have identified significant issues in professional and sub-elite sport in Australia which undermine the principles of fair play as a direct consequence of the use of PIEDs.

Money affects what players are prepared to do to win, the attitude to other players, and the behaviour of players. Personally, I don't like the grunting by tennis players or the exaggerated expressions of a player who has just won an important point or goal. I also don't like the young players who make so much money that it goes to their head and they don't know how to behave. I was taught that winning is not everything and spitting the dummy is bad manners.

Not surprisingly, with lots of money at stake for all the participants, the fringe dwellers in society are looking for their chance to make a quid on the side. No wonder the police are wondering about what is happening when a soccer game between a Melbourne team and the Adelaide team attracted wagers of nearly $50 million on the outcome of one match alone.

The activities of the ACC are clearly justified, although I have my doubts about the way they have proceeded. A general warning seems fair enough, although I wonder, given that these problems have been known about for some time, why hasn't anybody been charged?

Is it really necessary to slander a whole group of people, most of whom find drugs as abhorrent as much as the rest of society? Is it fair to besmirch sports organisations as a group and on a grand scale when so many people are totally innocent and just love their footy or other activity? I would like to know who had the idea to make a big splash with the ACC report. Given that the report was restrained in what it could say publicly, what other strategies could have been used to get out their message?

It's no wonder that the release of the Australian Crime Commission Report into sport has raised concerns about the ACC's modus operandi - not because of its report but because of the involvement of the Government. Already I can't help but think that the commission would have been wiser to have kept the Government at a distance from the report.

Whatever Labor does in the next six months, it will have to think strategically to do whatever it can to disassociate itself from Mr Obeid, former Labor National Labor party president Mike Williamson, and former Labor MP Craig Thomson. More importantly, it also has an obligation to try to avoid tarnishing, by their associations, third parties such as the ACC.

There are now two examples where Labor's associations have been a problem. In my view, they demonstrate that the Government's ability to govern will be handicapped more than ever as the election looms.

Clearly the announcement of the early election was derailed by Thomson and Obeid and then coloured by the reception to the announcement of two ministers jumping ship. It was a classic case that the political baggage already accumulated by the Gillard team impaired its ability to even announce the date for an election.

The second example could be more serious.

I am now wondering if the timing and presentation of the ACC report may also have been, albeit even to a limited degree, determined by the Government. If so, was the timing wise given the Government's obvious need for a fresh agenda at the time of the continuing Obeid and Thomson matters?

The Government wants to parade Jason Clare as Labor's minister to pull back some votes in Western Sydney. What Minister Clare can't afford is to be seen as pursuing the Coalition instead of the doping issues. In my view, for that reason, it would be wise, from now on, for Gillard and Clare to keep out of the sports issue lest they politicise the issues and thus undermine the ACC.

Labor is desperate for money. Maybe this would be a good time to cut some of the middle class welfare that Labor likes to target.

Maybe politicians should stop treating sport as a religion and chop back sports funding at places like the Institute of Sport, which was set up by the Fraser government and which was modelled on the East German model after we failed to win enough Olympic medals when Fraser was PM.