Newmania: Flatly Wrong

This morning, we heard about a new review into Peter Costello's Interim Commission of Audit Report. The review was conducted by Professor Bob Walker  who was commissioned by the Queensland Council of Unions. The findings in the report are exactly what the unions would want to see: that the report is fatally flawed in a number of ways. Professor Walker's credentials seem to be perfect for conducting this sort of review, but please listen here to Steve Austin's interview with Professor Walker on 612ABC Brisbane this morning, or read my transcript below, and make up your own mind.


SA: A Sydney academic has blasted Peter Costello’s Interim Commission of Audit Report into this state’s finances, labelling it as shoddy, and intellectually dishonest. It’s the document the Government of Campbell Newman has used to justify its aggressive cost cutting programme. Professor Bob Walker, together with his wife who’s an economist from the University of Sydney was commissioned by Queensland Council of Unions to audit the Interim Commission of Audit, or review it. His report was released today. I spoke with Professor Walker this morning before coming on air and asked him to give me his own overview of the document first of all.


BW: I think it’s a rather shoddy piece of work, and it’s intellectually dishonest. It fudges the figures in two main respects. First, it refers to what it calls ‘debt of total government’, and I think 100% of readers would think that includes absolutely every government agency, the whole of government. In fact, there’s a definition on an un-numbered page just after the cover which explains that total government for the Costello report excludes what they call the ‘financial corporations sector’ which includes the agencies which hold $28b worth of investments. So when the Costello report talks about debt – or, has a funny definition of debt. It doesn’t set off those investments and the standard way of talking about government finances is to talk about net debt.

Turning now to the second way in which the report fudges the figures, it defines debt as ‘gross debt less investments’, particularly those held for investment purposes for superannuation. Now that leaves reason to think that $28b would’ve been deducted, but instead it’s not.

SA: So they’ve included things like the debt being carried by government owned corporations which have a means or ability to pay things back, and you think it’s unfair to include that.

BW: I think it’s fair to include that, as long as you have the whole picture, the whole of government, and not define ‘total government’ as something less than all government agencies.

SA: Right

BW: And secondly, or thirdly, I suppose, it makes a lot of projections about future levels of debt and capital expenditure and so forth, and doesn’t justify any of this with tables of data. It looks as though they’ve, eh, made little historical projections as past borrowings, including borrowings for agencies like QR National, which have since been sold, and all in all, I mean they’ve admitted that they didn’t undertake any modelling; it looks as though their projections are prepared by a graphic designer drawing a line on a graph.

SA: Given who prepared this, and how it’s being used, that’s a damning statement. You are saying that they are being deliberately or negligently misleading in the Interim Commission of Audit.

BW: I’d say that, and I’d further emphasise that’s surprising; we have standards for something called performance audits in Australia. They’re prepared by a Commonwealth Government agency, which used to report to Mr Costello. And they’ve issued standards for performance auditing; it’s just uncomplied with in this document.

SA: So this document doesn’t meet accepted Commonwealth auditing standards?

BW: Well those standards apply; they’re mandatory for corporations but the document says they provided guidance for other exercises of this type, and it’s strange that standards issued by an agency that used to report to Mr Costello are just totally ignored.

SA: So how can the ordinary Queenslander see this or approach this Interim Audit. It’s being used as the platform or the reason d’etre for significant job losses in Queensland in the Public Service. How should we regard it?

BW: I think you should be outraged, frankly, because it’s a totally political document, prepared without regard, I think, to the facts.



Prof Bob Walker
BCom UNSW MEc PhD FCA



SA: My guest is Professor Bob Walker. He’s from the University of Sydney. He was commissioned by the Queensland Council of Unions to audit the Interim Commission of Audit prepared by Peter Costello, former conservative Liberal Treasurer, professor Sandra Harding, from the James Cook University, and Doug McTaggart, formerly head of the Queensland Treasury Corporation. My name’s Steve Austin.
Let me go through some key points then if I can, please Professor Walker? First of all, Tim Nicholls, the Treasurer, will be releasing his budget on Tuesday of next week, said the QTC, the Queensland Treasury Corporation advised him that the state’s level of debt was unsustainable and must be urgently addressed. Do you disagree?

BW: I think the debt is totally manageable. In fact, if you look at the net debt figures, Queensland’s got a net debt…it’s the standard measure used, of around $17b. New South Wales has got almost double that. So I think there’s a lot of scaremongering going on with this report.

SA: Well, I’ll keep going…the Treasurer also said to Queenslanders that because of what he described as “Labor’s Debt Binge”, that the debt was expected to blow out to $85b by 2014-2015, and this is putting pressure on the state’s credit rating. Do you disagree with that?

BW: Well, the credit ratings agencies sometimes don’t get it right, and the ways in which Queensland prepares its accounts is sometimes a bit confusing. But the projections of debt in the Costello report aren’t justified with details of capital commitments. As I said, they’re just figures seemed drawn out of the air.

SA: Now, I’ll go on. The statement issued by the Treasurer in June of this year said that Queensland’s current net financial liabilities compared to operating revenue was forecast to reach 123% by June next year. Do you think this is a misleading approach?

BW: I think it would be better to look at the statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which standardises all figures from around Australia. Also, look at the figures in the audited financial statements which the Costello Report does not refer to except in passing. It’s quite astonishing that claims have been made, for example, that Queensland had to borrow to support the budget when the audited statements of cash flows shows that Queensland Government has reported surpluses from its operating activities. Cash surpluses.

SA: That to me is quite shocking because we’ve had this debate here in Brisbane some time ago, that the Government says they are borrowing to pay wages, and they have been very definite on that. You’re telling me that that’s not the case.

BW: That is flatly wrong, and all you need to do is look at the audited statements of cash flows, which have been reviewed by the Queensland Auditor General to see that the operating activities of Queensland have produced cash surpluses. Money has been borrowed, but it’s been used to invest in infrastructure.

SA: So we were borrowing money, but it was used to invest in infrastructure, not being used – and you can tell this from the audit you’ve done, you can tell this absolutely, put your professional reputation on the line - that it was not being borrowed to pay public servants’ wages in Queensland.

BW: I rely on the audited financial statements which have been reviewed by the auditor general which showed that Queensland produced surpluses from operations. It also invested heavily in infrastructure. These statements show the results of operating, borrowing, er, financing and investing activities and they clearly show that the bulk of borrowings went into infrastructure. In fact, looking over a ten year period, about half of the investment in infrastructure was funded by cash surpluses from operations.

SA: Half? By cash surpluses?

BW: Roughly. I don’t have the figures with me, but roughly, yeah.

SA: You’ve made the point and referred repeatedly to Peter Costello. He’s not the only person on the commission of audit. Doug McTaggart, respected financial mind, generally regarded on the conservative side of the ledger, former head of the Queensland Treasury Corporation: He has signed the Interim Commission of Audit, as has Professor Sandra Harding of James Cook University in North Queensland, generally regarded as being sort-of centre-left if you like, ideologically. She has also signed off on these figures. Now they are not obviously political figures, but why would they be a party to something which you’re telling me is so obviously misleading?

BW: I don’t think…whatever their skills in other areas, I don’t think they have skills in financial analysis. In relation to their past academic roles, I would say that if I received this report in my role, as I often do, refereeing articles submitted to international research journals, I would treat it as not worthy of publication. Revise and resubmit.

SA: Can I get you to repeat that? Not worthy of publication?

BW: If I received it in that context, because so much money has been invested in it, you’re reluctant to trash it totally, but I’d invite the authors to revise and resubmit.

SA: My guest is Professor Bob Walker from the University of Sydney, commissioned by the Queensland Council of Unions to audit the Interim Commission of Audit that was prepared for the Queensland State Government.

BW: Can I add that this report is solely my own work. It’s prepared with my wife, Dr Betty Con Walker, who’s an economist, and formerly worked in New South Wales Treasury and is very familiar with budget papers.

SA: All right, thank you for that. So then, leading into the state budget which is an extraordinarily late state budget next Tuesday, how should Queensland taxpayers approach what they hear from the mouth of the Treasurer Tim Nicholls?

BW: I think with a great deal of…a grain of salt. We’ve already seen extravagant statements coming from Government Ministers, extrapolating from the Costello report that Queenslanders faced $100b debt now. That is flatly wrong, and I notice that a couple of parliamentarians have had to clarify their statements in parliament. There’s been gross exaggeration on the basis of this report. That’s a risk. We have a section in our report talking about the dangers of Commission of Audit reports. In the hands of inexperienced or not financially numerate politicians, some of the extravagant language in the report can be exaggerated and wrongly interpreted.

SA: The Treasurer did say in June of this year that feedback from financial markets indicated that the market considers the Queensland state fiscal position to be “unsustainable” and looking for the state government to deliver a credible strategy to address our state level of debt. Can I ask you to respond to that, that the financial markets from whom we, the state government, borrows money, say that the debt here in unsustainable, and they need to develop a strategy to pay down the debt.

BW: Well, I’m not sure. They’re probably relying on some of these credit rating agencies, whose performance leading up for the Global Financial Crisis is quite a lot, but in my own experience, the staff at credit ratings agencies aren’t quite on top of the figures. Some years ago I pointed out that when the state government in New South Wales was claiming to have a budget surplus; it was in fact only reporting about the results for the consolidated fund, not for what we now call the General Government Sector, and when that report was published, they put New South Wales on Credit Watch. (Laughs) So I’m fairly sceptical about some of the interpretations by ratings agencies.

SA: I really appreciate your time. Professor Bob Walker, thank you.

E&OE

Newmania: It's Tough. It's Really Tough

Unlike the rest of us, King Campbell and the LNP do not acknowledged that there is a developing crisis of confidence as regards the King’s leadership, the course in which he’s steering his state, and the brutal speed at which he’s taking us there. Cuts to programmes, job losses in the public service, legislative changes based on traditional values, unfathomable financial support (and jobs) for mates, criticism from within and a hostile relationship with the federal government have some Newmanians concerned.


Of course, King Campbell has no reason to be alarmed; he told Steve Austin on 612ABC Brisbane this morning that he spent seven hours at the Ekka yesterday, and only heard one negative comment. That’s fair enough; the Ekka on Peoples’ Day is a crowded, sticky, smelly cacophony of terrified animals, sugared up kids, exasperated parents and exhausted tourists. I’m surprised he could hear anything at all. Listen to the interview here, or see the blog post below this one for the fullish transcript. 

King Campbell and his trusty deputy Eff Seeney have each fronted up to 612ABC this week to spend some time answering questions. While there is a commitment to do this regularly, both in one week is indicative of either poor communication between the Leader’s and Deputy Leader’s Communications teams, or it’s a co-ordinated effort. In any case, this morning's performance won King Campbell no new fans, no gold medals and ticker tape parades. In fact, if this was his audition to become a member of the human race, he failed.

Here are the highlights from this morning’s interview.

 It’s all about the money. No really, it’s all about the money. He can recite debt and deficit figures the way the rest of us remember the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody. Everything that the Newman Government has done, or is planning to do, is about getting the state out of the financial quagmire. People come second.

 King Campbell shows no signs of getting past the Labor’s-To-Blame Game. That’s a no-brainer. It was “20 years of Labor” – but particularly the last five years - that created the financial cataclysm that has befallen us, therefore, everything that the Newman Government is doing can be traced back to the financially irresponsible Anna Bligh.

 People who aren’t happy with King Campbell don’t speak to him, write to him, email him or phone him. He has no knowledge of such people. Almost everyone he’s encountered in the past couple of months has congratulated him or thanked him for making the tough decisions.

 The decisions are tough. They’re very hard. They’re absolutely necessary, but very tough. They’re not easy, not taken lightly, and they're tough.

 The only people who are unhappy about the tough decisions are public servants in the firing line, and union people with vested interests. Everyone else is happy because these are tough times, and someone is taking responsibility for the tough decisions.

 It takes 3-4 weeks for King Campbell’s minions to respond to a letter, email or phone call. Presumably, most of those would be thank you cards and letters of congratulations.

 It would cost every man, woman and child in Newmania a thousand bucks in extra taxes this year to save the jobs of 20,000 public servants.

 The Labor Party remnants requested a briefing from the Independent Audit Committee and then something something didn’t happen something something. Doesn’t matter; we'd lost interest by then. It’s all Labor's fault anyway.



 King Campbell is gleeful.

 No member of the Government has had his or her salary cut or allowances curbed, but that’s not King Campbell’s fault. That’s controlled by the Committee of the Legislative Assembly, which includes a token member of the Opposition. Therefore it’s the Opposition’s fault.

 The cuts aren’t hurting vulnerable Newmanians because King Campbell said they’re not. Okay then.

 King Campbell does not do Weasel Words of Silver Tonguing. (Be grateful, Newmanians, be very grateful.)

 Caravan Parks are tricky for the Government, who seem to think that the Housing Pixie Dr Flegg can house 30,000 Newmanians in good quality safe, clean public housing, using the proceeds of the sale of three unprofitable caravan parks.

 If anyone becomes disadvantaged because of the Caravan Park sell-off, they’ll be looked after in the private sector train wreck partnership that Labor left behind. I may have got that wrong.

 King Campbell isn’t picking on the disadvantaged. He’s also picking on the over-advantaged, just not as much. They’ve lost their access to Corporate Boxes at the Gabba.

 According to King Campbell logic, writers are not disadvantaged.

 Killing the School Band Fanfare programme doesn’t count as a cut anymore because the Private Sector came to the rescue and reinstated the competition.

 All cuts are because of the need to get the state back on track.

 King Campbell doesn’t agree with Noel from Yerongpilly. He recited more numbers to prove it. Tough decisions, hard going. Big numbers.

 Labor had a party and now King Campbell has a hangover. (The rest of us have a Panadeine, a bacon and egg roll and a gallon of coke. Wouldn't that be cheaper?)

 Despite the calamitous state of Newmania’s economic hangover, there’s plenty of positive signs for the state’s economy. Newmania is in the midst of Labor-made fiscal disaster, but the future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades.

 It’s tough. It’s really hard, it’s unpalatable, it’s gutsy.

 It’s all Labor’s fault, we’re broke, and it’s bloody Anna Bligh’s fault and good riddance and that’s the truth.


Actually, it’s a world-class case of hearing only what you want to hear, avoiding any direct answers, and sticking to the talking points. All that was missing was credibility, sincerity and compassion.

Newmania: Weasel Words



Steve Austin



This morning, ABC’s Steve Austin, asked his listeners to submit their questions – and presumably their comments – for Queensland Premier Campbell Newman. You can hear the interview, here.

I’ve also whipped up a rough transcript (E&OE), as I like to consider the words, get in there and experience them. Sometimes, just hearing them isn’t enough.

  SA: What are the cutbacks to the public service meant to achieve? What’s the bottom line aim?

CN: I’m glad you asked me that, and what I’ll give you is the most recent Moody’s Investor Service assessment of all the Australian states and their budgets, and I’ve tagged two pages there, including the deficits of the various states: Queensland’s deficit is, sadly, head and shoulders above all the other states. We will have this year an operating deficit of at least $4b, a fiscal deficit of around $10b, compared to NSW which is less than $4b. This state is in a terrible financial position. The other one is the level of debt. Queensland’s debt is just so much more than the other states in terms of debt to revenue ratio, which is the key indicator that the ratings agencies who set the interest rates, and the lenders, who finance the activities of this government, look to. So, we pay a higher interest rate than any other state on our borrowings and the reason is contained in this thing, so what we’re trying to do is balance the budget. We’re gonna do that in 2014-15; we’ve got to stop borrowing to pay wages and to keep the lights on. This government was elected to do that. We have a plan to sort the mess out that we inherited from Anna Bligh and Labor, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

SA: I understand that, and we know the causes of the fiscal position, and that is two cyclones, a flood and a Global Financial Crisis, and I’m asking you, what’s the aim of all these cuts.

CN: That is complete nonsense. The Federal Government imposed a levy on people and provided very generous capital subsidy payments over the last few years. Billions of dollars paid to Queensland to help rebuild. The reason for the huge operating debt is contained in this, and it says, the expenditure, the head count, went through the roof and the revenues didn’t increase at the same rate, so the expenditure in Queensland has gone up by 8.7% each year for the last 4-5 years compound, and we’re spending far more than we bring in. It’s like household budget – blah blah blah – mad uncontrolled fashion – then you end up with budgetary problem, and we have 20,000 more people than we can afford to pay, and we’ve been paying them by borrowing, and it has to stop and it will stop.

SA: I understand that, and the Moody’s Rating Agency does not run Queensland. You do. What’s the aim of the cuts?

CN: The aim is to stop the escalation of runaway recurrent costs; it’s about getting the budget back into balance, and that’s what we will achieve in 2014-2015.

SA: It looks like the aim of the cuts is to keep your pre-election promises. In other words, you made promises you couldn’t fund, prior to the state election, and now public servants are the chief victims of this.

CN: Well Steve, that’s what the Labor Party says, but it’s not true. The bottom line is that we’re gonna have an operating budget deficit of at least $4b this year. Our promises didn’t add up to anything like that. It was around the $2b mark, and they’re all fully costed and built in to the way forward. We’ve found savings to pay for our promises, as we said. The problem is, we have too many people. If you look at the numbers of the public service in Queensland, it just exploded over the last 4-5 years, when Anna Bligh – it’s particularly Anna Bligh, although a lot of people like to blame Peter Beattie, I don’t – it was the Bligh Government who absolutely threw away the rule book, the sensibility of running the budget properly, and hence we’ve got the problems we’ve got, and that’s what we have to do, so it’s very hard, it’s very tough, but we have a plan to get back in the black, and you know what? I’m heartened by the feedback I got yesterday. I spent all day at the Ekka, seven hours walking around, and the overwhelming sentiment was “Premier, we know these are tough times and tough decisions, but please keep doing the right thing. We understand that you’re getting the state back in track.”

SA: When you spoke with me last time, you told me that this is what most people were saying; that most people were saying that we know it’s a tough thing, but that we want you to do it, and that no-one was complaining. I’ve been given an email from someone who emailed your office in July, where they complained directly to your electorate office, expressing their real concern about what you did. Not only were they expressing concerns about your actions, but that they didn’t even get a reply from you or anyone in your office. This is a clear example, in writing, of someone who was complaining; about what you were doing, what you are doing, and have either been ignored, or simply not responded to.

CN: Well Steve, I respond to every letter, every email, every phone call that comes into my office. People get a response. Now usually it takes about 3-4 weeks for a reply to be turned around -

SA: This was in early July…

CN: I’m more than happy to take that person’s feedback, actually get back to them and find out why they haven’t got a reply already. But we get thousands of emails, phone calls, letters, every month, and people all get a reply. Now -

SA: And none of the people complained about what you’re doing?

CN: Now, Steve, I did not even say that last time. I’d be happy to pull the transcript out. What I said to you last time was that I was reflecting that I’d been out on the weekend, in my electorate, at various activities, and across that period of that weekend, I’d had a very clear signal from people that they understood the tough decisions that were being made to get the state back on track, so let’s make sure that we’re very clear on what happened on that day when I came and talked to you. The bottom line is, look, we need to be grown up about this. What do we keep doing? Do we keep borrowing more money? The debt is $65b today. If we don’t sort this out, it will be $100b. These ratings agencies are totally independent of Government, but the most critical thing is, what they say in this is whether we can afford to build schools, and hospitals and put police on the beat, because the international investors, the bankers that lend us money, and keep this state going at the moment, look at these reports, and if these people say that the right things aren’t being done, the tough decisions aren’t being made, we get marked down, and we get hit with even higher interest rates. Right now, if NSW had the same level of debt as Queensland, we would be paying $100m extra a year in interest because they’ve got a better credit rating, so try that one. $100m.

SA: So Moody’s Ratings Agency has more influence on the government of Queensland than do the voters of Queensland?

CN: Steve, the voters of Queensland understand that we’re making tough decisions to get the state back on track. That’s why I mentioned the Ekka. The people who don’t like this are the people who are losing their jobs, and that’s understandable, but they’re also the union officials, that you have interviewed in recent days, who have their own vested interests. Look, we’re gonna make the right decisions for all Queenslanders. Lemme put it another way -

SA: We’re going to hear from more Queenslanders in just a moment –

CN: Let me put it another way. If we were to raise money to cover a $4b operating debt, and it will be more than that this financial year, that would mean that every man, woman and child in Queensland would have to cut off $1000. That’s $4000 this year for a family of four, just to try and balance the budget. That’s how bad it is. Now look – other politicians will come in and weasel words and won’t tell the truth. I’m telling it to you straight and to your listeners straight. We have to act. It’s not popular. It’s not easy, for those we’re hurting, and we’re sad about that, but it has to be done.

SA: That’s how bad it is. The Opposition tried to get a briefing, directly by the three audit commissioners, headed by Peter Costello, and they were rejected. Why is it, that the Opposition is not is allowed to speak to the independent auditors?



CN: Steve, frankly that’s totally spurious.

SA: They were offered a briefing by Tim Nicholls.

CN: They were offered a briefing on that, and at least one of the commissioners would’ve been there.

SA: They’ve put it in writing to me that their request was rejected, that they were offered a briefing with Tim Nicholls, but not with the independent auditors.

CN: They can have a briefing any time they like with Tim Nicholls and the commissioners, and I’ll just say, these are the people who got us in the mess. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Cabinet. Tim Mulherrin was a member of the Cabinet. Curtis Pitt was a member of the Cabinet. These people are deficit and debt deniers , I’m afraid. They seek to pretend that these reports aren’t true. How many bits of paper do they want? There’s the State Treasury, there’s the Independent Audit Commission Report, which is a public document, and now I’ve got this Moody’s report here. It was their own Mid-Year Review that they handed down before the election that said that the debt would be $85b, up from $65b now. I mean, these people need to hang their heads in shame. They’re the ones that created the problems that we’re now sorting out.

SA: Let’s take some calls. Wendy, from Murrumba Downs, you’re speaking with the Premier.

 

Wendy: I’ve got three questions that I’d like to ask... I believe that all members of Parliament who live outside the Brisbane electorate, the Brisbane City Council Area, get a fully funded apartment in the Annex.

CN: That’s true.

Wendy: And do they also get Living Away from Home Allowance?

CN: I’m not sure about that, actually.

Wendy: - and I’m assuming that you’ve now cut out all subsidised meals in the Dining Room, and subsidised Alcohol in the bar. It’s very easy, and you do it with such a look of glee on your face, to hit at the most vulnerable and the poorest in this state. You appointed 19 Assistant Ministers to your staff when you were elected – I know you don’t have Parliamentary Secretaries any more, but there were never 19 Parliamentary Secretaries – Do those 19 Assistant Ministers get staff, cars, and what is the extra salary that we are paying? I think you should start at the top. The 2.5% payrise that you got, when you look at how much it is on the salaries that you earn, could’ve helped keep some of these very poor charities going for quite a long time.

SA: Let me summarise Wendy’s question. Why don’t the cuts start at the top, rather than at the bottom?

CN: Well, they do Steve, and –

SA: So you’re cutting these allowances?

CN: No.No. No…Steve, just let me answer the question, please. Firstly, politicians had a 2.5% pay rise in August last year, but have had no pay rise while I’ve been the Premier. And any pay rise that politicians get will be commensurate with the core of the public service. In relation to accommodation and meals et cetera, that is set by the Committee of the Legislative Assembly, which is a bi-partisan committee. The Opposition and the Government are on it, and I make the point that politicians are in there when Parliament is sitting, usually til eleven o’clock or midnight, and that’s why they get accommodation because those that are outside the Brisbane local government area have a long hike home – blah blah blah – and others from places like Townsville. In terms of the overall costs of the Ministry, I’ll be tabling those expenses in the next week of the Parliament, and people will be happy to know that there’s a significant reduction on when Bligh, what the Bligh Government spent. So watch this space next week. It will be tabled. The full figures will be there, and it’s significantly less than Anna Bligh and the Labor Party spent, and indeed we have saved a LOT of money , since we became the government, through a whole range of initiatives, and I reject the suggestion that we’re hurting vulnerable people and deliberately cutting programmes to hurt vulnerable people. Indeed, we’re about putting more money back into the front line. I don’t want to spend money on the back of house; I wanna make sure the money is spent on front line services.

SA: Have you actually cut any MP’s allowances?

CN: No I haven’t, Steve, but I’ll just, again, those matters are dealt with by the Committee of the Legislative Assembly, which has Government members, and the Leader of the Opposition. And you know what, I could come on again like all politicians do, and I could sort of do the silver tongue thing and the weasel words, and I’m not gonna do that. Politicians have bills to pay, they have families, and politicians who run around saying they’re gonna cut this and cut that are being quite fraudulent about it. Politicians should work hard for their money, and they will on my team; I assure people of that.

SA: Michelle of Ashgrove, you have a question for the Premier.

Michelle: Mr Newman, to use the caller’s word previously, you have gleefully announced the closure of three caravan parks in Queensland because they have been costing $1m over the last, $1m a year. Two hundred and twenty families live in this. Now, your justification is that you want to sell these and supply more public housing for the 30,000 families that don’t have it. It doesn’t make an economic sense to… If you want to rehouse these people, most of them are again, the most vulnerable, they won’t be able to afford…they’re just one step above homeless, these people in caravan…

SA: So Michelle, your question is what? Where will they be housed?

Michelle: And if you wanna build, even at $300,000 a houses for these 220 families, that’s $66m dollars. It only works out to $5445/year for each of those families to be housed in stable, clean safe accommodation. How can you justify booting them?

CN: Well, Michelle, I’m glad you asked me the question, because it allows me to talk about the state of public housing in, and you reflected a figure. We’ve just had pretty much 20 years of Labor, and yet there are 30,000 families on the waiting list. So much for Labor caring about, er, people who are disadvantaged. I’ve got a Housing Minister, Dr Bruce Flegg, he’s been a successful businessman, I’m proud that he’s done that; I’m proud that he knows how to actually deal with this issue and solve the problem, and he will. What he’s doing, is he’s selling the caravan parks. He’s not closing them down, and I have to correct what Michelle said. There will be a moratorium on any change of use of those caravan parks for 18 months, and I’ve asked him to consider at least 2 years, so they’ll be put on the market, and new owners won’t be able to change their use. The new owner, by the way, might choose to keep them as caravan parks, but we don’t think the government should be in the business of owning caravan parks or specifically running caravan parks, nor do we even want to really be in the business of running public housing. We want to create public housing, create affordable housing, we want to create lots of it, and we’re gearing up to do that.

SA: Even though it’s an efficient way of housing people who are just one step away from homelessness?


CN: I don’t understand your point.

SA: If caravan parks…the caller’s point was that if people in caravan parks are one step away from being homeless, and this is an efficient way –

CN: Steve, Steve, I’ll have to say it again. We’re selling the caravan parks; they’re not being shut down. There’ll be at least a two year moratorium on their use, and it remains to be seen whether the actual caravan parks end up being closed. In the meantime, the money from those caravan parks will by “hypothecated” – in other words, will be spent directing on creating new, quality, public housing for Queenslanders in need, and again, Dr Flegg –

SA: Seems like a lot of uncertainty for one million dollars –

CN: Well, no, see, um, hang on. They’re worth a lot more than a million dollars. They’re worth several million dollars.

SA: All right.

CN: Well. What’s the uncertainty? The pledge is that they won’t be closed down for 2 years, the pledge is that the money will be spent on creating proper public housing, to deal with the absolute train wreck of a mess we’ve been left, because we do have a plan to create proper public housing for people. The other thing and I’ve pledged this already, that every single one of those two hundred or so people will be looked after, as an individual, and found alternative accommodation, should those caravan parks be shut down. I said all that a few weeks ago. I’m frankly happy to talk about this til the cows come home –

SA: We don’t have that much time –

CN: Buhbuhbuhbecbuhbedbugs but this really goes to the point. The Labor Party had 20 years to give us Public Housing Nirvana, and it’s a train wreck. Bruce Flegg, as Minister, has a plan to sort this out, and he cares passionately about every one of these people and he’s gonna provide quality accommodation for them. That’s what he’s gearing up to do, with the private sector in partnership.

SA: Michelle from The Gap, you have a question for the Premier?

Michelle: Mr Newman, you said that these cuts aren’t about ideology, but I think if you have a bit of a look at the list of people effected – the unemployed, women in the criminal justice system, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, tenants, people with disabilities, caravan park dwellers – and then on the other hand, look at the people where you have found some money to support: the gambling industry, the white picnic, graffiti removal, a High Court Challenge to the Mining Tax, moving your backbenchers onto committees which effectively gave them an $8000 pay rise. My question is, why are the cuts aimed at the least resourced in our community while you continue to support the most resourced in our community?
CN: Well, I’m sorry, but again, I don’t believe that’s the case. You could throw in other things, like Corporate Boxes going, the Literary Awards, y’know, I’m happy to talk about the Literary Awards going. Across the board, we’ve made all sorts of cuts that aren’t popular. They’ve been done wherever we think a programme has not generated value that it needs to, ultimately, with the tax payers. Another thing which we, er, I think we’ve sorted out now: we cut the Fanfare School Band programme, but we then found Corporate Sponsorship from the people that run the Convention Centre and we’re very happy about that, to keep the thing going, so y’know, that’s money that’s been saved. Across the board, the Government is making cuts that we need to make so that we can get the budget back in black. You made a comment about disabilities. Well, my position is very very clear. We want to spend a whole lot more assisting people with disabilities, and their families, and the only way we can do that, is to get the Government’s budget back in the black. In the 2014-15 Financial Year I’ve signalled, that at that stage, if we’ve achieved what we need to, we’ll be putting a lot more money – and a lot more money means hundreds of millions of dollars extra a year – as we gear up and then participate in the NDIS. So look, that’s where we’re coming from. There are plenty of examples of cuts that people can throw up. The bottom line, again, is the Government needs to do this, and we have a plan to get us back on track financially.

SA: Noel from Yeerongpilly, you have a question for the Premier?

Noel: How do you justify exaggerating by about $20b the level of debt by including Government owned corporations debt when the Government –owned corporations debt is just part of the general operational activity? The Government pays none of the interest on that debt and have no real responsibility for it, and the fact is that there’s no other government in the country, including the Federal Government that does this, and as the Mayor of a Council for many years, even Councils do not include the debt of their business enterprises in their general debt, so how do you justify it?
 

CN: Well, I hate to be disagreeing with callers, but I have to disagree. I was the Mayor of Brisbane for seven years, and the debt in things like Brisbane Water, Brisbane Transport, even though the standalone business units was incorporated in the overall debt picture, and the overall debt picture that we’re presenting is no different to the Government that just left. So, just again, let’s just look at it: Prior to the election, a thing called the Mid-Year Financial and Economic Review was released by Andrew Fraser and Anna Bligh. It said, the debt by the end of the 2012 Financial Year would be in excess of $62b, and it was; it ended up being $64b - $65b. It also said, so these are the Labor Party figures, that the debt would go to $85b by the 2014-2015 Financial Year. And guess what? It will, even though we’re making these cuts, it will, because they presented things in the most attractive and sunny-side-up way that they could. If we had no taken the action that we’ve been taking, the debt would end up being $100b. That’s what Mr Costello is saying. And that’s what Moody’s are sort-of saying in their report. It’s implied within the pages of this if you sort of look at all the information. So the numbers are the numbers are the numbers, and I urge all Queenslanders to have a good look at the Commission of Audit Report, look at Andrew Fraser’s Mid Year Review that was out some months ago, and the facts are exactly as they’ve been stated. That’s why these tough decisions have to be made. Look. The Government’s got a plan to sort this out. We’re very positive about being able to do that. We’re sorry about the people who are losing their jobs. We’re doing everything we can to keep that down to the minimum, sorry, the maximum number so that we don’t see anything like 20,000 going, but it’s pretty hard.

SA: Are you picking up the anger in the caller’s voices?

CN: Steve, I’m quite happy to acknowledge the callers you had this morning, but as I say, I spent…

SA: It’s pretty consistent.

CN: Yeah, quite consistent, but I spent seven hours at the Exhibition yesterday, and I can tell you that I had one person come up to me and express some negativity. For the rest of the 7 hours, I had people coming up, shaking my hand, saying “we know it’s tough, please keep doing what you’re doing, we admire the strength of you and the Government, and we know you’re doing the right thing for Queensland. Seven hours, Steve. I’ll, um, take heart from that because it has to be done.

SA: A couple of quick questions before you -

CN: I mean, no-one’s offering an alternative. No-one has said this morning, “we wanna pay an extra thousand dollars tax this year”. No-one’s said that. And it’s time that as Queenslanders, as Australians, we recognise that we have had a culture of, where we just say, we keep spending, and I’m afraid the music has stopped. It’s the morning after the party, and I’m afraid Campbell Newman and this Government, as a team, we have to deal with the hangover. We’re very positive about sorting it out. I know we’re gonna get through this, and by the end of this year, no, certainly, we’ve gotta get through the budget, but by the end of this year, I think we’ll have the finances tracking along very nicely, and one thing that’s really exciting is that I think we’re seeing some great signs in terms of our economy, great announcements by businesses and airlines about supporting Queensland, another one today coming from Etihad Airlines, we saw Qantas the other day into the Gold Coast, so I’m very positive about what’s happening in Queensland, going forward.

SA: Can I ask you, have you spoken to Anna Bligh since becoming Premier?

CN: Not since the night of the election, no.

SA: How do you feel about the news that she and her husband are leaving the state and moving to New South Wales to chase work.

CN: Well, that’s her call. We haven’t run them out of town; I know some people would like to. A lot of people I met at the Ekka yesterday would’ve liked to. But that’s all I’ve got to say on it.

SA: Final question. Does your Government have a communication problem? In other words, you’ve told me a great many things. You’ve heard the listeners call us, and I take your point about you have to deal with the real world of how you raise money to run the state, but it’s quite clear that the message is not getting through to the people who voted for you.

CN: Steve, it’s hard when you’re making tough decisions, but I sort of put it like this. At the end of the day, we’re in political office, and we know that it would be great to run around, cut ribbons and kiss babies and hand out money and just look good. That’s what we had in Queensland for 20 years. What you’re hearing this morning is fair dinkum, the truth. Nothing but the truth. The real reality we face, particularly at government, that has the guts to get in, deal with it, make it happen, sort it out, that’s what you’re hearing. At the end of the day, it’s not about us, about whether we get to be elected officials or whatever, it’s about whether we do the job to sort the state out. I just say to people, think about that. When was the last time you heard a politician, let alone a Premier actually telling you straight, tough stuff, unpalatable stuff, horrible stuff, but stuff that has to happen. I’m proud to do that, and I will keep doing that because that’s what we promised Queenslanders, that we’d sort out the mess, and that’s what we’re doing.

SA: Thanks for coming in once again.

(Bloody) Oath

Last week, it was announced that Australian Girl Guides would no longer swear allegiance to God or the Queen. Although there has been some media comment, and a minor kafuffle on talkback radio, the new version has been well accepted, except by Bert, and Bert isn’t happy.

The existing verse that Girl Guides recite included reference to both the Queen and God.

I promise that I will do my best;
To do my duty to God,
To serve the Queen and my country
To help other people
and keep the Guide law.

The new, inclusive version is here:

I promise that I will do my best
To be true to myself and develop my beliefs
To serve my community and Australia
And live by the Guide Law.

We heard Bert’s sincere disapproval on 612ABC Brisbane’s Cereal Box segment this morning. He was so incensed that he wanted to round up all the Girl Guides and send them to Afghanistan for not recognising the Queen. Now Bert’s an ex-Nasho, and ex-Public Servant and he’s always sworn allegiance to the Queen. In mu opinion, he's also a silly old goat, but I don’t think that requires a sworn oath of any kind.

Surprise, surprise, neither does being a Girl Guide. After all, it’s girls, some as young as seven, making a promise, not declaring an Oath. In fact, the Girl Guides call it that: it’s the Promise, and I think it’s entirely appropriate for young people to make a promise that is relevant to them.

When Julia Gillard, an atheist, became Prime Minister, she had the option of taking an oath or an affirmation. The difference is that the Oath is religious in nature, and the Affirmation is not. She was roundly criticised by conservatives and Christian groups for choosing the Affirmation, which does not mention God. I consider Ms Gillard’s choice was the only truthful alternative. How could she swear an oath which includes a God she doesn’t believe in? Wouldn’t that have been the height of hypocrisy? It’s a no-win situation: she is criticised for not observing prayers, yet every time she sets foot inside a church, particularly for state funerals, she is criticised for that too.

Bert was passionate in his determination that Girl Guides who did not recognise the Queen were unworthy somehow. It’s important for Bert to understand that an Oath, or Affirmation, or Promise is a deeply personal experience. It needs to mean something to the person who is swearing their Oath. It’s pointless swearing allegiance to a religion, a god, or a monarch that has no significance to you.

At this stage, both options still acknowledge our monarch, as do the Oath and Affirmation for servicemen and women joining the Australian Defence Force. There’s a good reason for that: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is still our head of state.

I asked Rob about his Oath: it was before there was a choice of an Affirmation available, so he spoke the words about the Queen and God with one hand on the Australian flag, but the words did not hold literal meaning for him. He was swearing his allegiance to Australia, promising to do all in his power as a soldier to protect Australia. The words that were written down (see below) weren’t entirely relevant or irrelevant, but he made them personal. It’s the personal vow that Rob held onto, because that’s the one that held meaning for him.

And the Girl Guides have done the same thing. After a project lasting for about a year, the Australian Girl Guides found the right words that allowed people making the Guides Promise to find their own meaning, regardless of religion, skin colour, origin, or political preferences. The Promise includes the words, “to Serve my Community and Australia”, and Bert can assume that clause includes Australia’s head of state, The Queen.

The World Association for Girl Guides has ratified the new wording, noting that it ensures that today’s Guides and those of the future will be included, rather than excluded, from the Promise. The Queen might be an important figure in Bert’s life, but irrelevant in the life of a seven year old girl who was born in Thailand or Kenya or Argentina, in the same way that swearing allegiance to a Christian god would make no sense for a Buddhust, Hindu, Jedi or atheist.

I hope Bert continues to hold dear the words he spoke all those years ago, because they mean so much to him. Australia needs her history (and people like Bert to keep it alive), but she also needs a future that is inclusive of everyone who may be willing and able to serve, whether it’s as a politician, a public servant, a member of the Defence Force or a Girl Guide. No-one wants to take away Bert’s Oath or challenge his beliefs.

Bert’s Oath is Bert’s Oath. The Girl Guides are simply helping the next generation to find words that mean as much to them as Bert’s Oath means to him.

Twetiquitte

Social media has opened the channels of communication between politics, media and the public, giving us in the cheap seats unprecedented access to the movers and shakers in our world. This is particularly true of Twitter, where the short message format of 140 characters means communication must be to the point. No-one expects a deep and meaningful conversation about values on Twitter, which is good. They rarely happen.

Of course not everyone is on Twitter, so not everyone has this experience. Some don’t want to, some don’t know how to, some don’t see the benefits, and others only see the risks. Whatever the reason, those who haven’t taken up the Twitter invitation are missing out on two levels: firstly, they are not privy to the information flow which is now my primary source of news; and secondly, they can’t contribute to it. There’s a whole world on Twitter and they don’t see it.

More and more, it’s becoming a choice to opt out, rather than a choice to opt in.

The other factor is that people who don’t use Twitter and aren’t part of the “Twitterverse” may not understand it. As with any society, there are standards of behaviour and etiquette to be observed. Within that, there are subcultures with their own “cool” language and their own version of what’s okay and what’s not.

Just last week, Brisbane’s BMag ran a story by reporter Laura Stead, entitled Brisbane’s Top Tweeters. It caused a few ripples amongst the Twitter folk I run with, because it seemed as though she was reporting on a parallel Twitterverse, where the rules were different and so were the people. Ms Stead proposed four major rules for tweeting:

Twitter etiquette

• It’s ok to follow people you don’t know – they can choose whether or not to follow you back.
• It’s better to message someone rather than tweet if you’re making plans or having a personal conversation.
• It’s also ok to openly tweet a reply to a question asked by direct message if you think your
audience could benefit from your response.
• Promote and support others as well as promoting yourself – it’s a nice way to show
support for your community.

I was particularly concerned by her version of Twitter Etiquette (above), which is a little different to mine, and those of the thousand or so people I interact with on Twitter. Points 1, 2 and 4 are basically okay, but anyone who was to follow the third point might find themselves embarrassed.

Just yesterday, I saw an instance where a very experienced and popular tweeter sent a DM (Direct Message, which cannot be seen by anyone other than the sender and the recipient) to a radio personality who has chosen not to tweet, although he and his producer have access to the radio station’s twitter account. The radio man, not understanding the rules, then shared the content of the DM on the airwaves. That’s simply bad form: it's twignorance.

At the opposite end of the twittersphere is Paul Murray Live, a news/chat/commentary show on Foxtel’s Sky News Australia. Last night, Mr Murray mentioned Independent MP Rob Oakeshott on air, and invited viewers to tweet their response to an anti-Oakeshott campaign being run by the National Party. One of the tweeps who responded was Mr Oakeshott himself, who will be most likely appearing on PM Live tonight as a result of that random tweet last night. The difference here is that both participants knew how to conduct themselves on Twitter. Oakeshott, who tweets as @OakeyMP, agreed via Twitter to appear on the show, but arrangements were to be made this morning, off Twitter.

Ms Stead’s BMag piece completely misinterpreted what it takes to be a top tweeter. It’s certainly not about the number of followers, as was suggested in the article. As social media, it’s about engaging with the tweeps you follow, and with those who follow you. Photographer Greg Wilson was noted in the article for having over a million twitter followers across a range of twitter accounts. Bully for him. Does having a swag of followers provide anything of value for Mr Wilson? If his purpose was to amass millions of followers, he’s well on his way. If it was for something different - driving traffic to a website, engaging, making new friends - has he achieved his goals?

BMag also included the @QPSMedia account as one of their Top Tweeters, and that’s entirely justified. QPS's Twitter account is a great service. They provide timely information, they engage with their tweeps, they share some really bad puns, and they’ve earned their place as cluey users of social media.

Spencer Howson, who introduced both Mr Wilson and I to Twitter, would be one of Brisbane’s Top Tweeters. With around 7,000 followers, he’s far short of the million plus reach of Mr Wilson, but the difference is in engagement. Spencer, who also writes for BMag in addition to his regular gig as 612ABC Brisbane’s breakfast host, makes a point of engaging with his followers daily. He understands that Twitter is not a broadcast medium; it’s a means of personal communication with many people at a time, much like radio.

It’s not about the numbers; it’s about the people. It’s the “social” in social media.

Talking About School Reunions

Did you go to your high school reunion? Were you full of excitement, and eager to see all those people you spent so much time with in your teens? Or could you not think of anything worse, and would have rather sat at home and given yourself thousands of paper cuts than attend?

Last year, I organised our 30 year reunion, for my Year 10 class of 1981 at Wingham High School. Earlier this week, I chatted about all things "Reunion" with Rebecca Levingston on 612ABC Brisbane.



Click here to listen.

.