Archives

Premier Campbell Newman has just announced the creation of a remuneration tribunal to determine Queensland politicians pay levels.  The announcement comes in the aftermath of the recent 42% pay rise given to state politicians.  The recommendations of the tribunal will apply from the 1st July 2013, and will be backdated once the Tribunal presents it’s findings in October.  In order to enact the recommendations of the tribunal the Newman government will be presenting legislation to parliament in August designed to break the link between Federal and State politician’s salaries.  Newman also confirmed that the new legislation would attempt to make the Tribunal’s recommendations binding.

This link was, according to Newman in the recent announcement, established by the Bligh/Beattie government as a means of indexing state politician salaries to federal salaries.  This link, or as Newman is calling it a ‘nexus’, is law and explains the recent 42% pay rise awarded to politicians in Queensland.

Newman is defending acting Premier Jeff Seeney’s approval of the pay rises on the basis that the legislation requires that state politician salaries remain indexed to federal, yet under the Bligh government there have been several federal pay rises that have not resulted in increased state salaries.  So it seems that the Bligh government was able to find a way to keep politican’s salaries down since 2009, but Newman’s government has not.  Over 4 years, the current pay rise really only represents a roughly 10% annual indexation, not the 42% that is being claimed.

The  Bligh pay freeze may have been unlawful, and the Newman government claims advice that this was so forced them to lift the freeze.  But in so doing they showed no interest in first looking into improving the existing legislation so as to avoid the 42% increase.  Now that there has been public backlash, Newman has decided that there will be investigation into this issue afterall.

Time will tell if the Tribunal recommendations are adhered to, or indeed whether in the final analysis the Tribunal doesn’t recommend that the new salaries, coming on the back of a series of missed pay rises, are appropriate after all.

More reports:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/law-forced-us-to-raise-our-wages-government-20130701-2p7ex.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/acting-premier-jeff-seeney-says-he-was-uncomfortable-with-the-decision-to-grant-mps-a-payrise/story-e6frg6n6-1226676684619

During Kevin Rudd’s ‘Victory Speech’ on Wednesday, one of the policy directions he alluded to was a move to channel funding from the mining industry to manufacturing:  “There’s a big future for manufacturing under this government”

Despite my misgivings about Rudd, this is something I wholeheartedly agree with. I am a bit over this attitude that Australian manufacturing is dead and that our only option for a strong economic future is to rely on mining. Mining does very little for the average Australian. It makes a very few people very rich.  Manufacturing on the other hand provides jobs, exports, reduced transport costs due to locally produced goods, has flow on benefits for small to medium Australian business and many other benefits to the community.

Well as it happens, the first article on Altmax Media will be a clarification/debunk of a news article doing the rounds of the blogosphere and alternative news sites lately, ie: the news that McDonalds “is closing all stores in Bolivia and is being rejected by Bolivians”.

These articles, while generally accurate in that they reflect a real event, don’t clarify that this occurred in 2002 and is not something that is just happening now.   McDonalds was present in Bolivia for about 5 years (1997-2002).

The claim that McDonalds was rejected on health grounds is a huge over simplification of the situation. Most Bolivian cities are rife with fast food:  Burger King and Subway, as well as other local fast food franchises proliferate, just like in most urban areas of the world.

Operating losses, and the inability to sell McDonalds food at prices that the average Bolivian can afford, are also a large factor.  Taking a quote by Esther Choque, an indigenous local woman, from “Latin American Studies”:  “I’ve wanted to try the food but I never have”.  She continues,  “The closest I ever came was one day when a rain shower fell and I climbed the steps to keep dry by the door. Then they came out and shooed me away. Said I was dirtying the place. Why would I care if McDonald’s leaves if they do such bad things?”  This kind of attitude has been reported elsewhere, and seems to indicate a failure by McDonalds to engage with the greater population of Bolivia in either economic or social terms.

I recommend reading the references below for a more balanced understanding of the reasons that McDonalds left Bolivia (and a more accurate time frame) than the majority of articles doing the rounds of the blogosphere currently.

References:
http://www.bolivianexpress.org/blog/posts/why-didn-t-the-mcchicken-cross-the-road

http://ain-bolivia.org/2012/01/mcdonald%E2%80%99s-left-bolivia-in-2002-fast-food-still-abundant-on-city-streets/

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/bolivia/bolivia-mcdonalds.htm

http://www.ilo.org/indigenous/Activitiesbyregion/LatinAmerica/Bolivia/lang–en/index.htm

http://wafflesatnoon.com/2013/05/13/mcdonalds-banned-in-bolivia/