A budget preview - a patchwork economy means not everyone's a winner

Tomorrow night, Australia's Treasurer Wayne Swan will announce the Federal Budget. It will show that Australia's economy is the envy of the developed world.

Overall, the economy is doing very well because of China and India's huge need for our coal and iron ore.

But a key theme will be the "patchwork" nature of the economy. This is Swan's preferred phrase to explain that whole the resources sector is in a once-in-a-lifetime boom, manufacturing and tourism are suffering.

So, how should Treasury respond to a patchwork economy?

Free marketeers would say the economy will take care of itself. If that was allowed to happen, everyone who has suffered from the floods would be left to rot. Surely that's not an economically rational approach, as these people who could return to being productive would take much longer than if they were given a helping hand.

On the other hand, protectionists would want the old, struggling manufacturing industries to be supported. They would add tariffs to imports in the name of protecting jobs. All that would do is produce an environment of complacency. Rather than encouraging product innovation and increased efficiency, it would create a culture of laziness. No, that is not an option either.

Instead, the budget will seek to strike a balance between these two extremes. And as the Treasurer said in his most recent economic note, "you often have to choose between what’s right and what’s popular".

Australia has been blessed with a series of excellent Treasurers on both sides of politics for many years. Striking the continuing balance to achieve a stable economy allows each of us as individuals to strive to achieve our economic potential.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Respect the dress code - whether it's teenage boys, hijabs or sluts

Discrimination against people based on their dress code continues in so-called civilised societies such as America, Canada and Australia.  Teenage boys with their pants too low, women dressed like Lady Gaga, or Muslim women in a hijab.  There's no excuse for discrimination - but worse, there's no excuse for violence.

Student says cops used Taser, broke his arm because of sagging pants

Last month in Kansas, USA, a 17 year old student was tasered and had his arm broken by school resource officers who work for the police department.  According to the Wichita Eagle, Jonathan Villarreal, said he was walking with friends to the bus after school on Wednesday when one of the officers ordered him to pull up his pants. He told them he could wear them how he wanted because school was out. (You can read the full article here.)

There is absolutely no justification for this sort of action.

Discrimination against women wearing the hajib - you better believe it

While Australia is a nation of migrants, attitudes towards people who look different continue in our "tolerant" land.  Here is a shocking quote from a report by the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria.

Muslim Village

“I was going shopping with my son, he is blind. These men followed us, and one extinguished his cigarette on my head. I felt it burning. I started to run with my son. They came up and surrounded us, 6 of them, Australian and white …”



This level of intolerance, of people of a particular religion, is made obvious by the hijab.  Whatever you may think of this dress code, the discrimination and violence towards these women is shocking and unacceptable.  I remember Jewish friends of mine being discriminated against when I was playing footy as a child because they wore a jarmulkah.  We must not accept any racism against any groups as a result of their religious dress codes.

Slutwalks - supporting the rights of women to be safe from sexual violence

On 24th January this year in Canada, a member of the Toronto police force stated that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”.  The women in attendance were rightly insulted as this wrongly implied that the dress code had some bearing on sexual attacks.  It does not. As a result the Slutwalk movement was born. http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/

On 3rd April, the Toronto SlutWalk was held to support the rights of women to dress how they choose and not to be subjected to sexual violence.  There is simply no justification for sexual violence against women, and what they dress is irrelevant.  Honestly, do we think that Lady Gaga deserves to be sexually assaulted?

The SlutWalks are also reappropriating the phrase "Slut", as the word has always been used to wound, whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult.

SlutWalks are now spreading around the world, and are being held in Australia.  I encourage you to attend to support all women.
Melbourne - May 28
Sydney - June 13
Adelaide - June 11

Dress styles have often been at the front line of discrimination.  In a civilised society, we must be proud of the diversity of dress styles. Our only intolerance should be against those who use dress standards as an excuse to villify others.

Let me know what you think


Mark S

Don't let the Victorian government erode women's rights

Yesterday's decision by the Victorian government to wind back changes to the Equal Opportunity Act for some sports are a dangerous step down a very slippery slope.

I am a lawn bowler and in 2001 the issue came to a head in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal when a 19 year old woman challenged the men's only status of Saturday pennant competition. Emily South wanted to play competitive bowls on the weekend when she was free from university commitments, but was prevented because the Saturday comp was mens only.

She won the case, and as a result she and other women were able to play on Saturdays. The unexpected consequence was that men were permitted to play in the women's pennant competition on Tuesday mornings.

Both the men's Royal Victorian Bowls Association and Victorian Ladies Bowling Association opposed Emily's application (you can read the judgment here).  Here are some of their (very old fashioned) comments...

the Immediate Past President of the VLBA, Mrs Lewis was not aware of any demand from women wanting to compete in mixed pennant.
The reality: After Emily's successful challenge, thousands of working women now play on Saturdays.

She was aware that among the older group of players, there is no desire to change the way pennant competition is administered ... many VLBA members did not want to play in competitions that are open to men and that if they are made to do so, she was concerned that they will withdraw from the sport. Mr Hosken also expressed his concerns if women were allowed to play in the men's pennant and vice versa.
The reality: The Ladies pennant competition was dying, and now that men are playing on Tuesdays and women playing on Saturdays, both competitions are more successful. In fact, many clubs wouldn't be able to field teams if there was a return to same-sex formats. 
(You can read more comments here at the bowlsworld forum that support the new format)

This decision upset some older ladies and it is these individuals who are now influencing policy.  And amazingly, the head of Bowls Victoria (now mens and women combined) is in favour of returning to same-sex pennant.  See the Herald-Sun article.

So the backflip from the conservative government has been driven by a bunch of oldies, who want to return to the days when women didn't work and had Tuesdays off for a quiet game of bowls.  These are the same oldies who insist on having the Queen's photo in every bowls club, and toasting her at every official function.  I mean, we love Lizzie and all, but really, is this the 19th century!

Where will this all lead?

From a bowls point of view, there are a limited number of bowling greens, and men's and women's pennant can't both be accommodated on a weekend.  So, a return to mens only on the weekend would be a return to discrimination against women.  And yet, it has been women pushing for this change.

While the Attorney-General, Robert Clark claims this is a "victory for common sense", it's much more likely to be a thinly veiled pandering to outdated, sexist values.  And for the head of Bowls Victoria to be in favour shows that nothing has changed in the bowls headquarters in the last 10 years.

If this change to the Act was to ensure that some events could be men's or women's only, just like some are for juniors only, or for over 70s, this might make some sense.  But it's clear that isn't what the conservatives want.

Instead, this retrograde approach to equal opportunity could easily return our society back to the bad old day's of exclusive gentleman's clubs where the old boys network ruled, and women were denied fairness.  We simply cannot risk any denial of the rights that women have rightly earned - even if it's just on the bowling green.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

Well-being: our aim for happy ever after

Back in 2002, Martin Seligman crystallised the theory of Positive Psychology with his book Authentic Happiness.  This was a major shift away from previous theories that focused on abnormal psychology.  Abnormal psychology assumed that people's problems were as a result of them being different from the norm - so they were "treated". It was also a shift among from psychologists' focus on reducing misery (such as helplessness and depression) towards increasing happiness.

[The Dalai Lama had a similar idea around the same time.  He asked "Scientists often study depression, anxiety and fear, but why not devote your work to the causes of positive human qualities like happiness and compassion?"]

One of the major shifts with positive psychology is the focus on people's strengths.  Rather than treating individual differences as a problem, the alternative is to leverage these "signature strengths".  When we leverage what we are good at, we are happier.

To find out your signature strengths, take the VIA Signature Strengths test here.

My top five strengths are:  Creativity, ingenuity, and originality; Judgment, critical thinking, and open-mindedness; Perspective (wisdom); Bravery and valor; Curiosity and interest in the world.  So, that probably explains why I am happiest when engaged in thinking (and making brave statements like some of my blog entries!)

Recently, Seligman has expanded his research and is focusing on well-being, more than just on happiness. He now explains that Well-being has five measurable elements (PERMA) that count toward it:
- Positive emotion
- Engagement
- Relationships
- Meaning and purpose
- Accomplishment

So, rather than just focusing purely on happiness - we "flourish" by using our strengths to achieve these five PERMA elements.  And so, well-being is a combination of feeling good, along with relationships, meaning and purpose.

The evidence is in: human beings actually make choices to maximise relationships, meaning and purpose - and not just personal happiness.

Let me know what you think


Mark S

To listen to an excellent talk from Martin Seligman, click here
Click here to read more about the Dalai Lama and the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds

Clarification on affairs - if it's wrong, it's wrong - whether you find out or not

I have a clarification to yesterday's blog.

In yesterday's blog, I wrote...

Jenny and Fred are married. Jenny has an affair with George. Fred doesn't find out about it and notices no change in their marriage. Has Fred been hurt physically - no.  This action has not breached the harm test.


What if Fred does find out about it when he sees an expose on the television about his wife's affair? Jenny's action didn't change - there was no physical harm to Fred.  But what about emotional harm?


The blog then went on to explain that different couples have different attitudes towards extramarital relationships.

I never meant to convey that having a secret extramarital relationship is different to having a relationship when the other party finds out.  If the action would not be acceptable if it was learned about, it wouldn't be acceptable if they didn't find out.


Thank you for reading my blogs - please accept my apology for a badly written one.


Mark S

Affairs are matters of the heart, not matters for the State

How can acts that make some people feel bad be acceptable?

Let's take the thorny issue of affairs. One perspective is that once two people have committed to a relationship then any breach of that bond through a romantic connection to another person is wrong and should be prohibited.

A social liberal doesn't agree with this hard and fast rule.

First, let's pass this action through the "physical harm to person or property" test.

Jenny and Fred are married. Jenny has an affair with George. Fred doesn't find out about it and notices no change in their marriage. Has Fred been hurt physically - no.  This action has not breached the harm test.

What if Fred does find out about it when he sees an expose on the television about his wife's affair? Jenny's action didn't change - there was no physical harm to Fred.  But what about emotional harm?

This is where the context is all important. Let's develop a scale to measure the context.

Relationship monogamy scale
(modified from the original Kinsey Scale)
1 - Totally monogamous, no incidental emotional contact with others permitted
2 - Monogamous, incidental emotional contact with others is accepted
3 - Monogamous, more than incidental emotional contact with others is accepted
4 - Partly open, sexual contact outside relationship permitted in certain circumstances
5 - Mainly open relationship, one committed relationship with other sexual contact permitted with conditions
6 - Totally open relationship, one committed relationship with sexual contact permitted with others
7 - Polyamorous, no conditions attached to any relationships

If Fred and Jenny's relationship is a 6, Fred will have no problem with this TV revelation. He would accept the sexual contact with George as being perfectly normal.

But if their relationship is a 2, he will view the contact as breaching their marriage agreement.

This is where it gets interesting. Fred can view this breach of their marriage in a variety of ways. He can choose to feel hurt and betrayed. He can choose to treat this as a fundamental breach and leave the marriage.  He can choose to be surprised by the revelation and ask Jenny to enter into counselling. Or he can choose to accept Jenny's actions as a minor infringement and continue as normal, resuming their previous agreement.

He can CHOOSE?? Are you serious?? Yes, this is exactly what he can do. Indeed, with most statistics citing that 25-50% of married people have an affair, this is a decision that is being made very often.

Does this condone Jenny's behavior? If their relationship was a 2, no it doesn't. But that is a private matter between Fred and Jenny.

Without demeaning the personal side, it is much like a commercial agreement - if there is a breach by one side, there may be consequences. In a breach of a personal relationship, there may also be consequences - and as sad as the consequences may be, that is OK for those consequences to play out in whatever way they will.

Providing the harm test is not breached, people should be at liberty to act in whatever way they wish - they just need to accept that there will be consequences of any action.

Groups of people are free to impose social norms on themselves, but breaches are civil matters between those individuals, they are not a matter for the State.

(Clarification: having a secret extramarital relationship is no different to having a relationship when the other party finds out.  If the action would not be acceptable if it was learned about, it wouldn't be acceptable if they didn't find out.)

Let me know what you think


Mark S

Some statistics on infidelity:
Peter Fox
Kinsey studies

From bikinis to gay rights, there are real costs of not supporting civil liberties

When it comes to economic matters, data and logic really are king.  But social attitudes are not so cut and dry.  I've spent the last few days researching data to support some thoughts on social liberalism, and then had an epiphany - not every comment needs to be supported by statistics!  Instead, the issue of social liberties comes down to a philosophical debate between two sides.

In the red corner - those of us who believe that adults should be permitted to act in whatever way they want, providing it doesn't cause any harm to person or property.
In the blue corner - those who believe that adults cannot be trusted to make good (or moral?) decisions, and need to be "protected" by the imposition of a set of rules by "society".

Of course there are an unlimited supply of examples that bring this debate to a head, so let's look at a couple of them, from the sublime to the ridiculous:

Wearing bikinis:
In the red corner, we say, if you want to wear a bikini, wear a bikini.
In the blue corner - well, it depends on what year it is, and where you are. Throughout history, the bikini has been acceptable, then unacceptable, then acceptable again.

Villa Romana del Casale, Sicily.
Source: Wikipedia

In 2006, in Kanab, in the US state of Utah, Council passed a ban on bikinis at the city pool, which was overturned in 2008.  The Kuwaitis rejected a motion to ban the bikini just this year, but in the neighbouring Saudi Arabia, no way.

Kuwaiti parliament rejects ban on bikinis

So, just for the moment, let's consider the blue corner has a point (which I don't accept of course), and this bikini ban is in some way a good decision for women.  Why should that decision vary from year to year, and even from State to State and country to country?  It's surely nonsensical.



Sex between consenting adults of the same sex:
In the red corner, we say, if you want to have sex, enjoy yourself.
In the blue corner - this is one of those issues where the wrath of God has been invoked against sin.  But of course, society's attitudes have differed over the centuries.  To the ancient Greeks, no problem.  To the Abrahamic religions, it is a sin.  For the Chinese, over most of its history, homosexuality has been OK.

When it comes to homosexuality, the battle isn't just theoretical.  Societies over the years have demonised and proscribed homosexuality, with 76 countries still criminalizing consenting sexual acts between people of the same sex.  4,000 people have been executed in Iran since 1979 for homosexual acts.

You see, when it comes to being socially liberal, there are real consequences. The costs of imposing rules on people, where no person is being harmed are very, very high.


Let me know what you think

Mark S