Category: A sustainable economy

  • Married to the Lehman Mob

     

    It was a world where the desire to grow Lehman’s into a major player capable of taking on Wall Street giants such as Goldman Sachs became so all-consuming that few dared to challenge senior management decisions. Huge gambles were taken without a second thought. It was, Ward says, a world that was doomed to fail. “Even without an economic catastrophe Lehman would have failed. It was too dysfunctional.”

    As part of the “one firm” strategy, which demanded total loyalty, Lehman invaded all aspects of its senior executives’ private lives and became oddly preoccupied with their marital status. Giving a toast at a company dinner one night, Chris Pettit, one of the two deputies to the Lehman chief executive Dick Fuld, said: “Now, look at this! Every single person here is with their original spouse. That is why we are successful. Because our word is our honour.” Pettit later left his wife for a younger woman, which Ward believes broke his career.

    “His closest allies at the firm deserted him,” she says. These included Fuld’s other right-hand man Joe Gregory, who disliked Pettit’s new mistress and once told a colleague that she was “evil”. Pettit was eventually frozen out of Lehman in 1997 and died soon after in a snowmobile accident.

    Ward recounts that during the annual summer retreats at Fuld’s ranch, in Sun Valley, Idaho, it wasn’t uncommon for the chief executive to pull one of his employees aside to find out about his home life. He once asked Bradley Jack, head of banking and later co-chief operating officer, after overhearing an argument between Jack and his wife Karin, “Are you all having trouble?”

    “He really wanted to know,” Karin Jack told Ward. “He didn’t think Brad and I looked happy enough and it really worried him.”

    Some Lehman wives revelled in the “unwritten rules”, which meant that if you were married to a Lehmanite, you belonged to the firm. One was Niki Gregory, wife of Joe, who gave other wives tours of her vast shoe closets at her home. One person on the tour described the closet as being “twice the size of the Jimmy Choo store in New York”. It was filled with Christian Louboutin, Manolo Blahnik and Chanel, in every style imaginable and many that had never been worn.

    Niki Gregory outsourced all her needs to a personal staff of about 30. “I don’t think she ever set a table in her life for a dinner party,” one wife said. But other wives found the social events sponsored by the firm and the annual summer retreat a ghastly ordeal, not least because of Fuld’s obsession with dress code. Evenings on the summer retreat required dresses, jewellery and Blahnik shoes, while they were all expected to don hiking gear for a trek up a mountain. One wife once brought a fake plaster cast so she could pretend she had a broken leg. She was flummoxed when Niki arrived with a real cast on her leg saying she planned to climb regardless.

    Fuld’s requirement that his executives sacrifice all for the sake of the firm, often put unbearable strains on their families. Karin Jack recalls that her child had a seizure on the day the Jacks were supposed to go on a Lehman outing. Rather than excuse her for the day, they landed Joe Gregory’s private helicopter at her home and waited for her. “Can you imagine the pressure?” she told Ward. “I have this really sick child, but I know that if I don’t get on that helicopter it’s going to hurt Brad.”

    Ward reveals that the wives of executive committee members were also expected to support philanthropic causes that Lehman endorsed, including the New York Museum of Modern Art, where Kathy Fuld, Dick’s wife, was on the board. Not only were they expected to attend Moma evenings and charity events with their husbands, but they “were told exactly how much they had to donate”.

    Amid such a testosterone-charged atmosphere, it was not surprising that Lehman was a hard place for women to work. The one woman who rose to the top, Erin Callan, was a beneficiary of a passion Joe Gregory developed, relatively late in the day, at promoting diversity at Lehman.

    Callan, a Harvard graduate born to a New York cop, was a fighter. But she did herself no favours at Lehman, Ward says, by coming to work in low-cut, short dresses that would have been more suitable at a cocktail party. Callan’s looks were often the subject of morning inter-office emails, until she found herself struggling to hold her head above water when the markets started to turn.

    “Her biggest mistake was to accept a job [chief financial officer] she was not up to,” Ward says. “Joe Gregory had no business in appointing her.”

    When Ward wrote her book proposal, she admits that while she knew there was a story, she didn’t know what it would be. Her break came early on in her research, when an anonymous source handed her a sheath of dictated notes from some senior Lehman executives, each giving his or her personal accounts of the two key decades leading up to 2000. The secret document’s pages were commissioned by Joe Gregory, at the time president of the firm, who intended them to be the basis of a sanitised “history” of Lehman Brothers, which never saw the light of day.

    What struck Ward from the notes was that Fuld, Lehman chief executive from 1994, featured so little. Nicknamed by colleagues “the gorilla”, Fuld, so the legend goes, spent a career instilling into his traders that new business was like “blood in the water: go get it”. “It became clear that Fuld was not the tyrant he was made out to be. He was barely mentioned,” Ward says. He emerged from the documents as a man, obsessed with appearances and dress codes, but unwilling to apply himself to the intricacies of risk management, not particularly bright and incapable of making decisions. In contrast, Pettit and Gregory dominated everything.

    Through the notes, Ward also uncovered the story of how a group of working-class friends with high hopes and high ideals, Gregory and Pettit among them, decided to make their mark on Wall Street. Nicknamed the Ponderosa Boys in a reference to the 1960s TV series Bonanza, they drove to work together, went to the gym together and socialised together. All had virtually zero financial training – Pettit was recruited from the Army, Gregory had joined in 1968 as a teenage intern.

    Early on in his career, Pettit made a pledge never to “turn into an asshole” if he made money, something he sadly failed to live up to. Gregory turned into an all-controlling monster, Ward suggests, as he became obsessed with growing the firm and his own fortune. He turned out to be a phony, who bought his own helicopter and seaplane for his commute and would tell other senior executives that his personal annual spending budget was $US15 million ($16.4 million).

    Bizarrely, Ward ends the book by relating a conversation she had with the late Chris Pettit – via a medium. It’s a strange way for a journalist to end such a meticulously researched book but it betrays the affection that Ward built up for Pettit, despite his flaws.

    Ward interviewed hundreds of (living) people for the book, including Hank Paulson, the former Treasury Secretary, and double-checked accounts with the relevant participants. Fuld and Gregory would not talk. “Do I think Pettit was really talking to me? I don’t know,” she says. “He was the man they all tried to erase from the public record. This book is his moment 12 years after he died.”

    But it is more than that too, she adds. “This is not yet one more book about the crash of 2008. Rather it is a parable about the foibles of men, the corrosive influence of money and the dangers of hubris.” And it doesn’t get much more risky than climbing up a mountain in a plaster cast just to prove you love the firm as much as your husband does.

    The Devil’s Casino: Friendship, Betrayal and the High Stakes Games Played Inside Lehman Brothers, by Vicky Ward, published by John F. Wiley & Sons, is out on April 5.

  • Prime Minister Kevin Rudd losing support in Western Sydney

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd losing support in western Sydney

     

    Kevin Rudd

    That sinking feeling … Prime Minster Kevin Rudd. Source: The Daily Telegraph

    THE chance of Australia going to an early election has lessened, with internal Labor research exposing a negative shift in mood toward Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in key marginal seats in Sydney’s west.

    A separate poll has also revealed that a growing number of voters believe that the Prime Minister was complacent and superficial.

    While Labor sits comfortably ahead in the national polls, senior Labor Party officials have confirmed that there had been a softening of support for Mr Rudd in the marginal seats of western Sydney where Labor must hold ground to win an election.

    There was an overriding message of “deliverability” and “believability”, said a senior Labor source, particularly on health.

    “While they give him credit for his handling of the global financial crisis, there was a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction around the idea of broken promises, particularly on health.”

    The party’s national secretariat would not comment, however, several senior Labor sources confirmed that MPs have been partially briefed on ongoing focus group research which began late last year and continued over Christmas and into the new year.

    “It is the first time we’ve seen a dual message come through in the research,” they said.

    It is also understood that a secret strategy meeting was held in Canberra last Wednesday night between Mr Rudd and NSW powerbroker Senator Mark Arbib over concerns about the Government’s flagging credibility – where it was decided that the axe would fall on Environment Minister Peter Garrett over the failed home insulation scheme.

    The research, which is believed to have been conducted across key marginal Labor held seats including Lindsay and Macquarie as well as marginal Coalition seats of Greenway and Macarthur, also revealed that women had also begun to sour on Mr Rudd and that mixed messages were now starting to show up on the Government’s climate change policy.

    Yesterday Mr Rudd continued his theme of getting “whacked” in the polls, despite a Newspoll proving not to be as dire as he had predicted.

    “The bottom line is this, as I’ve said yesterday and the day before, the Government needs to do better, needs to deliver more, and get back to basics,” he said.

     

  • Fund money gone to dodgy dealer

     

    The hunt was launched last October when fears were first raised that Astarra Strategic may have been a Ponzi scheme.

    The money in Astarra Strategic was invested through the Albury fund manager Trio Capital, in an international transfer of funds that reveals weaknesses in Australia’s superannuation regulation.

    The colourful record of Mr Bell’s appearances before the US broking industry’s independent regulatory body raises the likelihood investors may have been fleeced, despite continuing uncertainty about where the funds have ended up.

    The fund’s appointed administrator, PPB, issued a letter last week that telegraphs the likely fate of the $125 million, which is mostly held in a complicated contractual relationship known as a ”deferred purchase agreement”.

    The administrator wrote succinctly: ”The value of the deferred purchase agreements is uncertain.”

    The administrator, Neil Singleton, said the funds had been placed into five hedge funds: Exploration, Tailwind, SBS Dynamic Opportunities, Pacific Capital Markets Cayman and Atlantis Capital Markets Cayman.

    Mr Bell operates the Exploration Fund, which administrators say is the destination for most of Astarra’s $125 million in investments.

    To date PPB has only found rats and mice from Astarra Strategic’s investments: $US100,000 out of a bank account in Hong Kong and evidence about $1.2 million may sit in Tailwind.

    Then there is $1.4 million in a bank account of the custodian, National Australia Trustee, and $550,000 in application money submitted by investors.

    Astarra Strategic was supposed to have entered a contract with a British Virgin Islands company, EMA International, which then invested the money in five hedge funds.

    The placement of the money was supposed to have been checked by a Hong Kong company, Global Consultants and Services Ltd (GCSL), in its formal role as company secretary of EMA and as custodian for four of the hedge funds. The chief executive of GCSL, Jack Flader, is a subject of investigators’ inquiries because of his company’s central role in placing Astarra Strategic’s money in the offshore hedge funds.

    When BusinessDay met Mr Flader in Hong Kong recently, it encountered a middle-aged man who looked very stressed.

    BusinessDay sought an explanation for the missing money, but was politely refused. ”I can’t talk about this. It’s a shame, I would love to talk about this … there is probably another side to the story but I can’t talk about it,” he said.

    The former investment manager of Astarra Strategic, Shawn Richard, has said he is confident the money still exists, and he has documentary evidence to support this assertion.

    But he said Mr Flader, his former business partner, is no longer returning his calls.

    BusinessDay is making no suggestions of involvement in money becoming missing by Mr Richard or his offsider, Eugene Liu, who acted as investment managers for the fund. Nor is there any suggestion of such involvement by Trio Capital.

    Problems in the recovery of any money are illustrated by an examination of Mr Bell’s broking record.

    He has an extensive record of being fined by the US broking industry’s self-regulation body, originally known as the National Association of Securities Dealers but now called the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

    Mr Bell was suspended in 2008 after failing to pay two arbitration payouts awarded against him.

    In a 2008 ruling, New World Financial and several staff, including Mr Bell, were ordered to pay $378,000 for breaches of fiduciary duties and securities laws.

    In a 2004 ruling, Mr Bell, acting for World Financial Capital Markets, and Pacific Continental Securities, were ordered to pay $US67,000.

    And in a separate finding in November 2003, he was ordered to pay $US40,000 and barred for eight months for World Financial issuing research reports that exaggerated company performances in return for issues of their shares.

    His previous employment history includes a stint as compliance officer with Pacific Continental Securities, which appears to be a common former employer among those close to Astarra Strategic.

    Mr Richard and Mr Liu were both employed by Pacific Continental Securities. Mr Flader was previously general counsel for its Hong Kong owner, Zetland Financial Group. Pacific Continental Securities UK failed in 2007 after operating as a boiler room, selling nearly worthless US shares to unsuspecting investors.

    Mr Bell also worked for broker New World Financial, which has been the subject of regulators’ warnings.

  • State of the economy (Barnaby Joyce)

     

    If you do not manage debt, debt manages you.

    As Harvard professor Niall Ferguson wrote in The Weekend Australian last weekend, “explosion of public debt hurts economies in the following way, as numerous empirical studies have shown. By raising fears of default and/or currency depreciation ahead of actual inflation, they push up real interest rates.” This is not what Treasury secretary Ken Henry told me at Senate estimates when he said, “No disrespect, senator, but that is a gross oversimplification of economic understanding.”

    I was very interested to read further what Ferguson had to say: “Higher real rates, in turn, act as a drag on growth, especially when the private sector is also heavily indebted.” From the information tabled in estimates, that is us.

    It is a statement of the bleeding obvious that we cannot have government debt growing the way it is growing. The Labor Party does not want to grasp the nettle to manage the debt. The latest tactic of avoidance is that Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner talks about net debt but generally leaves out the word sovereign.

    Let’s talk about the difference between gross sovereign debt and net sovereign debt. Net sovereign debt is gross sovereign debt less money that is identifiable in such places as, but not the entirety of, the Future Fund. So Tanner must presume we can get money out of the Future Fund to pay our gross sovereign debt. But the Future Fund covers public servants’ superannuation liability, so we have slight problem when they retire.

    Net sovereign debt also relies on the payment of HECS debt. All I can say about immediately collecting this liability, if required, is good luck.

    The second strand of Tanner’s argument is that there are other countries in a worse position than we are. Once more, this is a case of “I only had five beers at breakfast so I’m in a much better place than the person who had a bottle of scotch with his wheaties.”

    Debt is less of a problem when it is backed by an asset that is readily exchangeable to restore the wealth of the public coffers. However, I do not know how exchangeable the ceiling insulation will be when we need to repay the debt.

    I’m not quite certain what the international market is like for second-hand school halls if we need to send them back. I suppose we could have a crack at getting the $900 cheques off the public, but I don’t like our chances.

    We have, approximately, a $90bn package of eclectic economic trinkets, noted as stimulus, that would look good hanging from any rear-vision mirror in a car doing hot laps on a Friday night in downtown Dubbo.

    Did we get something substantial, clearly identifiable in the form of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, or inland rail or massive water infrastructure to alleviate the problems of future droughts? Did we invest in a method to encourage people in a growing population to settle away from the crowded capitals of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane? No, we didn’t.

    What we did get were big contracts to big firms with big price tags, to make big statements that didn’t deliver big outcomes.

    What we got was appalling management of programs and costs as seen in the ceiling insulation fiasco, the biggest flop since the Leyland P76. Let’s take Tanner at his word that he “didn’t dot the i’s and cross the t’s”, as he told David Speers on Sky News. Let’s just file the ceiling insulation under R for res ipsa loquitur.

    Let’s see what other little weeds have been delivered in this fiscal bouquet. We had the $850 million blow-out in the solar panel program; very interesting, when it was only going to be a $150m program. We had the $17m that went west with the national broadband network tender program.

    There was the $450,000 a year, plus super, job for ALP mate Mike Kaiser. Not a bad job if you can get it, and you won’t because applications from the subset of the Australian populace, everybody but Kaiser, were not accepted.

    Let’s talk about the $5bn blowout in the interest expense in the forward projections. Let’s talk about the $1bn blow-out in the computer thing for the schools and also let’s talk about the fact only about half of the children will get these computers, and even some of them won’t be able to use them because they can’t get online. Let’s talk about the abundance of faith exhibited by Labor when it tells us of the eight consecutive $19bn surpluses that are required to bring the budget back into orbit when the continued stresses on the international economy are clear and evident, especially in Europe. Let’s talk about all these things, then stick them to wall with a piece a Blu-Tack and compare them with the more salient and expected outcomes back here on planet Earth.

    The Labor Party has marked out its territory. There is nothing to be concerned about. You can trust it. Its members are economic conservatives. Well, the three great lies that we always talked about when dealing in business are these: I’m from the government, I’m here to help; the cheque is in the mail; trust them, they are not like that.

    Barnaby Joyce is the Coalition’s finance spokesman.

  • Let The Joyce Era Begin

     

    But the Finance Minister? What does he do, exactly? Does he play the stockmarket? Is he in charge of providing car loans? Does he just sit around all day calculating the interest on things?

    Nobody knows, least of all the current minister, Lindsay Tanner, who has decided that the role is what you make of it, which is why the Finance Minister’s role under this government is mainly to abuse the Opposition and make overt threats to public servants.

    But if the Finance Minister’s job is a hard one, the shadow finance minister has it even tougher. This is pretty much the case in all shadow portfolios. The role of a shadow minister is to create a kind of parallel universe, where things are mostly the same except for minor cosmetic changes to the Budget. Even worse, you then have to get people to pay attention to the parallel universe, which is hard, because it’s boring. And then after you win the election, you’ll probably get pushed out of the portfolio anyway so Julia Gillard can have it.

    So essentially, shadow ministries are well suited to people who enjoy thankless, dull tasks with no promise of future benefit. The one exception may be Health, where the shadow minister’s job is to laugh mockingly at the actual minister, who is crying quietly into a shot glass.

    With all this in mind, can we cut Barnaby Joyce some slack? He has it tough. There he is in the most difficult portfolio of all, trying to “cut through” on the issues, fighting an enemy of pure fiscal malevolence. Is it any wonder he stumbles occasionally? How many of us can honestly say that, when faced with difficult tasks and awkward situations, we have not said something hilariously stupid to the entire country? I know I have. To tell the truth, I do it almost every week.

    The fact is, Joyce performs a very important role in the Opposition. He is, as Tony Abbott has noted, a gifted “retail politician”. This is a crucial thing to have in any opposition. If you don’t have a retail politician, why, you’re simply going to get crucified! Going into an election without a retail politician is like going into battle without some guns: madness!

    What is a retail politician? Well, it’s difficult to explain to the layman, but essentially it is a politician who is on sale in individual units, at a price marked up from the wholesale cost. And that’s Barnaby Joyce all over — if there ever was a politician who you would not be surprised to see sitting on a shelf in K-Mart, it’s Barnaby. You can see why Abbott promoted him.

    What’s more, Joyce is an accountant. Think on that for a moment. What is the greatest problem with the Westminster system of government? It is that ministers do not bring appropriate expertise to their roles. For example, Health Minister Nicola Roxon is not a doctor. So how can she credibly tackle health issues? Defence Minister John Faulkner is neither a soldier nor a sailor nor a fighter pilot. So what does he know? And so it continues along the frontbench: the Foreign Minister is not a foreigner, the Sport Minister is rubbish at sport, and the Arts Minister is Peter Garrett. It’s a great big Incompetence Orgy in there.

    But imagine if the Finance Minister were an accountant? Who would be better? When you ask yourself, “who should I engage to handle my finances?”, what’s the invariable answer? That’s right, “a crazed country bumpkin”! No, sorry, lost focus for a second there. What I meant was, “an accountant”! Finance is what accountants do. I undertook a personal survey of over 800 accountants and when asked what their deal was, over 65 per cent of respondents mentioned the word “finance” in the first ten minutes of their answer. Accountants know finance, there’s no question about it.

    And so, when an accountant tells you that Australia may be unable to repay its debt, you damn well better listen. I mean, you could take the word of Joe Hockey, a lawyer, or Kevin Rudd, a diplomat/Chinese spy, about debt. Hey, why not go out on the street and ask a drunken hobo, if you just want to ignore qualifications like that?

    And as for Tanner, the actual finance minister? What credentials does he bring? Apparently he used to be an “articled clerk” and a “solicitor”. Now, try this. Next time your accountant says you have too much debt, feel free to reply, “Thanks for the advice, but I’m going to find out my solicitor’s opinion.” You will be bankrupt within hours. And an “articled clerk”? That’s not even a thing!

    No, there is nobody in Australia politics as uniquely qualified to do financey things as Barnaby Joyce. And that’s not even the only thing he brings to the table. He also has vast experience of life in rural Queensland, so he can speak to country folk on their own level, not like your average Canberra plutocrat who can’t help talking down to them, their voices dripping with arrogance, pretension, and basic literacy.

    What’s more, Joyce was in the Army Reserve, so he knows what it’s like to do a reasonable impression of someone serving his country; and he once worked as a bouncer, so he knows what it’s like to use unreasonable force on innocent people — all vital components of a cabinet minister’s toolkit.

    That’s why Tony Abbott is standing by his man — that and the Catholic thing — because he knows that without Barnaby Joyce, the Coalition would lose a certain je ne sais quoi, a certain indefinable something that some call insanity, some call incompetence — and some call brilliance. Admittedly those who call it brilliance are mostly the kind of people who spend most of their time telling other people fluoride is going to kill them, or sitting on top of poles screaming about how they’re not allowed to cut trees down. Nevertheless, there’s a constituency there. And Abbott has cannily recognised this, and plans to exploit it to the full. As he says, Barnaby has street cred. And that’s worth a thousand years of book-learnin’.

    Oh sure, he doesn’t always get the facts and figures 100 per cent correct, but he gets the feel of it. He understands that economics is all about making connections with people, about getting the lie of the land, about putting your ear to the ground. It’s about rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty and letting the Budget know who’s boss. It’s about saying, “Hey, I’m in charge of finance, finance is not in charge of me”. And only a street-creddy, accountancy-savvy, farm-oriented bronzed Aussie like Joyce can bring that sort of down-to-earth, up-to-speed, off-with-the-pixies approach to the solvency of the nation.

    And I think Australia will be all the better for it. If nothing else, politics is never dull when Barnaby is around. Politics is never dull when snipers are around either, of course, but we can’t have everything. And Barnaby is in a way the sniper of Parliament — he lurks in the bushes and the treetops, taking aim at governmental hypocrisy and fiscal recklessness, taking his targets down one by one with his searing rhetoric, homespun country wisdom, and a knowledge of economics bordering on the mammalian.

    And when the Liberals are elected, as seems inevitable now that climate change has been disproven and interest rates continue rising to stratospheric levels of 4 per cent-plus, we will be all the better for having a cabinet full of ministers appointed for their appropriate skillsets. An accountant for Finance, an immigrant for Immigration, a bitter old man for Superannuation, and a desperate search for something to occupy Julie Bishop — it’s the new way forward for the Liberals.

    Let Australia be ruled, finally, by men and women with impeccable qualifications. If they have a certain sense of what their job entails, so much the better!

    Let the Joyce era begin!

  • The Election Will Not Be Fought On Climate

    federal politics (NEW MATILDA COM)

    29 Jan 2010

    The Election Will Not Be Fought On Climate

    Rudd and Abbott

    Before Parliament resumes, Ben Eltham takes a closer look at the speeches made by Rudd and Abbott during the holiday break: what do they tell us about the year ahead?

    You have to hand it to our hard-working politicians: after only a couple of weeks holiday, both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader are now back at work trying to woo voters and stake out their positions. The election year has begun.

    Kevin Rudd returned from a holiday in Tasmania — where he still managed to get himself on TV at the cricket — to embark on a national speaking tour. Those speeches dealt with meaty policy issues, so were largely ignored by the mass media in favour of his new children’s book Jasper and Abby and the Great Australia Day Kerfuffle.

    But there is actually some merit in many of Rudd’s recent speeches. He has examined issues such as social exclusion, the challenges of an ageing population, infrastructure and productivity. While there is a lot of repetition — especially if you read them as transcripts — they all address the long-term issues faced by the nation.

    For instance, Rudd’s speech in Brisbane on the topic of productivity sets out a fundamental fact of life: that productivity is the key long-term determinant of a nation’s standard of living. As Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman once noted, “how much productivity is in the economy is almost the only thing that matters.” Better productivity — all other things being equal — means higher rates of economic growth, with all the resources for governments, firms and workers that growth brings.

    And what is productivity, exactly? In technical terms, it’s the rate at which we can deliver goods and services for a set unit of inputs — chiefly labour. It’s not so much building a better mouse-trap, as a better mouse-trap factory. Across an economy, productivity is also influenced by innovations. Information technology, for instance, has had a massive impact on important sectors of the economy like freight and logistics, where better IT systems have allowed innovations like “just in time” delivery to help firms lower the amount of inventory they need to keep in stock.

    But productivity is also a constantly moving target. As new technologies and innovations are implemented, productivity typically rises. Once the new systems are in place, productivity tends to slow again. Australia’s productivity, which whipped along at approximately 2 per cent in the 1990s, then slowed to around 1.4 per cent in the 2000s. No one is quite sure why.

    Kevin Rudd’s speech on productivity makes obvious, but nonetheless valuable, points. He quotes Treasury figures suggesting that “if average productivity growth was lifted back towards the 1990s mark of an average 2 per cent per year … our economy would be $570 billion bigger in 2050, [and] on average, every Australian man, woman and child would be $16,000 better off a year in 2050.”

    And what will get us back up to 2 per cent productivity growth? Why, Labor policies such as the National Broadband Network, the “education revolution”, health reform and infrastructure spending. Rudd is setting up his new agenda for 2010, which is to seize the economic high ground by framing the Government’s policies in a nation-building narrative.

    You’ll notice one important policy area that Rudd doesn’t mention much: climate change. In the wake of the debacle of Copenhagen, the Prime Minister is moving to de-emphasise climate as an issue which no longer appears to be cutting through. Although he will still keep it up his sleeve as a handy stick with which to beat the Opposition, Rudd appears to want to move on from the ETS and fight this year’s election on the issue of the economy.

    It’s good short-term politics, but woeful policy. In the medium and long-term, many of the greatest productivity gains are likely to emerge from a more sustainable economy. Think about the time lost in traffic congestion alone, or the productivity drain represented by the increasingly creaky public transport systems of our major cities. In contrast, big productivity gains are likely to be found in the renewable energy and clean tech sector which is currently languishing due to Australia’s addiction to cheap and dirty fossil fuels.

    Actually, it’s poor long-term politics too. This is because Labor is “losing the ground war” on climate change. A revival of climate scepticism, stoked in no small part by the increasing polarisation of the debate between Labor and Coalition voters, has flowed through to increasing opposition to an emissions trading scheme. The result is that Labor is going backwards on an issue that was an important vote-winner in 2007. Not only are we unlikely to have a double-dissolution election over climate change, we now may not even see an emissions trading bill enacted at all.

    Over on the conservative side of the fence, Tony Abbott is making headlines for the things he’s been saying too. Unfortunately, they’re all the wrong headlines. Instead of gaining traction with the intriguing gimmick of a workforce of 15,000 environmental workers — “a standing environmental workforce, perhaps 15,000-strong, capable of supplying the skilled, motivated and sustained attention that large-scale environmental remediation needs” — Abbott instead got himself noticed for his views on the virginity of his daughters.

    As my colleague Jeff Sparrow argued yesterday, Abbott may have copped brickbats from predictable directions, but that probably won’t have hurt his perception among key demographics like parents of teenagers, who are probably uncomfortable about the idea of their children having sex too young.

    Sparrow thinks Abbott’s tenure as Opposition Leader has already shifted Australian politics to the right. I’m not so sure, but there is some recent opinion poll evidence that suggests Labor is struggling on issues it should comfortably own — and not just on climate.

    According to the latest Essential Research poll, Labor is actually trailing the Opposition on the issue of “better management of the economy”, surely an uncomfortable statistic for Alistair Jordan and the backroom boys in Rudd’s HQ. It’s also trailing on “controlling interest rates”, which is arguably worse for Labor, as interest rates are only headed in one direction: up. On the other hand, it comfortably leads in environmental issues, education and jobs, so it’s not all bad news but the numbers are certainly encouraging for an Opposition at the start of an election year.

    The big dilemma for Rudd and Labor is whether to use its political advantage to press ahead with its agenda in the remainder of this term or to go negative on climate change and health reform, play it safe and try to protect its lead heading into the election. Everything we know about Kevin Rudd suggests he will choose the latter.