Month: November 2007

No Umpire Needed In Sport Media

The AFL, with its of salary caps and draft restrictions, is one of the most regulated sports in the world. Unfortunately, the Australian media is just as regulated, and the regulations punish clubs, consumers and players.

Protectionism may no longer dominate as an economic ideology, but it lives on in the Australian Government’s approach to the media.

Invariably, from the artificial limitation on the number of television licences, to the banning of advertising on the ABC, to the digital transition debacle, each and every media regulation and reform proposal seems designed to protect incumbent free to air (FTA) broadcasters and penalise their competitors.

Anti-siphoning laws, which give FTA broadcasters first rights over a huge range of premium sporting content, are some of the most egregious examples of this protectionist approach.

FTA broadcasters are granted the privilege by government of not having to compete for broadcast rights in a fair and open market.

Like all protectionist rhetoric, advocates of the current system couch their arguments in the “public interest” and “protecting the consumer” terms. But preventing pay television from bidding for broadcast rights is not without cost.

A modern sporting competition is an extremely expensive affair, and, like any other business, its producers strive to appeal to demanding consumers.

To do so, the sports have evolved, not only in the manner in which they are played, but also through technological innovations that alter the experience for consumers.

Coaches utilise better communications and analysis tools to manage their teams.

Players utilise more powerful – and more expensive – medical advances to prevent injury and enhance performance.

And consumers utilise a variety of print, electronic and broadcast media to access statistics and interactivity to enjoy their game more.

But all this requires money. By restricting pay television from the market for broadcast rights, sporting codes are deprived of a potentially lucrative source of funds.

Competition is intense between the FTA broadcasters, but by banning alternative broadcasters, the final price that broadcast rights are sold at is likely to be lowered.

Anyone that doubts that this is a problem should identify any sporting code or club that wouldn’t be able to use the extra money. Many sports on the anti-siphoning list, like netball and the IndyCar series, do not command the enormous audiences that the big football codes do. Restricting the market for the broadcast of these sports punishes fans – it doesn’t protect them.

With the larger sports, problems are just as evident. The demise of the Fox Footy Channel, a casualty of the lopsided negotiations between FTA, pay television and the AFL, has been a loss for consumers. Die-hard fans are denied the opportunity to enjoy a channel dedicated to the sport to which they are devoted.

If the AFL had been able to negotiate with Foxtel directly, this may have not occurred.

As Justice Ron Sackville, judging a Federal Court case over AFL rights this month, stated: “The poor old AFL is denied the opportunity of a fair and competitive process to get the best price for its product . . .” He continued: “Now, that seems odd.”

Exempt from anti-siphoning restrictions, Football Federation Australia has been able to sign a deal with Foxtel to show all Socceroos, A-League and Asian matches. These rights were sold on mutually agreeable terms, and should help the code establish itself in the mainstream.

The anti-siphoning laws punish consumers and sporting codes, but the larger objection is philosophical, and one shared by the codes themselves.

Those who make a product, own it. The sporting codes should be able to determine to whom and under what condition those rights are sold.

The anti-siphoning laws confiscate the property rights of the producers of sport.

A better approach would be to treat content broadcast on television or radio neutrally. Governments should not be making a determination of the relative importance or merit of certain forms of entertainment. Doing so punishes the very consumers that these laws profess to protect.

The Government’s media reform bills have not tackled with any rigour the Government’s regressive approach to the media. Unfortunately, its penchant for protectionism does not appear to be abating.

Sports are supposed to be competitive, why can’t broadcasting be the same?

No Street Cred For Council Party Poopers

When the State Government offered councils a $6000 grant to develop street party kits last year, it was no surprise that they jumped at the opportunity. Not only is writing complicated protocol documents a major highlight of working for local government, but the Byzantine regulations that the kits were to help navigate were imposed by the councils themselves.

One part of government bribing another part of government to do what they should be doing anyway has become a staple of Australian politics. Why should councils miss out on all the fun?

The resulting street party kits are a grand monument to the bureaucracy and red tape that is impeding social and community life in Australia. These elaborate bundles of forms, rules and recommendations demonstrate clearly how the steady accumulation of seemingly trivial regulations can quickly become a restraint on community activity. The regulations aren’t those that apply to major festivals on the scale of last weekend’s Johnston Street Fiesta – they apply to small neighbourhood barbecues.

Certainly, many of the issues covered within the kits are, on the face of it, sensible. Washing hands before handling food probably isn’t a bad idea – it would be poor form to poison your neighbours while you were trying to get to know them.

But, as the City of Whitehorse demands, having to provide party volunteers with comprehensive food handling information in the form of written instructions is taking this a bit too far. Nobody wants a reputation in the street as the guy who loves to produce paperwork.

And don’t bother trying to sell any food or drink. Children’s lemonade stands are only possible if those children are able to fill out Community Amenity Local Law No. 1, Schedule 3 (Parts A and B) and Schedule 7.

The City of Stonnington’s 25-page safety plan appears to require the party organiser to assume responsibility for the safety of all guests – planning evacuation and ambulance routes, assembly areas and marshalling points, memorising emergency announcements, and strategically placing fire-fighting equipment around the party location.

Some rules are completely ridiculous. Stonnington requires party organisers to keep an incident kit close by at all times. This should contain a fluoro jacket, gaffer tape, torch, area map and sunscreen. They also require party organisers to nominate a communications liaison to negotiate potential clashes with local event venues, and to retain an electrician on call, just in case.

Street gatherings are not known for being rowdy. Nevertheless, the Moreland City Council insists that sound levels do not exceed 65 decibels. This exhilarating volume is just louder than a humming refrigerator and a little below a hair dryer. It is also above a quiet conversation. As a result, laughter, which surely ranks high on the list of attributes of a good party, is essentially prohibited within the People’s Republic of Moreland.

Presumably, the 65-decibel limit is also why many street party kits, when recommending that CDs are played at a street party, specifically nominate acoustic music. If you anticipate your street party may exceed the 65-decibel limit, you may be required to hire an independent acoustic engineer for the duration of the party to monitor your guests’ volume.

Councils and the Victorian Government recommend that a street party be held on the street itself. To do so, six weeks before the party is to occur, an application for road closure must be submitted to the local government. Forms demonstrating that the road closure has the support of more than 75% of the street’s residents must be submitted. A traffic management plan to be jointly prepared with a council traffic engineer must also be submitted, along with all the necessary fees and charges required to navigate the bureaucracy. This kind of ridiculous red tape is a major roadblock to community life.

The State Government-funded street party kits also raise another question – whose job is it to actually sit down and write them? The kits contain pages and pages of tips on how to have a good party. For instance, Whitehorse recommends that guests introduce themselves and recall the funniest thing they ever saw on the street. Developing topics for small talk is hardly a core role of government, and yet state taxes are being funnelled to council bureaucrats to do just that.

And the condescending advice that neighbours should share power tools and wave to each other when they pass on the street should make everybody wonder how stupid councils think their residents actually are.

Local governments enjoy dramatically less media scrutiny and voter interest than their state and federal counterparts. As a consequence, they are free to impose far more absurd rules than other levels of government. Local governments are adamant that they are trying to encourage street parties, but if they keep putting up these obstacles, they may not get invited to them.

Religious Right? Have A Little Faith In The Process

Christian voters can look forward to receiving special information packs about the election from the Australian Christian Lobby this week, which is bound to send yet another shudder through the inner-city left.

The bogeyman of the 2007 campaign is the idea that there is a growing religious right in Australia – an ambitious movement of social conservatives carrying the banner of Jesus, eager to take control of national politics. In God Under Howard, Marion Maddox described a Federal Liberal Party beholden to Christian groups in the same manner that the Republican Party in the United States is influenced by evangelicals. The disproportionate power held by Family First, the conspicuous musical enthusiasm of the Hillsong Church, and the revelations about the Exclusive Brethren all seem to support this view.

If this is the case, well, such is the nature of representative democracy. Theorists may declare that democracy reflects the voice of the people but it has always been susceptible to highly co-ordinated special interest groups. Organised groups with strong institutions and well-defined agendas do well in a democratic competition. But it is not at all clear that there is a religious right in Australia with the ambitions and influence ascribed to it.

The Prime Minister is fond of describing the Liberal Party as a fusion of two distinct philosophies – liberalism and conservatism. As a result, some in the ranks of the party are undoubtedly social conservatives motivated in part by religious sentiments.

But their policy influence is dramatically overstated. Eleven years of the Federal Liberal Party in government has hardly seen regression in ethical policy. We can criticise their reluctance to push for liberalisation in some areas, such as gay marriage, at least until recently. But the Government’s record demonstrates a regrettable attachment to the status quo, rather than a desire to return to the God-fearing moral codes of the Victorian era.

Neither does Family First match the description of a religious right. Its focus may be on gay marriage, internet pornography and reducing rates of abortion, but there is little material difference between Family First’s policies and the policies of the major parties.

And when we investigate the party’s platform further, it becomes obvious that on economic issues Family First is well to the left of the Labor Party on foreign ownership, privatisation, tax, workplace relations and free trade. Voters who believe that the ALP has gone soft on many key economic issues such as industrial relations would do well to have another look at Family First.

Similarly, most Christian groups are moderately left-leaning. Modern Christianity wields ambiguous and empty phrases such as social justice as easily as any Labor backbencher.

This is no surprise – the Bible provides little explicit support for free market capitalism.

The concept of a religious right appears to have been imported wholesale from the US, and uncomfortably shoe-horned into Australia’s public debate. Australia, as a country with a small and wealthy population, will always partly depend on imports. But not everything that is imported is easily integrated into the culture or embraced by consumers. Twinkies – the heart attack-inspiring rolls of cream and sponge cake – have never found a willing market in Australia despite being ubiquitous in the US. Rhetoric about the religious right is just as inappropriate in Australia as the Twinkie. The religious right, to the extent that it exists, is small and has little impact on public policy.

Why, then, the breathless hyperbole? Politics is mostly about opposition and demonisation. Perhaps the fantasy that the right wing of Australian politics is a cookie-cutter, sorry, biscuit-cutter duplicate of the hated US Republican Party helps build group solidarity on the secular left.

But isn’t there enough to enrage the left without awkwardly importing ideas from overseas? Surely rhetorical exaggeration and indignation is one area where it would be better to grow local.

Policy without Parliament: the growth of regulation in Australia

Introduction: Regulation is a political activity. It sets the framework for the market economy by defining the boundaries between private action and government action. It is, since the failure of overtly socialist models of political economy, the primary method by which the government relates to individuals and communities.

Regulations, and the regulatory agencies which administer them, cast an increasingly large shadow over the freedom to interact, both economically and socially, in Australia.

The first part of this IPA Backgrounder looks at the rapid growth in regulation-making, and the recent institutional changes in Australia’s regulatory agencies. It charts the consolidation and expansion of the three major economic regulators — the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC)—and examines the theoretical justifications for constructing such ‘mega-regulators’.

The second part attempts to explain how these mega-regulators are themselves able to encourage their own growth. It looks at the internal pressures towards regulatory and institutional expansion, as well as the political pressures which the agencies themselves are able to exert upon directly elected politicians.

Available here.