Howard and Brough are now pretty well on the hook. They are committed to making 'something' happen and are starting to talk about this being a 'well planned' approach that will operate over the 'long term' - not that it was or is.
There is a long way to go and there will be snags along the way that could give them the opportunity to spit the hook but a gradual increase in the pressure should keep them there and set the scene nicely for a new government. John Altman's statement today that it could cost $5 billion to fund the Australian Government's intervention is the sort of thing that is useful. Now we need the police, doctors and others to find that the health of kids is worse than we thought and that it is connected to poor housing, lack of family support and, most importantly, lack of education and lack of meaningful occupation.
Don't get me wrong, this is still an abhorrent approach that fails in a most basic way to recognise that the people who are the target deserve dignity and respect. As I was just reminded, Paul Keating in the Redfern Speech put the question "Ask yourselves. What if this was done to you?"
But it still gives me some satisfaction that Howard and Brough have opened this can of worms. They wont want to shut it and neither will they be able to. Imagine if Rudd had tried to spend up big in Indigenous affairs in government early next year. The right would have had a conniption and I am not sure that Rudd would have had the necessary to carry through. Now, though, he will simply be operating in a bipartisan manner - in fact, if it is played right, the ALP will have no option but to introduce real programs backed by real dollars.
So let's keep the line moving in, building the pressure until they are all well and truly in the boat and can not wriggle out of doing what needs to be done to give Indigenous kids a chance.
Wednesday 27 June 2007
Sunday 24 June 2007
The Howard/Brough Plan
The response by the Australian Government to the report on the sexual abuse of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory has been getting a lot of coverage in the news and current affairs programs and, of course, on other blogs. I have started a contribution many times but each time my anger and frustration has generate far too much obscenity. So I have stopped. Because simply railing against such moves is not going to make anything happen.
Sexual abuse, any abuse, of children is beyond the pale. There are few actions that I would not support if they stopped abuse happening. I would even support John Howard and Mal Brough and, for me, that would be a major step.
For me the point is that the action must stop abuse happening.
Does the Howard/Brough plan meet that test?
I watched Insiders on the ABC this morning. It struck me yet again that there seems to be a serious confusion in play. There is no doubt that there are paedophiles operating in Aboriginal communities in the Territory. I suspect that it will be found that there are both black and white ones that are there, and that have been there. I suspect also that there are kids who have been abused and that are being abused by these people.
But is this it? Are there really so many paedophiles operating in remote NT communities that they are causing the sorts of effects that are noted by the report of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild? Or is the real situation different?
The average age of first birth of girls at Wadeye during the last couple of years is 12. I have listened to young men - young being less than 20 - arguing about who had fathered the most children. There was no suggestion that they were paedophiles and no suggestion in the community that the girls were other than willing participants. They enjoyed the money that comes with children. Quite lucrative is the having of children. Even without the baby bonus, family support payments are useful and they come every week. You don't have to do anything. Just have babies.
Before TV hit remote communities there were people who were worried about what some programs would do to society on Aboriginal communities. People were concerned that young impressionable people would be given a strange view of the world by programs such as Baywatch. They shouldn't have worried. Many young impressionable people on remote communities moved quickly from TV to DVDs. These days there are stories of wide scale use of hard core porn DVDs being used in many communities. There is increasing evidence that some are getting some education about what is acceptable form these DVDs.
The system of promised wives had broken down in some places but it remains strong in others. There are prohibitions on men taking up with their promised wives too early but 'too early' is a definitional question. The 'too early' for some may not always be the 'too early' for others.
Australian law requires monogamy. It is quite possible, however, for a traditional Aboriginal man to have more than one wife, and at times quite a few. The practice is possibly gradually being abandoned but it is still a factor in many communities.
Add alcohol, petrol or ganga to this mix and you have a recipe for what may be the abuse of children.
I could go on.
The point of all of this is that the problem that the Howard/Brough plan is attacking is not as simple as chasing paedophiles and protecting kids from them. There are a range of both old and new cultural mores and practices that are in play here as well, of course, as the probable paedophiles. The Wild/Anderson report recognised the complexity, as does anyone who has any knowledge of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
This is all a long way of talking about why I have been infuriated by the Howard/Brough plan. We have police and the army being sent in to 'stabilise' the situation. Stabilise what exactly? Rampant paedophiles stalking the streets of townships? Isn't it the nature of these people that they are normally good at hiding what they do and thus take considerable, careful detective work to find?
Is it grog running they are going to stop? Given that all bar 6 or 7 communities are already 'dry' there is a lot of grog running that goes on. Extra coppers may slow them down but stop them? There is a level of dedication in the grog runners that inspires high levels of innovation. Just fly over Ali Curung and look at the dozens of tracks leading into the township. Consider the blokes who are prepared to walk across a crocodile infested river with a carton on their head night after night. 60 coppers and 60 communities. And just for 6 months. Need to be smarter than that.
Medical checks on the girls under 16. What will they find? That many of the teenagers have had sexual relations? Highly likely I would have thought.
Remove the need for permits to enter Aboriginal land. What has that got to do with sexual abuse?
Take over administration of communities from the current community councils. Could be relevant but it is not easy to see an immediate connection.
What is needed is a strategy that deals with all of the aspects of abuse of children. This is precisely what was attempted by the Wild/Anderson report and, while I don't agree with all of it, there are recommendations there that could address a truly appalling situation.
How then should we react to the Howard/Brough plan? Tell them it is a load of rubbish and they might go away. But if they do then they will probably take their money with them and the money is what is needed. The trick for Aboriginal communities in the Territory and for the Northern Territory Government is to manage this situation to ensure the money flows into a plan that actually does address the situation. To do this they will probably have to cop the silly, intrusive and racist bits of the Howard/Brough plan while they do their best to manipulate and move things to achieve some of the outcomes that are necessary.
I well understand the strategy being pursued by the Martin Government. If I worked for them I would probably have suggested something similar. Once you have a force like the Feds moving you can often gradually shift their focus. Getting them moving - or paying attention - is always the larger problem.
But I still bleed for the people who are being demeaned and dimished by the actions of people who have not learned that all people should be treated with dignity and respect.
Sexual abuse, any abuse, of children is beyond the pale. There are few actions that I would not support if they stopped abuse happening. I would even support John Howard and Mal Brough and, for me, that would be a major step.
For me the point is that the action must stop abuse happening.
Does the Howard/Brough plan meet that test?
I watched Insiders on the ABC this morning. It struck me yet again that there seems to be a serious confusion in play. There is no doubt that there are paedophiles operating in Aboriginal communities in the Territory. I suspect that it will be found that there are both black and white ones that are there, and that have been there. I suspect also that there are kids who have been abused and that are being abused by these people.
But is this it? Are there really so many paedophiles operating in remote NT communities that they are causing the sorts of effects that are noted by the report of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild? Or is the real situation different?
The average age of first birth of girls at Wadeye during the last couple of years is 12. I have listened to young men - young being less than 20 - arguing about who had fathered the most children. There was no suggestion that they were paedophiles and no suggestion in the community that the girls were other than willing participants. They enjoyed the money that comes with children. Quite lucrative is the having of children. Even without the baby bonus, family support payments are useful and they come every week. You don't have to do anything. Just have babies.
Before TV hit remote communities there were people who were worried about what some programs would do to society on Aboriginal communities. People were concerned that young impressionable people would be given a strange view of the world by programs such as Baywatch. They shouldn't have worried. Many young impressionable people on remote communities moved quickly from TV to DVDs. These days there are stories of wide scale use of hard core porn DVDs being used in many communities. There is increasing evidence that some are getting some education about what is acceptable form these DVDs.
The system of promised wives had broken down in some places but it remains strong in others. There are prohibitions on men taking up with their promised wives too early but 'too early' is a definitional question. The 'too early' for some may not always be the 'too early' for others.
Australian law requires monogamy. It is quite possible, however, for a traditional Aboriginal man to have more than one wife, and at times quite a few. The practice is possibly gradually being abandoned but it is still a factor in many communities.
Add alcohol, petrol or ganga to this mix and you have a recipe for what may be the abuse of children.
I could go on.
The point of all of this is that the problem that the Howard/Brough plan is attacking is not as simple as chasing paedophiles and protecting kids from them. There are a range of both old and new cultural mores and practices that are in play here as well, of course, as the probable paedophiles. The Wild/Anderson report recognised the complexity, as does anyone who has any knowledge of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
This is all a long way of talking about why I have been infuriated by the Howard/Brough plan. We have police and the army being sent in to 'stabilise' the situation. Stabilise what exactly? Rampant paedophiles stalking the streets of townships? Isn't it the nature of these people that they are normally good at hiding what they do and thus take considerable, careful detective work to find?
Is it grog running they are going to stop? Given that all bar 6 or 7 communities are already 'dry' there is a lot of grog running that goes on. Extra coppers may slow them down but stop them? There is a level of dedication in the grog runners that inspires high levels of innovation. Just fly over Ali Curung and look at the dozens of tracks leading into the township. Consider the blokes who are prepared to walk across a crocodile infested river with a carton on their head night after night. 60 coppers and 60 communities. And just for 6 months. Need to be smarter than that.
Medical checks on the girls under 16. What will they find? That many of the teenagers have had sexual relations? Highly likely I would have thought.
Remove the need for permits to enter Aboriginal land. What has that got to do with sexual abuse?
Take over administration of communities from the current community councils. Could be relevant but it is not easy to see an immediate connection.
What is needed is a strategy that deals with all of the aspects of abuse of children. This is precisely what was attempted by the Wild/Anderson report and, while I don't agree with all of it, there are recommendations there that could address a truly appalling situation.
How then should we react to the Howard/Brough plan? Tell them it is a load of rubbish and they might go away. But if they do then they will probably take their money with them and the money is what is needed. The trick for Aboriginal communities in the Territory and for the Northern Territory Government is to manage this situation to ensure the money flows into a plan that actually does address the situation. To do this they will probably have to cop the silly, intrusive and racist bits of the Howard/Brough plan while they do their best to manipulate and move things to achieve some of the outcomes that are necessary.
I well understand the strategy being pursued by the Martin Government. If I worked for them I would probably have suggested something similar. Once you have a force like the Feds moving you can often gradually shift their focus. Getting them moving - or paying attention - is always the larger problem.
But I still bleed for the people who are being demeaned and dimished by the actions of people who have not learned that all people should be treated with dignity and respect.
Thursday 21 June 2007
Our Contract with Society
I have always had a strong view that with rights comes duty - or responsibility if you prefer. I have a suspicion that this principle was embedded at a very young age, forcefully, by my parents but don't recall a specific event. It may have been my father quietly explaining that riding around on the horse in the afternoon was OK but that getting the milking cows in was required. But there were certainly other occasions. 'You live in this house, you follow the rules'. My mum was always pretty specific. Anyway the principle stuck.
The necessary connection between rights and duty seems to be less well appreciated than is useful for an effective society at the moment. Take political leaders for instance. We have given them the right to govern us. We have said that we will accept the decisions they make and, if necessary, pay with money, time and some even with lives.
Implicit in the principle is that the more significant the right, the greater the duty. Thus, political leaders carry a very heavy duty. The duty to tell us the truth, to govern for us all and to treat us with dignity and respect. That sort of thing. How does this fit with some of what goes on now and what we have become used to? 'Non-core' promises, divisive legislation, 'fudging' on the advice that has been received and flat out lying about matters of major importance because it is impossible for the great unwashed to know the truth.
I am not picking just on political leaders though. The problem is more pervasive in the society. Recently in the Northern Territory we had a terrible situation to do with the McArthur River Mine. The Federal Court made a decision on a technicality that could have looked like it had given victory to people against the mine's plans. The problem was always capable of a relatively easy fix and the determination of the government and the mine for the plan to go ahead was crystal clear. Why then was there a belief on the part of the people opposing that they had won? Why were they celebrating? Because their leaders told them they could win and had won . It was useful to have them believing this to try to put pressure on the government.
It is amazing to me that the people on Palm Island believed that they would see Glen Hurley convicted. Any sensible analysis of the situation would tell you that it was highly unlikely. I am not saying that Hurley did or didn't do what was alleged, just that it was always going to be extremely difficult to prove that he was guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Wasn't it the responsibility of the leadership to ensure that the people they represent were fully aware of this? Is it not almost criminal to create expectations that are not likely to be met?
I am perfectly well aware of the value of mass anger when you are trying to get a government or some other power to change their view. I am also perfectly well aware that the level of anger is closely related to the gap between expectation and reality. It is always seductive for leaders to use the anger of the people they represent to push a point. But with the power to lead comes a duty to the people you lead. That duty does not allow you to lie to them. In fact, it requires that you treat them with dignity and respect.
It may just be me but the sin of all sins is to sell out your own. You tell them the truth and, if you need to use them to make a point, you do it with their informed collaboration.
I used to wonder whether it was much use having rights if with them comes all of these duties. It might be easier just to bop along and not pay much attention to anything. But even if you are living in the long grass there are people who reckon you have a duty not to humbug people or cavort too much in public places. So I guess there is no escaping it.
The necessary connection between rights and duty seems to be less well appreciated than is useful for an effective society at the moment. Take political leaders for instance. We have given them the right to govern us. We have said that we will accept the decisions they make and, if necessary, pay with money, time and some even with lives.
Implicit in the principle is that the more significant the right, the greater the duty. Thus, political leaders carry a very heavy duty. The duty to tell us the truth, to govern for us all and to treat us with dignity and respect. That sort of thing. How does this fit with some of what goes on now and what we have become used to? 'Non-core' promises, divisive legislation, 'fudging' on the advice that has been received and flat out lying about matters of major importance because it is impossible for the great unwashed to know the truth.
I am not picking just on political leaders though. The problem is more pervasive in the society. Recently in the Northern Territory we had a terrible situation to do with the McArthur River Mine. The Federal Court made a decision on a technicality that could have looked like it had given victory to people against the mine's plans. The problem was always capable of a relatively easy fix and the determination of the government and the mine for the plan to go ahead was crystal clear. Why then was there a belief on the part of the people opposing that they had won? Why were they celebrating? Because their leaders told them they could win and had won . It was useful to have them believing this to try to put pressure on the government.
It is amazing to me that the people on Palm Island believed that they would see Glen Hurley convicted. Any sensible analysis of the situation would tell you that it was highly unlikely. I am not saying that Hurley did or didn't do what was alleged, just that it was always going to be extremely difficult to prove that he was guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Wasn't it the responsibility of the leadership to ensure that the people they represent were fully aware of this? Is it not almost criminal to create expectations that are not likely to be met?
I am perfectly well aware of the value of mass anger when you are trying to get a government or some other power to change their view. I am also perfectly well aware that the level of anger is closely related to the gap between expectation and reality. It is always seductive for leaders to use the anger of the people they represent to push a point. But with the power to lead comes a duty to the people you lead. That duty does not allow you to lie to them. In fact, it requires that you treat them with dignity and respect.
It may just be me but the sin of all sins is to sell out your own. You tell them the truth and, if you need to use them to make a point, you do it with their informed collaboration.
I used to wonder whether it was much use having rights if with them comes all of these duties. It might be easier just to bop along and not pay much attention to anything. But even if you are living in the long grass there are people who reckon you have a duty not to humbug people or cavort too much in public places. So I guess there is no escaping it.
Tuesday 19 June 2007
As a Welder ...
... I make an excellent report writer. So why do I try to weld?
These days I am spending an inordinate amount of time building. There is a shed to build - foundations are almost there and the rest will be easy. There is 2.5km of fencing to put up - I now have most of the material and just need to weld up the strainer assembly. Job is straight forward. Just bloody hard work.
I have never really learnt how to build things. Have worked it out as I have been going along. Trial and error really. Nothing I put up falls down but it does seem that I often build somewhat over-engineered structures. Standard practice is to look at the plans and the increase the strength by between 33 and 50% - maybe more.
One problem, or challenge if you like, is welding. I am well aware that this is a taks that requires a level of skill and knowledge. Training takes a while and I shouldn't really expect to fire up a welder and get stuck into it. But of course that is what I am doing. Mistakes abound. There is frequent cursing and not a little frustration. It takes a lot of time to get it right. Considerably more I suspect than it would if I was competent.
Welding is just one of the tasks where I leap in and have a go at something when I don't have the skills . Why do I do this?
I have written reports, managed organisations, run projects, analysed policy and developed proposals for over 30 years. There are those who say I am, or was, pretty good at it. Why then am I not doing the things I am good at and battling away instead at doing things I am not? Is life about always doing the things that you are comfortable with or about having a go at something else? Where does satisfaction come from?
For me these days a well welded joint is every bit as fullfilling as a well crafted Cabinet Submission and, when that shed is up and the fence is holding the cattle in, well that will be a cause for celebration.
These days I am spending an inordinate amount of time building. There is a shed to build - foundations are almost there and the rest will be easy. There is 2.5km of fencing to put up - I now have most of the material and just need to weld up the strainer assembly. Job is straight forward. Just bloody hard work.
I have never really learnt how to build things. Have worked it out as I have been going along. Trial and error really. Nothing I put up falls down but it does seem that I often build somewhat over-engineered structures. Standard practice is to look at the plans and the increase the strength by between 33 and 50% - maybe more.
One problem, or challenge if you like, is welding. I am well aware that this is a taks that requires a level of skill and knowledge. Training takes a while and I shouldn't really expect to fire up a welder and get stuck into it. But of course that is what I am doing. Mistakes abound. There is frequent cursing and not a little frustration. It takes a lot of time to get it right. Considerably more I suspect than it would if I was competent.
Welding is just one of the tasks where I leap in and have a go at something when I don't have the skills . Why do I do this?
I have written reports, managed organisations, run projects, analysed policy and developed proposals for over 30 years. There are those who say I am, or was, pretty good at it. Why then am I not doing the things I am good at and battling away instead at doing things I am not? Is life about always doing the things that you are comfortable with or about having a go at something else? Where does satisfaction come from?
For me these days a well welded joint is every bit as fullfilling as a well crafted Cabinet Submission and, when that shed is up and the fence is holding the cattle in, well that will be a cause for celebration.
Monday 18 June 2007
The Kids Need Us to Pay Attention
It is impossible not to bleed when you read the report on child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory. You can't avoid feeling as the authors do that something must be done, and urgently. If we judge ourselves as a society on the state of those on the bottom of the pile then we are in deep trouble.
It is to the consiserable credit of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild that they didn't react to the appalling information they gathered by bringing down a report that recommended a massive law and order campaign. They have a few recommendations that call for greater enforcement but there are others that recognise a better way forward.
It is not the law that will sort out this mess. The changes required can't be forced. They can only occur as people themselves change.
The other day on the radio they were talking about Carter Brown novels. Most will be too young to remember these literary masterpeices but you will get some idea what they were like when I tell you that the front cover was normally of a beautiful woman, often scantily dressed and perhaps with a suggestive look on her face. There was nothing too explicit in these novels. It was all suggestion and innuendo. It was in the 1950s after all. The more you understood the more you understood, if you follow me.
The point is that, as a very young bloke and living in a relatively isolated area without any TV in those days, I gathered a lot of my information and analysis about women from Carter Brown novels. Most of it destroyed with the first actual warm breathing woman that I was with but the fantasies were nice for a while - as I dimly recall.
If you have no real education, no job and bugger all else to do all day than sit around watching DVDs and you have easy access to hard core porn, what do you think that young people are watching? Some of the time at least porn DVDs are on the box.
Increasingly, the expectations in Indigenous communities about what is acceptable in the wider society seems to be being formed by TV and DVDs. It is a mixed bag but just think about some of the messages that might come from popular TV and then consider the effect of porn.
Porn means little to most because we know that it is rubbish and that any dose of reality that is present is accidental. We know this because we have some education. We have been to school, our parents have provided and reinforced positive messages. We have a basis on which to assess the material presented. This is not always the case for Aboriginal people in many remote communities.
I am not suggesting that porn should be regulated more heavily or that porn is, in any way, the only reason for the current problem. I am suggesting, pleading actually, that every bit of emphasis that can be given goes to education and communication.
No more crap about not going to school or it being too hard. Get them in there and make sure they have the benefit of an education. And communicate. Tell people the truth and make sure that you do it in the language they know best. And listen to what they tell you, discuss it and come to a joint decision on the way forward.
It is time to act. Has been for a long time.
It is to the consiserable credit of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild that they didn't react to the appalling information they gathered by bringing down a report that recommended a massive law and order campaign. They have a few recommendations that call for greater enforcement but there are others that recognise a better way forward.
It is not the law that will sort out this mess. The changes required can't be forced. They can only occur as people themselves change.
The other day on the radio they were talking about Carter Brown novels. Most will be too young to remember these literary masterpeices but you will get some idea what they were like when I tell you that the front cover was normally of a beautiful woman, often scantily dressed and perhaps with a suggestive look on her face. There was nothing too explicit in these novels. It was all suggestion and innuendo. It was in the 1950s after all. The more you understood the more you understood, if you follow me.
The point is that, as a very young bloke and living in a relatively isolated area without any TV in those days, I gathered a lot of my information and analysis about women from Carter Brown novels. Most of it destroyed with the first actual warm breathing woman that I was with but the fantasies were nice for a while - as I dimly recall.
If you have no real education, no job and bugger all else to do all day than sit around watching DVDs and you have easy access to hard core porn, what do you think that young people are watching? Some of the time at least porn DVDs are on the box.
Increasingly, the expectations in Indigenous communities about what is acceptable in the wider society seems to be being formed by TV and DVDs. It is a mixed bag but just think about some of the messages that might come from popular TV and then consider the effect of porn.
Porn means little to most because we know that it is rubbish and that any dose of reality that is present is accidental. We know this because we have some education. We have been to school, our parents have provided and reinforced positive messages. We have a basis on which to assess the material presented. This is not always the case for Aboriginal people in many remote communities.
I am not suggesting that porn should be regulated more heavily or that porn is, in any way, the only reason for the current problem. I am suggesting, pleading actually, that every bit of emphasis that can be given goes to education and communication.
No more crap about not going to school or it being too hard. Get them in there and make sure they have the benefit of an education. And communicate. Tell people the truth and make sure that you do it in the language they know best. And listen to what they tell you, discuss it and come to a joint decision on the way forward.
It is time to act. Has been for a long time.
Tuesday 12 June 2007
We need to talk about Kevin
Do we Australians simply feel more comfortable with duds? Maybe that is it.
We had a government once that lasted for 23 years. Without putting too fine a point on it, that government made sure that it kept things pretty much the same as they had always been. It kept the same businesses working by protecting them from competition, it kept consumers in their place by not giving them the right or capacity to a pursue a fair deal, it kept marriages intact by making it hard to get out of them and it kept people in their place by making it too expensive for those who were not well off to get an education.
But that government became increasingly mouldy and ended up as a joke. It was time for a new government. So we voted one in. Gough and his people established a legislative agenda that made our heads whirl. Family law, trade practices, Aboriginal land rights, reduction in trade barriers, free univesity education etc, etc. I worked in a place that introduced 6 new peices of legislation in 1971/72, 85 in 1973/74 with a further 150 in the next year.
Gough was great on the social stuff but not so flash on the economics. So we threw him out. Gave Mal and his mates a run. They didn't handle the economy much better but did continue some of the social stuff that Gough had started. Mal may not have been all dud, but after Gough he looked like one.
We liked the energy and enthusiasm of the Gough era and after a couple of terms of doleful Mal we turned again to the ALP led this time by the silver bodgie (my dad never called him anything else). Robert James Lee was a man who promised the world but the reality was another thing. Often wondered whether that was why he moved through so many women. There was intelligence, capacity and I think even commitment at times but there seemed to be no courage. No balls if you will pardon the expression. Looked the part and acted it but didn't make the changes we needed.
Paul snatched the job. We didn't give it to him the first time. Didn't really want him. But he wasn't a dud. He made changes. Finished off the job that Gough should have done. Sorted out the economy and created a platform for the future. Started to turn his mind to social policy and issues. The Redfern speech was a start. But he frightened us and, after too short a run, we threw him out.
John Winston has done his best to take us back to the Menzies era but with a bit more viciousness. Unlike Menzies he hasn't just tried to keep everyone in place. He has actively tried to make sure that they will never have the chance to get out of their place. If the society wont get back in line then he is going to force it with his work choices whip.
We come to Kevin.
He is trying very hard not to frighten us. He knows that we are a skittish mob and will bolt back to the relaxed and comfortable side if we hear something that makes us take fright. But I am not completely confident that he understands why we are on his side now.
From Kevin we are looking for some excitement, enthusiasm and energy. Yes we want him to be sensible with the economy and not to stuff it up, but we want more than that. We want a leader and a government that will change the things in society that need to be changed and will make decisions that make us better as a nation, not just the same as we always have been. We want someone who makes us proud of out stance in the world rather than to cringe at the treatment we dish out to refugees, indigenous people and those on the bottom of the pile. We are confident enough now to have another go at being a grown up nation.
Paul expressed his concerns the other night. He should not have done it that way but I think I understand his frustration and his concern that Kevin wont cut the mustard. More of John Winston is simply too much to contemplate. He has to go this time.
I am not trying to say that the duds don't have a place. They give us a chance to consolidate and to catch our breath and you can't go flat out all of the time - apparently. But we don't need a dud now. So come on Kevin, stop following the polls and get stuck in to telling us where Australia should stand in the world and why, what issues are important to you and what you will do about them and what you want to see Australia become and how it will be achieved.
Please can we have another goer like Gough or Paul, not to mention Curtin, Deakin and Fisher and less duds like Menzies, Hawke, Fraser, Lyons, Hughes and Bruce.
We had a government once that lasted for 23 years. Without putting too fine a point on it, that government made sure that it kept things pretty much the same as they had always been. It kept the same businesses working by protecting them from competition, it kept consumers in their place by not giving them the right or capacity to a pursue a fair deal, it kept marriages intact by making it hard to get out of them and it kept people in their place by making it too expensive for those who were not well off to get an education.
But that government became increasingly mouldy and ended up as a joke. It was time for a new government. So we voted one in. Gough and his people established a legislative agenda that made our heads whirl. Family law, trade practices, Aboriginal land rights, reduction in trade barriers, free univesity education etc, etc. I worked in a place that introduced 6 new peices of legislation in 1971/72, 85 in 1973/74 with a further 150 in the next year.
Gough was great on the social stuff but not so flash on the economics. So we threw him out. Gave Mal and his mates a run. They didn't handle the economy much better but did continue some of the social stuff that Gough had started. Mal may not have been all dud, but after Gough he looked like one.
We liked the energy and enthusiasm of the Gough era and after a couple of terms of doleful Mal we turned again to the ALP led this time by the silver bodgie (my dad never called him anything else). Robert James Lee was a man who promised the world but the reality was another thing. Often wondered whether that was why he moved through so many women. There was intelligence, capacity and I think even commitment at times but there seemed to be no courage. No balls if you will pardon the expression. Looked the part and acted it but didn't make the changes we needed.
Paul snatched the job. We didn't give it to him the first time. Didn't really want him. But he wasn't a dud. He made changes. Finished off the job that Gough should have done. Sorted out the economy and created a platform for the future. Started to turn his mind to social policy and issues. The Redfern speech was a start. But he frightened us and, after too short a run, we threw him out.
John Winston has done his best to take us back to the Menzies era but with a bit more viciousness. Unlike Menzies he hasn't just tried to keep everyone in place. He has actively tried to make sure that they will never have the chance to get out of their place. If the society wont get back in line then he is going to force it with his work choices whip.
We come to Kevin.
He is trying very hard not to frighten us. He knows that we are a skittish mob and will bolt back to the relaxed and comfortable side if we hear something that makes us take fright. But I am not completely confident that he understands why we are on his side now.
From Kevin we are looking for some excitement, enthusiasm and energy. Yes we want him to be sensible with the economy and not to stuff it up, but we want more than that. We want a leader and a government that will change the things in society that need to be changed and will make decisions that make us better as a nation, not just the same as we always have been. We want someone who makes us proud of out stance in the world rather than to cringe at the treatment we dish out to refugees, indigenous people and those on the bottom of the pile. We are confident enough now to have another go at being a grown up nation.
Paul expressed his concerns the other night. He should not have done it that way but I think I understand his frustration and his concern that Kevin wont cut the mustard. More of John Winston is simply too much to contemplate. He has to go this time.
I am not trying to say that the duds don't have a place. They give us a chance to consolidate and to catch our breath and you can't go flat out all of the time - apparently. But we don't need a dud now. So come on Kevin, stop following the polls and get stuck in to telling us where Australia should stand in the world and why, what issues are important to you and what you will do about them and what you want to see Australia become and how it will be achieved.
Please can we have another goer like Gough or Paul, not to mention Curtin, Deakin and Fisher and less duds like Menzies, Hawke, Fraser, Lyons, Hughes and Bruce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)