John Howard has done something that current ALP Premiers and Chief Ministers, and possibly a new Labor Prime Minister, should reflect on and then replicate. He has had an agenda and he has pursued it.
Our current PM has changed the society in a way we wouldn't have imagined possible 10 years ago. He has turned us from a society that was proud of its place as a safe haven for refugees to one that regards them with suspicion, from a society where tolerance and respect for difference were lauded as desirable goals to one where the views of Alan Jones are favored and from one where unions played a diminishing but still important role to one where they are being painted as pariahs, apparently successfully.
Mr Howard has done this and more by never taking his eye off his real agenda, even while he allowed the opinion polls to make most of his day to day decisions.
I have a real worry about the current State Labor governments. I wonder if they think that being in power is what it is all about.
I am not in a search for ideological purity or rampant reformers. I spent the first 22 years of my life being governed by a LNP government. The line that it is better to have our principles intact and remain in opposition never cut much ice as far as I was concerned. Australians threw out Labor when I was born and it wasn't until I voted for the first time that the party made it back.
And I remember well the discussions and debates in endless party meetings and over many beers about whether and how much could/should be sold out, changed, massaged or forgotten in order to present a package the electorate would go for. But there was never a time when we actually believed that a Labor government would not advocate and implement what we considered to be progressive social and economic policy.
The Hawke government shook my faith somewhat but Keating brought a lot of it back.
What of the current Labor governments in the States and Territories? Which one is out there driving a progressive agenda, creating an environment where there is opportunity for all and providing real assistance to the people on the bottom of the heap?
I haven't spent a lot of time looking at what is happening in every State and Territory but, with the honorable exception of John Stanhope, I can see no Labor leader doing what I want to see a Labor leader doing.
Yes, you have to be in power. As Clare Martin said once 'the worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition'. But it is necessary that you do more than be in power.
Standard operating procedure seems to be focus on the economy, keep business on-side, keep a close eye on the polls and shamelessly spin every issue to maintain the desired image of a 'don't scare the horses' government, leaving any possibility of a social policy agenda to be dealt with only when the situation becomes critical.
John Howard has done well. Would that Labor leaders observe and find a way to set and achieve their agendas.
Monday 9 July 2007
Sunday 8 July 2007
They're Watching
There are many good things about working in the bush on your own all day. There is, for instance, no one about to see the stupid things you do. At least not everything.
I am putting in a fence around our big block at the moment. The fence is going in a fair way from habitation. Most of it about 2 kms away, but coming closer down the northern boundary.
My dad taught me to fence in the very different conditions of the Southern Tablelands of NSW. He built good strong fences that kept the rabbits out and the sheep, cattle and horses in. They were always straight, the posts were straight up and things were done properly.
My fence needs to keep cattle, horses and (if I can convince the appropriate authority) buffalo in but needs to allow wallabies, pigs and all wildlife easy movement.
I thought the ground down South was hard but I have to say that, compared with some of the ground I am digging in here in Eva Valley, it wasn't so bad. When you drop the posthole digger into the ground and it simply polishes the surface, you know this is going to be a difficult one.
But every Wet season the ground gets very soggy almost everywhere. So the trick is, as it is with most things to do with soil up here, to add water. I am pretty sure that my dad would smile and shake his head if he heard this but standard procedure is to dig out as much as I can - you know when the crow bar bounces back up and smacks you in the ear - and then add as much water as you can get in the hole. Walk away and come back in a few hours. Repeat.;
Part of the problem is over engineering, possibly. I am putting in a fence that will be 1200 mm high. Strainers need to be in the ground 1/3 of their length. These are the rules. Thus they should be in about 600mm. I have built strainers that are 2m long, at least, just to be sure.
There should only need to be 3 sets of strainers for this job because I only have 2 sides left to fence but, instead there are 6 and I may need to put in a couple more. This requires 12 holes, at least.
This happens because, as my neighbour tells me, either the first surveyor - who marked out the blocks 100 years ago - or the one I hired at great expense to tell me where the boundary is, were drunk at the time. Possibly both. The boundary wanders a bit you see. Nice straight lines are really what you want. They are easier and everyone can admire them.
To make things more interesting, one part of the boundary goes through a Wet season creek line. This means that, although it is like iron at the moment, the ground will turn to soup during the Wet. What will happen to the strainers in there? Two sets of them. I have a plan based on bracing them to others that should be more solid but I don't know if it will work.
The location of these labours is, as I said, well away from anyone along a track that the council does not maintain.
Neighbour gives me a call to discuss shifting his cattle, 'that fence is going to be a bugger to build through that swamp'. Up at the shop to get the paper another bloke 'how many pickets will you be putting in? About 350? They'll be a bugger to drive in that country'. Yet another 'jeez mate, you have taken on a big job there. You should get someone in to give you a hand'.
My current worry is putting up a 1.6 km line, dead straight up a bit of a hill. Problem is that, when it is built, you will get a glimpse of some it from the main road, if you happen to look.
My occasional adviser on matters to do with the development of this block would say to me - I can almost hear her, - 'what does it matter if there is a little kink in the fence. People don't go round checking whether other peoples fences are straight do they? Don't worry about it.'
They aren't watching! They don't look! Don't kid yourself.
I am putting in a fence around our big block at the moment. The fence is going in a fair way from habitation. Most of it about 2 kms away, but coming closer down the northern boundary.
My dad taught me to fence in the very different conditions of the Southern Tablelands of NSW. He built good strong fences that kept the rabbits out and the sheep, cattle and horses in. They were always straight, the posts were straight up and things were done properly.
My fence needs to keep cattle, horses and (if I can convince the appropriate authority) buffalo in but needs to allow wallabies, pigs and all wildlife easy movement.
I thought the ground down South was hard but I have to say that, compared with some of the ground I am digging in here in Eva Valley, it wasn't so bad. When you drop the posthole digger into the ground and it simply polishes the surface, you know this is going to be a difficult one.
But every Wet season the ground gets very soggy almost everywhere. So the trick is, as it is with most things to do with soil up here, to add water. I am pretty sure that my dad would smile and shake his head if he heard this but standard procedure is to dig out as much as I can - you know when the crow bar bounces back up and smacks you in the ear - and then add as much water as you can get in the hole. Walk away and come back in a few hours. Repeat.;
Part of the problem is over engineering, possibly. I am putting in a fence that will be 1200 mm high. Strainers need to be in the ground 1/3 of their length. These are the rules. Thus they should be in about 600mm. I have built strainers that are 2m long, at least, just to be sure.
There should only need to be 3 sets of strainers for this job because I only have 2 sides left to fence but, instead there are 6 and I may need to put in a couple more. This requires 12 holes, at least.
This happens because, as my neighbour tells me, either the first surveyor - who marked out the blocks 100 years ago - or the one I hired at great expense to tell me where the boundary is, were drunk at the time. Possibly both. The boundary wanders a bit you see. Nice straight lines are really what you want. They are easier and everyone can admire them.
To make things more interesting, one part of the boundary goes through a Wet season creek line. This means that, although it is like iron at the moment, the ground will turn to soup during the Wet. What will happen to the strainers in there? Two sets of them. I have a plan based on bracing them to others that should be more solid but I don't know if it will work.
The location of these labours is, as I said, well away from anyone along a track that the council does not maintain.
Neighbour gives me a call to discuss shifting his cattle, 'that fence is going to be a bugger to build through that swamp'. Up at the shop to get the paper another bloke 'how many pickets will you be putting in? About 350? They'll be a bugger to drive in that country'. Yet another 'jeez mate, you have taken on a big job there. You should get someone in to give you a hand'.
My current worry is putting up a 1.6 km line, dead straight up a bit of a hill. Problem is that, when it is built, you will get a glimpse of some it from the main road, if you happen to look.
My occasional adviser on matters to do with the development of this block would say to me - I can almost hear her, - 'what does it matter if there is a little kink in the fence. People don't go round checking whether other peoples fences are straight do they? Don't worry about it.'
They aren't watching! They don't look! Don't kid yourself.
Saturday 7 July 2007
This AWA Business
There has been a hell of a lot written about AWAs and I am sure that every point and its brother have been covered many times in the debate. But there is one that I haven't heard yet.
Most of what we hear is about people on the bottom of the pile being done over by bosses or about how those workers in high demand are able to negotiate good contracts with their bosses.
My situation was not covered by either of the above situations. I was a 'permanent' public servant for many years. I reached a level where permanence was considered not appropriate by my employer and I was offered a fixed term contract. I resigned my permanent post and signed up for a contract.
Now I had a job that I loved. I had the power to make things happen that I believed were important to significant parts of the community. I was able to influence decisions of government in a pretty direct way and I was able to create teams that were often enthusiastic and highly productive. The fact is, and my bosses knew it well, I would have done the same job, with the same amount of zeal, for half the money.
My negotiation skills were considered sufficiently good for me to lead negotiations on behalf of government in major inter-governmental agreements and I believe that I had the reputation of bringing in a good product.
There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that the only reason that I received a reasonable contract from my employers was because others had set the precedent. I was simply a terrible advocate on my own behalf.
When I decided to leave it wasn't because I was not receiving enough. It was primarily because I realised that, if I was ever going to do some of things I had always wanted to do, then I had better get moving. When I left they broke my job into 2 and then added 3 more off siders.
The point is not that I felt I was done over. It is that I was not, am not, unique. There are many people in public services, non government organisations and private enterprises who are dedicated to their jobs and who feel that they are playing an important role. These people are easy meat in any contract negotiation.
In the new world of individuals I suppose there is less place for people who are not able to represent themselves. I am not convinced that this is a good thing or that the world will benefit in the long term.
Neither is the high end of town. Unions of workers may be on the nose but business continues to operate collectively bigger and better than ever before.
It all strikes me as a con job - and the surprise for me is that people don't seem to realise it.
Most of what we hear is about people on the bottom of the pile being done over by bosses or about how those workers in high demand are able to negotiate good contracts with their bosses.
My situation was not covered by either of the above situations. I was a 'permanent' public servant for many years. I reached a level where permanence was considered not appropriate by my employer and I was offered a fixed term contract. I resigned my permanent post and signed up for a contract.
Now I had a job that I loved. I had the power to make things happen that I believed were important to significant parts of the community. I was able to influence decisions of government in a pretty direct way and I was able to create teams that were often enthusiastic and highly productive. The fact is, and my bosses knew it well, I would have done the same job, with the same amount of zeal, for half the money.
My negotiation skills were considered sufficiently good for me to lead negotiations on behalf of government in major inter-governmental agreements and I believe that I had the reputation of bringing in a good product.
There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that the only reason that I received a reasonable contract from my employers was because others had set the precedent. I was simply a terrible advocate on my own behalf.
When I decided to leave it wasn't because I was not receiving enough. It was primarily because I realised that, if I was ever going to do some of things I had always wanted to do, then I had better get moving. When I left they broke my job into 2 and then added 3 more off siders.
The point is not that I felt I was done over. It is that I was not, am not, unique. There are many people in public services, non government organisations and private enterprises who are dedicated to their jobs and who feel that they are playing an important role. These people are easy meat in any contract negotiation.
In the new world of individuals I suppose there is less place for people who are not able to represent themselves. I am not convinced that this is a good thing or that the world will benefit in the long term.
Neither is the high end of town. Unions of workers may be on the nose but business continues to operate collectively bigger and better than ever before.
It all strikes me as a con job - and the surprise for me is that people don't seem to realise it.
Tuesday 3 July 2007
An Experiment - Sort of
Well. It has happened. The woman of my dreams has left me. Only for a week though. Has had to go to Perth and Alice Springs. I suspect it is for playing up purposes but she would have me believe she has work to do. Is that believable? And on Saturday night there is a major function in Alice that she is working on getting all done up for. Even less believable.
Now this is a strange situation. You see she is a woman who just loves to shop. She is going to a place where there a lot more shops than here or even in Darwin. Her Perth meeting will only last for a few hours but she has to stay on until she can pick up plane connections. Loads of free time and she is in the center of a city with lots of shops. Should be heaven.
Not so.
She will shop alright, but that simply means looking - and very occasionally trying something on. It doesn't mean actually buying. That is where I come in. Not to pay or anything like that. My role is to work out what she might actually want to buy and then try to convince her to actually make the purchase. I always err on the side of buying more rather than less so it can be a painful process - for me that is. The lady just keeps looking and is totally relaxed about it all. Smiles a lot.
With me not there she is going to be in trouble. Unless there are some excellent specials I suspect that this whole trip will be a shopping failure.
Of course, she may read this post. That will be interesting. I am prepared to punt that she will either buy a lot or buy nothing. Interesting eh? Sneaky perhaps but you have to be sneaky sometimes.
Now this is a strange situation. You see she is a woman who just loves to shop. She is going to a place where there a lot more shops than here or even in Darwin. Her Perth meeting will only last for a few hours but she has to stay on until she can pick up plane connections. Loads of free time and she is in the center of a city with lots of shops. Should be heaven.
Not so.
She will shop alright, but that simply means looking - and very occasionally trying something on. It doesn't mean actually buying. That is where I come in. Not to pay or anything like that. My role is to work out what she might actually want to buy and then try to convince her to actually make the purchase. I always err on the side of buying more rather than less so it can be a painful process - for me that is. The lady just keeps looking and is totally relaxed about it all. Smiles a lot.
With me not there she is going to be in trouble. Unless there are some excellent specials I suspect that this whole trip will be a shopping failure.
Of course, she may read this post. That will be interesting. I am prepared to punt that she will either buy a lot or buy nothing. Interesting eh? Sneaky perhaps but you have to be sneaky sometimes.
Monday 2 July 2007
Have a Look
at this one on Club Troppo. The bloke who wrote this must be intelligent. We agree with each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)