I reckon that my mum would have loved the blogosphere. As the family communicator she took on the responsibility of writing to those of her children who were away from 'home', that is, where Mum was, once a week, on a Monday.
This practice started when someone left 'home'. I think it probably started when my older sister went off to boarding school. It certainly carried on when my little brother who left initially for Melbourne and then went to work in London. The practice expanded when one sister went to live in Canada and, again when another went to live in Washington. It continued when my family went off to live in the Top End.
We bought Mum a computer in her later years so that she could email 'the letter'. It worked sometimes. She had problems with the way the computer worked - it was different from the typewriters she had spent 50 years working with. But I have no doubt that, perhaps if she had been introduced a little earlier and particularly if she had been able to blog, she would have loved it and would have found a great way to give and get news of the family.
I guess that Mum found it difficult on many Mondays trying to think of something to tell those of us that were away from the centre of the family. At times she apologised for a letter being a 'poor effort' but the letters always arrived and were always read with interest. Every now and then I would reply. That would give Mum something to say in her next letter, carefully answering everything that I had said.
I don't know whether there is anything that follows this life but I do know that something has followed my Mum's life. She lives on in our memories, some of our habits and probably more of our beliefs than we know.
'Everybody is equal. You are no better than anyone else - and no one is any better than you.' 'A smile costs nothing.' And every time I find that I have been chewing my bloody tongue. The list could go on and on.
Today would have been my Mum's birthday.
Wednesday 29 August 2007
Tuesday 28 August 2007
Australians All
I took the chance to read the booklet that has been issued by the Commonwealth Government on being an Australian last night. I have to say that, in my opinion, it is reasonably well written and will provide some people with a statement that will allow them to feel that, yes, they are right.
Of course, there are bits of the booklet that jar and bits that I believe are sure to draw criticism from significant parts of the community. At one point there is a comment made about those who pioneered the land, white people that is, or rather white men. Women were recognised though. They were the ones who stepped in when the men died or needed some help.
In another area the writers mention the '8 hour day' campaign. They speak approvingly of the principle of '8 hours work, 8 hours leisure, 8 hours sleep'. Strange that there is no mention, not even a hint, of the battle fought by the union movement with the employers and the government of the day to achieve the acceptance of this principle.
Indigenous people get a number or mentions, although I suspect that they will find it hard to accept that the analysis provided is as complete as they might reasonably believe it should be. There is, for instance, no suggestion that the policy of removal of mixed race babies from their mothers - which operated for over 30 years - was done in pursuance of a rascist policy even though there is mention made of the rascist nature of the White Australia Policy when discussing early Chinese migration - without mentioning the name of that policy.
For me, the point is not that this is a poor document - it isn't too bad - but that it tries to achieve something that is both unnecessary and impossible.
I am an Australian. Born here and so was my father and grandfather. In fact I can go back almost 200 years to when the first of my forebears arrived here. It wasn't his choice. He was expelled for life from his homeland. My mum wasn't born here. She was proudly a 'British citizen' and the holder of a Canadian passport - and, an Australian one as well. Nor was TWOMD born here but she holds an Australian passport.
I don't think I would have any difficulty explaining to a new arrival what it means to be an Australian from my perspective. I suspect that there would be similarities to the way my mother or wife would discuss the same subject but I am equally convinced that it wouldn't be the same explanation.
My neighbour on one side is a proud Greek - spray painted his fence blue and white when Greece won the European Cup. He is no less an Australian though - and seen as no less an Australian - than the Aboriginal bloke who is my neighbour on the other side, or me for that matter.
What good comes from trying to set out in one set of words from one perspective what it means to be an Australian when we are a mixed bunch and when we owe most of our shared values to the fact that we are a mixed bunch and that we have developed ways of generally getting on together.
There are a couple of reasons for the production of this booklet. It may be that some are worried that they are no longer really seen as Australian, or perhaps they don't like being called 'skips' by the newer arrivals. Perhaps some are trying to create a barrier that all must pass through and, by doing so, are somehow turned into true blue Australians who forget where they came from. Maybe some just need some statement that gives them some security.
It worries me though that this exercise is about an attempt to engender a greater sense of nationalism and this is a much more serious issue. Nationalism is a step too far along the road to fascism for me.
I am as proudly patriotic as anyone. I will cheer Australian teams and individuals when they take on the world. I am proud of the achievements of Australians and have been proud to identify as an Australian overseas (normally).
Nationalism is a term that, at its heart, is a concept that aims for the identification of a group, normally an ethnic group, and the exclusion from the group of those who are not seen to belong. Australia is a state that is a 'nation' that is not comprised of one ethnic group and one which has, for many years, aimed to be inclusive of people of other nations rather than exclusive. Exercises that seek to place some artificial set of values or ethnic requirements on being an 'Australian' take us a step closer to place where many of 'us' would be very uncomfortable.
It worries me that John Howard is talking more and more of national identity and now of 'aspirational nationalism'. He likes the idea of nationalism - or he doesn't understand it. Either way he is a worry.
Of course, there are bits of the booklet that jar and bits that I believe are sure to draw criticism from significant parts of the community. At one point there is a comment made about those who pioneered the land, white people that is, or rather white men. Women were recognised though. They were the ones who stepped in when the men died or needed some help.
In another area the writers mention the '8 hour day' campaign. They speak approvingly of the principle of '8 hours work, 8 hours leisure, 8 hours sleep'. Strange that there is no mention, not even a hint, of the battle fought by the union movement with the employers and the government of the day to achieve the acceptance of this principle.
Indigenous people get a number or mentions, although I suspect that they will find it hard to accept that the analysis provided is as complete as they might reasonably believe it should be. There is, for instance, no suggestion that the policy of removal of mixed race babies from their mothers - which operated for over 30 years - was done in pursuance of a rascist policy even though there is mention made of the rascist nature of the White Australia Policy when discussing early Chinese migration - without mentioning the name of that policy.
For me, the point is not that this is a poor document - it isn't too bad - but that it tries to achieve something that is both unnecessary and impossible.
I am an Australian. Born here and so was my father and grandfather. In fact I can go back almost 200 years to when the first of my forebears arrived here. It wasn't his choice. He was expelled for life from his homeland. My mum wasn't born here. She was proudly a 'British citizen' and the holder of a Canadian passport - and, an Australian one as well. Nor was TWOMD born here but she holds an Australian passport.
I don't think I would have any difficulty explaining to a new arrival what it means to be an Australian from my perspective. I suspect that there would be similarities to the way my mother or wife would discuss the same subject but I am equally convinced that it wouldn't be the same explanation.
My neighbour on one side is a proud Greek - spray painted his fence blue and white when Greece won the European Cup. He is no less an Australian though - and seen as no less an Australian - than the Aboriginal bloke who is my neighbour on the other side, or me for that matter.
What good comes from trying to set out in one set of words from one perspective what it means to be an Australian when we are a mixed bunch and when we owe most of our shared values to the fact that we are a mixed bunch and that we have developed ways of generally getting on together.
There are a couple of reasons for the production of this booklet. It may be that some are worried that they are no longer really seen as Australian, or perhaps they don't like being called 'skips' by the newer arrivals. Perhaps some are trying to create a barrier that all must pass through and, by doing so, are somehow turned into true blue Australians who forget where they came from. Maybe some just need some statement that gives them some security.
It worries me though that this exercise is about an attempt to engender a greater sense of nationalism and this is a much more serious issue. Nationalism is a step too far along the road to fascism for me.
I am as proudly patriotic as anyone. I will cheer Australian teams and individuals when they take on the world. I am proud of the achievements of Australians and have been proud to identify as an Australian overseas (normally).
Nationalism is a term that, at its heart, is a concept that aims for the identification of a group, normally an ethnic group, and the exclusion from the group of those who are not seen to belong. Australia is a state that is a 'nation' that is not comprised of one ethnic group and one which has, for many years, aimed to be inclusive of people of other nations rather than exclusive. Exercises that seek to place some artificial set of values or ethnic requirements on being an 'Australian' take us a step closer to place where many of 'us' would be very uncomfortable.
It worries me that John Howard is talking more and more of national identity and now of 'aspirational nationalism'. He likes the idea of nationalism - or he doesn't understand it. Either way he is a worry.
Friday 17 August 2007
Their Just Deserts
I really do feel for the people who have invested in the share market only to see it bounce around as it is at the moment and I am sorry that some of them are losing money they might have made if they had sold a little earlier.
But I have the this sneaking suspicion that well deserved retribution is being visited upon the hedge funds and those greedy sub-prime lenders. I know that trading in money is something that provides a lot of good for some people but I can't help seeing it as being as unproductive as any other form of gambling. Much fun for some of course but still unproductive. They don't actually make anything of any value to anyone.
The pity is that people who have invested in productive investments for quite proper purposes are being caught up in the correction/melt down/minor glitch etc.
But I have the this sneaking suspicion that well deserved retribution is being visited upon the hedge funds and those greedy sub-prime lenders. I know that trading in money is something that provides a lot of good for some people but I can't help seeing it as being as unproductive as any other form of gambling. Much fun for some of course but still unproductive. They don't actually make anything of any value to anyone.
The pity is that people who have invested in productive investments for quite proper purposes are being caught up in the correction/melt down/minor glitch etc.
Thursday 16 August 2007
Brough vs the Yolgnu
Poor Mal Brough. He has run into a problem in Arnhem Land and it seems to be upsetting him.
Brough's survey team were quietly asked to leave Yirrkala last week and didn't get much of a run at Raminginning a day earlier.
Ronnie Baramala, the spokesperson for Rammo, told the survey team that he had no problem with them. They were just public servants doing their job. He told them that they should come back with the two 'troublemakers', Howard and Brough and that they should be prepared to answer questions about the linkages between the takeover of land, removal of the rights of landowners to control access to their freehold land and child sexual abuse.
The survey team then went to Yirrkala where they were told that, if they were unable to answer questions then, they might as well leave. The team was told that they should get Minister Brough to come to the community and answer the questions. Their questions were similar to those of Rammo but they were also worried about the prohibition of kava.
All of this was pretty calmly done. Not too much in the way of histrionics. Everyone was being pretty respectful, although they were clearly not happy.
Then Mal had a good idea. He would talk to Noel Pearson and Galarrwuy Yunupingu. It is not clear what he talked to them about but he did it in NE Arnhem Land on the weekend so there are many who assume that it had something to do with recent events at Rammo and Yirrkala.
The perception is, and was always going to be, that Mal came to talk to Galarrwuy as the bull goose of the Yolgnu. But, while Galarrwuy is a powerful man and has played a significant role, in NE Arnhem Land he is simply one of the senior men of one of the eighteen clans in the general area. He has no right to speak on behalf of others and there have been, at times, deep distrust between his clan and others.
Inevitably, there was criticism of the meeting. Mal responded by saying that the people complaining, and who threw his survey team out, were really just doped up kava drinkers who
were upset about the prohibition on kava couldn't care less about children.
Let the games begin!
Mal sees himself as a pretty tough guy. The Yolgnu clan leaders are not shrinking violets. Djawulpi Marika is the Town Clerk of Yirrkala. He was a CLP candidate at the last Territory election. The Rev Dr Djinyniyi Godarra is ex-Moderator of the Uniting Church in the Territory. He is a leader of one of the more significant clans. Wali Wunungmurra was the Principal of the Yirrkala School. Raymatja Marika is an internationally regarded artist and a woman who serves on a number of authorities. There are many other men and women of real standing and considerable capacity who would have no fear of a public stoush.
These are people who have never 'lost' their lands. Ownership has never passed to anyone else. The Land Rights Act formally recognises their ownership, but the people didn't need the Act to tell them they owned the land. They have known that, except in extreme circumstances (such as the Gove Mine), they are in control - until now.
It is relatively easy to deal successfully with the Yolgnu people. You show respect and an appreciation of their interests and concerns. If you are going to try to divide and conquer then be sure to get it right. Make sure that the group you divide off has some real numbers and will be able to hold sway against opposition. Oh, and be prepared to fail completely with the people you have divided off.
This dispute gives all indications of getting more messy. It probably wont worry Brough too much. He is playing to an audience who believes that something, anything, needs to be done to 'sort out' the Aboriginal affairs mess. He doesn't really need to care what anyone in the NT thinks, let alone five thousand or so Yolgnu.
But these people will not give up easily and they have long, long memories. I wish them well.
Brough's survey team were quietly asked to leave Yirrkala last week and didn't get much of a run at Raminginning a day earlier.
Ronnie Baramala, the spokesperson for Rammo, told the survey team that he had no problem with them. They were just public servants doing their job. He told them that they should come back with the two 'troublemakers', Howard and Brough and that they should be prepared to answer questions about the linkages between the takeover of land, removal of the rights of landowners to control access to their freehold land and child sexual abuse.
The survey team then went to Yirrkala where they were told that, if they were unable to answer questions then, they might as well leave. The team was told that they should get Minister Brough to come to the community and answer the questions. Their questions were similar to those of Rammo but they were also worried about the prohibition of kava.
All of this was pretty calmly done. Not too much in the way of histrionics. Everyone was being pretty respectful, although they were clearly not happy.
Then Mal had a good idea. He would talk to Noel Pearson and Galarrwuy Yunupingu. It is not clear what he talked to them about but he did it in NE Arnhem Land on the weekend so there are many who assume that it had something to do with recent events at Rammo and Yirrkala.
The perception is, and was always going to be, that Mal came to talk to Galarrwuy as the bull goose of the Yolgnu. But, while Galarrwuy is a powerful man and has played a significant role, in NE Arnhem Land he is simply one of the senior men of one of the eighteen clans in the general area. He has no right to speak on behalf of others and there have been, at times, deep distrust between his clan and others.
Inevitably, there was criticism of the meeting. Mal responded by saying that the people complaining, and who threw his survey team out, were really just doped up kava drinkers who
were upset about the prohibition on kava couldn't care less about children.
Let the games begin!
Mal sees himself as a pretty tough guy. The Yolgnu clan leaders are not shrinking violets. Djawulpi Marika is the Town Clerk of Yirrkala. He was a CLP candidate at the last Territory election. The Rev Dr Djinyniyi Godarra is ex-Moderator of the Uniting Church in the Territory. He is a leader of one of the more significant clans. Wali Wunungmurra was the Principal of the Yirrkala School. Raymatja Marika is an internationally regarded artist and a woman who serves on a number of authorities. There are many other men and women of real standing and considerable capacity who would have no fear of a public stoush.
These are people who have never 'lost' their lands. Ownership has never passed to anyone else. The Land Rights Act formally recognises their ownership, but the people didn't need the Act to tell them they owned the land. They have known that, except in extreme circumstances (such as the Gove Mine), they are in control - until now.
It is relatively easy to deal successfully with the Yolgnu people. You show respect and an appreciation of their interests and concerns. If you are going to try to divide and conquer then be sure to get it right. Make sure that the group you divide off has some real numbers and will be able to hold sway against opposition. Oh, and be prepared to fail completely with the people you have divided off.
This dispute gives all indications of getting more messy. It probably wont worry Brough too much. He is playing to an audience who believes that something, anything, needs to be done to 'sort out' the Aboriginal affairs mess. He doesn't really need to care what anyone in the NT thinks, let alone five thousand or so Yolgnu.
But these people will not give up easily and they have long, long memories. I wish them well.
Wednesday 15 August 2007
The Blues Cup
It may be an omen, in fact I think it is, but I am not too sure what it all means.
I have had a Carlton cup, just a coffee cup that is, for many, many years. Not sure when it first arrived here but I know that when it first arrived it had a bright, dark blue Carlton badge.
Over time it faded. So did the fortunes of the team and the entire club for that matter. Chairman John Elliot was finally shifted along with others on the board, we lost draft picks for two years and dropped from a regular finals contender to the bottom feeders.
I have been supporting Carlton since the early 60's when I had a compelling reason to pick a team to support (having just moved to Canberra, knowing nothing about the game but thrown into a school yard where everyone had a team). Alex Jezualenko played for Eastlake and he was getting married to a girl from the suburb I lived in and he went to play for Carlton so Carlton it was.
I didn't actually join the club in the good days - they didn't need me -but, when they slipped down to the bottom, I joined up and hand over my money every year.
Anyway, back to the cup. It faded until TWOMD believed it was actually just a white cup - a bit like Carlton's away jersey but without the touch of blue. That was OK. Sort of symbolic. But now it has cracked, right through, completely buggered.
What does this mean? Is it all over for the team? Will they never win again? Or does it, could it possibly mean, that they have broken their run of bad times and are about to start to climb the ladder again?
I believe that it is the latter - of course. The cup deserves respect. It will receive an appropriate fate. The club should never forget the bad times but let this be the end of it. For 2008 let us see a finals campaign with the Blues battling to win.
For this to happen I suspect that it might be a good strategy to sell Fev - unless he performs a miracle and grows up in the next few weeks - and use the money to get a couple of good un's.
But with or without Fev just remember that Carlton will be there in September in 2008!
I have had a Carlton cup, just a coffee cup that is, for many, many years. Not sure when it first arrived here but I know that when it first arrived it had a bright, dark blue Carlton badge.
Over time it faded. So did the fortunes of the team and the entire club for that matter. Chairman John Elliot was finally shifted along with others on the board, we lost draft picks for two years and dropped from a regular finals contender to the bottom feeders.
I have been supporting Carlton since the early 60's when I had a compelling reason to pick a team to support (having just moved to Canberra, knowing nothing about the game but thrown into a school yard where everyone had a team). Alex Jezualenko played for Eastlake and he was getting married to a girl from the suburb I lived in and he went to play for Carlton so Carlton it was.
I didn't actually join the club in the good days - they didn't need me -but, when they slipped down to the bottom, I joined up and hand over my money every year.
Anyway, back to the cup. It faded until TWOMD believed it was actually just a white cup - a bit like Carlton's away jersey but without the touch of blue. That was OK. Sort of symbolic. But now it has cracked, right through, completely buggered.
What does this mean? Is it all over for the team? Will they never win again? Or does it, could it possibly mean, that they have broken their run of bad times and are about to start to climb the ladder again?
I believe that it is the latter - of course. The cup deserves respect. It will receive an appropriate fate. The club should never forget the bad times but let this be the end of it. For 2008 let us see a finals campaign with the Blues battling to win.
For this to happen I suspect that it might be a good strategy to sell Fev - unless he performs a miracle and grows up in the next few weeks - and use the money to get a couple of good un's.
But with or without Fev just remember that Carlton will be there in September in 2008!
Tuesday 7 August 2007
Mary River
For many years a group of people have hired house boats on the Mary River for one long weekend. We drive slowly up the river, meet for one lunch, drive further, look at things - crocodiles, birds, buffaloes, sunsets, sunrises, water - eat some excellent food, drink excellent wine and beer, play cards, play mahjongg and generally have a very relaxing time.
Many of us only see each other once a year but there are some that come from a long way to play.
Now I will try to put some photos up.
Unfortunately the croc was hiding his head. He wasn't by any means the biggest but he was very calm about us - or perhaps trying to lure us in just a little closer.
The fish the jabirus were eating looked a tad off but they are beautiful birds. The sea eagle took off just a little later - but you will have to imagine that.
I have many, many more of the sunsets. Perhaps this will do for a taste.
Many of us only see each other once a year but there are some that come from a long way to play.
Now I will try to put some photos up.
Unfortunately the croc was hiding his head. He wasn't by any means the biggest but he was very calm about us - or perhaps trying to lure us in just a little closer.
The fish the jabirus were eating looked a tad off but they are beautiful birds. The sea eagle took off just a little later - but you will have to imagine that.
I have many, many more of the sunsets. Perhaps this will do for a taste.
Thursday 2 August 2007
Is It Ignorance or Doesn't He Care?
Our local councillor is a woman, Sue, who lives up the road. She works at the local servo, has been known to have a beer and smokes rollies - but she is going to give up. Thanks to Sue's representations, our road has now been sealed past our gate, but not to Sue's place.
Sue and I don't agree about everything but, on most things that matter at the local council level - roads, fire and weed management, community services, development and animal control - we are pretty much in agreement. And if we don't agree we can have a chat. In fact, if we disagree enough then I could get myself organised and run against her. Probably wouldn't win but it would shake things up enough to have my point well heard by all.
Our MLA, Rob, is a mate of mine. He used to work for me and stayed a mate afterwards. Rob doesn't get involved in local issues. Instead he is held accountable for the things that are the Territory Government's responsibility - health, major roads, education, housing, infrastructure development. Rob may not always agree with me but he always pays attention. He knows that I am a vicious sod and if he upsets enough people like me then he is out of a job. In an electorate of just over 4,000 electors everyone is a potential 'vicious sod'.
Rob is a member of the ALP and, while he is personally accountable to his electors, his party is also accountable. Rob may do the right thing but we still might have to throw him out if his party stuffs things up. This is precisely what happened to Tim, the previous MLA - good bloke, good representative, wrong party.
Warren, or more properly Wozza, is our local MHR. Wozza is also a pretty good sort of bloke. He has been there for a long time and I suspect that the next will be his last term unless he cracks it and becomes a Minister. Lingiari is a safe Labor electorate. Some would call it rusted on. Voters in this electorate obviously make their decisions on all sorts of factors but it would be no surprise to find that Indigenous and regional development issues are up there for most people and the ALP is clearly seen as better on those.
All of these people are my representatives. They are accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties - and they know it. The people who stand against them were also held accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties and that is why they were not elected.
It seems to me to be stating the absolutely bleeding obvious that the capacity to hold our representatives accountable is at the heart of a representative democracy.
Buck passing and cost shifting are diseases that can make this 'heart' of our representative democracy very ill. They are probably impossible to cure completely but they are so much more debilitating where it is not completely clear who is responsible for something. No level of government is immune from the seductive influence of being able to spin a line that someone else is to blame. A bureaucrat who fails to get someone else to pay for something that needs to be done when that is remotely possible would not last.
So I would argue that the first step in allowing us to hold our representatives accountable, and thus keeping the heart of our representative democracy well exercised and healthy, is clarity of responsibility.
As with anything that involves the division or provision of power, achieving clarity of responsibility between Federal, State and local levels of government is very hard to achieve. Those who developed our Constitution were well aware of the issue. Unfortunately, they were actually 100% wrong in thinking that they needed to try to protect the Commonwealth from the States, but they still provided a system for sorting out problems.
The system is actually pretty simple. Specify the powers of one level of government, add a couple of absolute prohibitions, leave all other powers and functions to the States, give the High Court the power to interpret and, if all else fails send the issue to the people in a referendum.
Many, many people would say that we have an imperfect system. Gough Whitlam as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in 1966 in a speech to the Fabian Society proposed a system that would abolish the States and create 18 regional governments. It might have been a good idea but it never had a show because the other side of politics - and probably most of his side - wouldn't wear it. And as everyone knows a referendum that is not supported by both major parties has no hope.
There are other ways of changing the system. Again it is basically very simple. You simply get control of the money and use it to both strangle the States and pursue your own agenda. You can do this now quite legally under the Constitution. The High Court is likely to support your moves.
This situation, by the way, is not new. The Concrete Pipes Case in 1971 gave the Commonwealth a very powerful weapon in the corporations power and Moore v Doyle on industrial relations was decided in 1969.
It may be legal but is it right? Do we want a system where one level of government makes all policy decisions? Do we want a system where our State/Territory governments wither on the vine and where our local councils, in whatever shape they end up, are simply purveyors of the policy of our federal government?
I don't know what everyone else wants but I know that I want to have a say. I want the chance to have the case debated and, on something this important, I want to have a vote.
And I have to say, in my most restrained voice, that I object strenuously to a Prime Minister and a government that, for short term political purposes, are prepared to create precedents that will make it so much easier for another government to move just a bit further and further and further ....
And what is this rubbish about the Commonwealth's supposed 'overwatch' role. Where the blazes did that come from? Certainly not the Constitution.
Sue and I don't agree about everything but, on most things that matter at the local council level - roads, fire and weed management, community services, development and animal control - we are pretty much in agreement. And if we don't agree we can have a chat. In fact, if we disagree enough then I could get myself organised and run against her. Probably wouldn't win but it would shake things up enough to have my point well heard by all.
Our MLA, Rob, is a mate of mine. He used to work for me and stayed a mate afterwards. Rob doesn't get involved in local issues. Instead he is held accountable for the things that are the Territory Government's responsibility - health, major roads, education, housing, infrastructure development. Rob may not always agree with me but he always pays attention. He knows that I am a vicious sod and if he upsets enough people like me then he is out of a job. In an electorate of just over 4,000 electors everyone is a potential 'vicious sod'.
Rob is a member of the ALP and, while he is personally accountable to his electors, his party is also accountable. Rob may do the right thing but we still might have to throw him out if his party stuffs things up. This is precisely what happened to Tim, the previous MLA - good bloke, good representative, wrong party.
Warren, or more properly Wozza, is our local MHR. Wozza is also a pretty good sort of bloke. He has been there for a long time and I suspect that the next will be his last term unless he cracks it and becomes a Minister. Lingiari is a safe Labor electorate. Some would call it rusted on. Voters in this electorate obviously make their decisions on all sorts of factors but it would be no surprise to find that Indigenous and regional development issues are up there for most people and the ALP is clearly seen as better on those.
All of these people are my representatives. They are accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties - and they know it. The people who stand against them were also held accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties and that is why they were not elected.
It seems to me to be stating the absolutely bleeding obvious that the capacity to hold our representatives accountable is at the heart of a representative democracy.
Buck passing and cost shifting are diseases that can make this 'heart' of our representative democracy very ill. They are probably impossible to cure completely but they are so much more debilitating where it is not completely clear who is responsible for something. No level of government is immune from the seductive influence of being able to spin a line that someone else is to blame. A bureaucrat who fails to get someone else to pay for something that needs to be done when that is remotely possible would not last.
So I would argue that the first step in allowing us to hold our representatives accountable, and thus keeping the heart of our representative democracy well exercised and healthy, is clarity of responsibility.
As with anything that involves the division or provision of power, achieving clarity of responsibility between Federal, State and local levels of government is very hard to achieve. Those who developed our Constitution were well aware of the issue. Unfortunately, they were actually 100% wrong in thinking that they needed to try to protect the Commonwealth from the States, but they still provided a system for sorting out problems.
The system is actually pretty simple. Specify the powers of one level of government, add a couple of absolute prohibitions, leave all other powers and functions to the States, give the High Court the power to interpret and, if all else fails send the issue to the people in a referendum.
Many, many people would say that we have an imperfect system. Gough Whitlam as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in 1966 in a speech to the Fabian Society proposed a system that would abolish the States and create 18 regional governments. It might have been a good idea but it never had a show because the other side of politics - and probably most of his side - wouldn't wear it. And as everyone knows a referendum that is not supported by both major parties has no hope.
There are other ways of changing the system. Again it is basically very simple. You simply get control of the money and use it to both strangle the States and pursue your own agenda. You can do this now quite legally under the Constitution. The High Court is likely to support your moves.
This situation, by the way, is not new. The Concrete Pipes Case in 1971 gave the Commonwealth a very powerful weapon in the corporations power and Moore v Doyle on industrial relations was decided in 1969.
It may be legal but is it right? Do we want a system where one level of government makes all policy decisions? Do we want a system where our State/Territory governments wither on the vine and where our local councils, in whatever shape they end up, are simply purveyors of the policy of our federal government?
I don't know what everyone else wants but I know that I want to have a say. I want the chance to have the case debated and, on something this important, I want to have a vote.
And I have to say, in my most restrained voice, that I object strenuously to a Prime Minister and a government that, for short term political purposes, are prepared to create precedents that will make it so much easier for another government to move just a bit further and further and further ....
And what is this rubbish about the Commonwealth's supposed 'overwatch' role. Where the blazes did that come from? Certainly not the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)