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.

It is Not Just About Power

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.

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.

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.

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.

Have a Look

at this one on Club Troppo. The bloke who wrote this must be intelligent. We agree with each other.

Time to Reel Them In

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mal Brough - A Testing Man

A bloke I like a lot, but whose political judgement may be suspect, told me that Mal Brough is seen by his Liberal constituents as a bright and shining star for the party. Perhaps, in some eyes, he is a good politician (but perhaps I wont move to the Sunshine Coast just yet).

A little story - just because I like to tell them.

I know another bloke and he is a mate of mine. He was the CEO of a council on an Aboriginal community. Deeply dedicated and a thinker, but not flash as a diplomat. When Mal came to visit and hectored the people, this bloke I know stood up and slowly (Queenslander - they generally talk bit slow) gave Mal a tour of the appropriate way to deal with people.

Now Mal didn't enjoy being told so he used every bit of influence he had to get rid of this mate of mine. Funny thing was that my mate was going anyway but had to stay on because he was being told to go. Just the type of bloke he is.

Meanwhile there is yet another bloke and he was in gaol. Hit a number of people, very hard. Without a doubt this bloke is one of the most charismatic and intelligent young leaders in his community. A natural. My mate looked past the criminal bit and recognised the quality. He cooked up a scheme where carefully selected people visited the gaol and had long discussions with the bloke inside. Went on for some years.

When he came out of gaol this bloke was a changed man. He still has the position and role that he has always had as the leader of a major group. Now, though, he puts it to good use and he has some ideas on how to do this. He went to the coppers and suggested he could do better if he had a uniform and some training. Sharp intakes of breath all around but thanks to good sense he has been given a role. The place is operating well. Fights are finished and the war is indefinitely suspended.

Back to Mal and my mate the (now ex) CEO. As a man of principle with the level of honesty and integrity we allow our politicians to get away with, well Mal could only clam credit for the rehabilitation of the bloke who was in gaol couldn't he? And it wouldn't do to suggest that someone who had sat him on his arse in a public meeting could have been right all along.

My mate - he has gone fishing but he will turn up again somewhere, I hope. People like Mal, they have been around before and will be again.

Its just a test.

Stuffing Up Good Ideas - Mal's Masterclass

The media would have you believe that Ministers are the ones who think of all of the policy ideas and make all of the decisions. It's normally not the case but, in the case of the issue of leases of Aboriginal land, the Minister has done his bit.

This such a vexed and complex issue that it is trite to say so but, if you are a Minister with the ability to cut through the crap you can find a simple way through.

‘Traditional owners’ of land are those recognised under the law as having rights and responsibilities for that land. If you listen to the anthropologists and such you will find that there can be different types of responsibilities involving different obligations. A person may have obligations or rights in relation to an area of land but may not be, in some terms a ‘traditional owner’. They might still be described as a traditional owner – but that is often just to help out a dumb whitefella. Increasingly, the term is used by some to describe all Aboriginal people living in an area, particularly if they are pretty dark, but a Minister who is knowledgeable will go past all of that and simply say that a traditional owner is pretty much the same as a freehold title holder. It is a lot easier when you ignore all of the folderol.

Settlements and missions were created, often without regard to whose land was used, normally because they were ‘good’ places to establish such a place – access to water, food, fertile ground etc. The people with responsibility for that land were often ignored. Their rights were trampled and they could no longer properly exercise their responsibilities for that land.

Over time, the two lots of people - those who moved in and those who had specific rights and responsibilities - have worked out ways of getting along. As with all communities, some of the ways people have worked out have been productive for all but most have placed the interests of particular groups over others.

One difficulty now is that there are generations of people who might be called ‘guests’ or visitors. They have no legal rights or responsibilities. Of course they may have a deep attachment to the place in which they were born and raised, they may have worked hard to make it a better place but they are not 'traditional owners'. They have their 'own' land elsewhere.

The consequences of this situation can be dramatic and volatile. Houses can be maltreated and destroyed, public places can be trashed, kids will only go to school when ‘their’ clan group is there and fights over seemingly inconsequential disputes can grow out of hand – quickly.

A way of helping to sort out some of these issues is to find an area where Aboriginal law and mainstream law are in reasonable accord, that is, where the two deal with a similar issue by establishing rights and responsibilities for parties that do not offend either legal system. At the risk of over simplifying it, the two systems both deal with land and are based on the principle that you only use someone else’s land if they agree and, if you use someone’s land then you should pay an agreed consideration.

The idea of leases for houses or house blocks was originally developed to try to give ‘guests’ or very long term visitors some properly articulated rights and responsibilities. It also required that they pay an amount to the people who have recognised rights and responsibilities for that land. Thus we have a contract that can stand up under both legal systems.

It made sense to take this idea further to establish a ‘planning and development authority’ for the township. This would have a majority of people with traditional rights and responsibilities and a couple of ‘guest’ representatives on it along with, say, a couple of people with expertise in town planning or civil engineering – similar to town planning authorities everywhere but without the real estate agents.

So, we have a method of gradually sorting out long standing conflicts and of setting up a process where those people who care about a place have a way of making decisions about its future. At the very least we have an option that people might select if it makes sense to them. How has it all gone so bad?

It has been quite easy to stuff up really. First, you change the model to make it more efficient. Why have lots of these little authorities? Why not just have one or perhaps two? And you don’t really need traditional owners on there, just experts.

Then you make it all simple, straightforward and direct. All of those good things. You say ‘we will only deal with the owners because it is their decision’. You offer them lots of money so they can convince themselves that they are doing something good for the whole place. You insert tight timelines that have to do with your needs. You studiously keep out of the discussion anyone that people have usually turned to for advice. And you make sure that there is as much media attention as you can get so that everybody is on display.

To put the icing on the cake you generate enough angst so that the hand wringers and instant experts come out of the woodwork and confuse everyone.

Now we have a lose/lose situation. If Brough wins the traditional owners and others will be at each others throats. If he loses they will still be at each others throats. Good one!

And I wont start on how to bugger up a great idea for up-grading of town camps.

What is counted, counts?

One day there is every chance that I wont be able to remember my arguments well, even on pretty boring subjects, so I need to get some of these ideas and arguments down. So this may only make sense if you put yourself in the position of two people arguing in an old people's place.

I have been working on the review of a program over the last couple of months. Nothing all that special except that it is a social program that operates primarily in remote Indigenous communities and utilises community development strategies to achieve outcomes. At one level it should be possible to measure performance against some of the outcomes. You can find some things to count. Unfortunately, the things you can find to count are not the things that are most important.

In an earlier life I made decisions about this, and many other, programs. The pressure to find and use quantifiable performance indicators was substantial and, of course, we played the game. My staff and I found things we could count and reported against them. Had to be accountable.

Increasingly, quantifiable performance indicators and their associated targets, are becoming the way many funders justify their decisions. I am becoming concerned that they actually believe that they are doing the right thing. My difficulty with this is that, in my experience, this is not the way good decisions are made. (A couple of subjective statements there BTW). Rather, they are the way that decision makers cover their backsides and justify themselves when under scrutiny.

It is so much easier to answer a question by saying

'the target was x, we achieved y and it was less/more than expected because of a, b and c'

than to say

'we were aiming to increase pride and self esteem across the community so that people would have the chance to begin to deal more successfully with the issues that are destroying their lives. We don't know yet whether the program will be successful but it is our judgement, based partly on the experience of people expert in this field, that we are on the right track.'

The latter gets you chewed up - or at least that is what the parliamentary committee tried to do to me. We did have an excellent argument though where the issues received some coverage that they normally wouldn't - and I wasn't sacked.

Reducing it all to numbers has a tendency to ignore the complexity in people. You may be able to develop 'happiness indicators' and have a nice little quiz with 20 questions to help you but, if you are paid to make judgements, should you not be expected to have the capacity to do so, and to be accountable for those judgements? And isn't it better for the society that it be informed about the reasons people make decisions rather than argue about numbers? Is not this the way that we develop as a society?

But if we can't count it we will never know - or will we?

Sam the Man

There is always a dog or two around the place I live. Always has been. I am not too sure why. It may be that I enjoy the company of animals that, sometimes, enjoy mine without the imposition of too many conditions.

Sam and Jojo have been around for the last 4 years or so. Their predecessors died within a month of each other both gored by cattle. Too brave, too inexperienced and too good at getting through the fence.

Sam was bred on an Aboriginal community in the Western Desert. As a pup he was, quite simply, ugly. Almost hairless, big distended belly and so anti social that he kept separate from the other pups in the litter. Blue heeler was a major a part of his breeding but there could have been other bits as well.

The best parts of life for Sam have always been eating and chasing and he was completely indiscriminate about both. Sprinting around a paddock chasing a kite circling, through the bush after a pig or wallaby, on the road after cars (but that stopped a few years ago) or chasing me on the quad bike, always being very careful to ensure that Jojo was not in the lead - never ever.

Biting people is something that is apparently necessary when you are a dog with certain attitudes. When people leave and they shouldn't - even if they are the lovely lady who often feeds you. When people arrive, invited or not - how are you to know? And looking mean is always useful. The bans from the kennels who have looked after Sam mean that he has had to be looked after by people bribed to bring him food at home.

Territory is of the utmost importance and requires constant vigilance. Barking through the fence at possible interlopers requires considerable attention and, if they are silly enough to get too close, ripping up their face is a reasonable response to such a lack of discretion. Neighbourhood relations and vet bills are matters for others to consider.

Vicious? He always puts his teeth quickly and gently around my hand when I let him into the back of the ute - special things utes. He brought a 4 year old who had wandered off from her parents in the bush back to them with his mouth around her wrist - no marks and no crying.

Snakes have played a part in Sam's life. When he was a pup we were woken by an incredible racket and found Sam jammed between 2 pieces of corrugated iron screaming his head off. The other pup was dead and a western brown was leaving. Next night same thing but the western brown was many meters away. Awareness of snakes has been one of the real values of having him around.

I don't know how a snake was able to bite him high on the back of his neck, but it did. Took him a while to die and we thought that he was going to again be Sam the survivor. Not this time though.

Parked him on his favourite hill so that he can continue to keep an eye on the front gate, the fence, the cattle and the house. Not sure why Sam was special, but he was.

Bob Brown vs the Temperance Society

When you have a child - a small one - you can get away with saying 'Don't do that'. They listen, or at least they get scared enough at the tone of voice that they stop. Then they get older. They want to know why. So then you explain. Then they take liberties. They start to negotiate and you end up with something other than 'Don't do that'. If you are a good parent you still prevent the dangerous activity but you have, along the way, educated and you have worked out a compromise that achieves the actual purpose. Most importantly, you negotiate an agreement and they are more effective (not more efficient) than fear.

You can treat whole societies like small children. We do it all of the time. Don't murder that person, don't take that drug, don't beat your wife, don't mine that uranium, don't drink that alcohol, etc etc.

Prohibition has its place but, in my view, not as a first option. Prohibition is a very blunt instrument. There is no room in prohibition for the negotiation of arrangements that might avoid another greater harm, for the establishment of conditions that might mitigate the dangerous or anti-social effects or for allowing people to exercise their individual and community rights.

Back in the dim, dark past when I was of a certain age some people used to grow marijuana among their tomato plants. It apparently wasn't as potent as the stuff people use today but it did the job. Probably still would. But we banned it. A war on drugs was declared. The cost of prosecuting this war has been immense. The profit motive kicked in and that drug along with lots of its mates have been developed and refined and sold by those outside the law at a great profit. Massive societal damage has been caused and is continuing because, as a society we didn't negotiate, make that don't negotiate, effective arrangements that met all necessary purposes.

Just imagine if 40 years ago we had adopted a policy that the use of recreational drugs would be legal but controlled. A licensing system would have been put in place, standards set for quality and strength, taxes paid, usage monitored and controlled. Would more people have used these drugs? Possibly, but with any luck we would have been smart enough to maintain quality at a level that kept damage to a minimum. Rather than a net societal and economic cost there may even have been a net gain.

I am very well aware that prohibition is supported strongly by social policy makers because it is such a powerful tool. For instance, there are figures that suggest that, if you prohibit the use of alcohol, it is possible to achieve a 50% drop in use. These are the drinkers who drink because grog is readily available. Drinkers who have enough cash to buy ahead, enough brains to plan, those who are keen to drink, or addicted, or resent being told they can't or who don't agree that they shouldn't all continue and with gusto.

Uranium mining, now this is one that could raise a few eyebrows. I have always been ambivalent on this. The previous ALP policy on 3 mines was simply a typical Hawke developed compromise. Sort of half achieved something but really was a con job. Banning uranium mining sounds like a good idea. It is a very dangerous substance. The waste hangs around for a thousands of years bombs kill masses rather than the more usual hundreds. It is also useful and, perhaps, does less environmental damage than coal as a fuel for power stations.

But the real problem I have with a prohibition on uranium mining is that I can't get past the feeling that we want to ban it because we are scared of it, or perhaps more correctly, we are scared that we will not be able to develop sufficiently careful or enforceable controls. Or maybe it is that we are scared that the governments we elect wont control it. Terrible thing fear. Debilitating for individuals and for societies. Time, I think, to get over the fear and get on with sorting this one out.

I could go on about grades of murder but perhaps I have made enough of an argument to cause one.

United We Stand - Does Culture Divide?

This is a difficult one, and will probably get too long.

I have been committed to the principles of collective action all of my life. The ALP has rules on its books based on those principles requiring solidarity on the part of members who are endorsed by the Party.

Last night 3 ALP Members of the NT Legislative Assembly crossed the floor to vote against a Bill being put by the ALP Minister for Mines. In accordance with the rules and precedent in the ALP Barbara McCarthy, Karl Hampton and Alison Anderson should be expelled if they don't resign first. The Chief Minister has said they wont be disendorsed.

How did it get to this? The brief facts are:

• Xstrata have an underground mine at McArthur River, originally built underground due partly to the difficulties they would have in getting approval to go open cut;
• Xstrata apply to go open cut and to divert the McArthur River to do so;
• long approval process, consultations, EIS and negotiations;
• decision finally made but appealed by the NLC on behalf of some traditional owners;
• appeal upheld due to an interpretation placed on words in the Mining Act by the Supreme Court;
• NT Parliament moves to correct the deficiency and allow its original decision to stand.

There are over 1,000 people dependent on the mine for work. McArthur River Station, the site of the mine, is owned by the company but there are people who are accepted as traditional owners for that country. Some disagree with the diversion of the river.

The news of the success of the appeal was hailed as a massive victory for the traditional owners and the environment. The NLC was ecstatic and the Environment Centre more so. The mine owners talked about closure and shut down work on the extension. The media ran about saying the Minister for Mines was incompetent. Celebrations all round.

Unfortunately for the people who cared, the group of traditional owners who are opposed, no one mentioned the bleeding obvious - if it all fell over on a technical issue, what would happen if that issue was fixed?

Into this mix we then inject the emotion of a funeral for one of the leaders of the opposing group. The man was the brother of Barbara McCarthy, MLA.

We have a highly emotional situation, a technical legal issue (that sounds simple) and the capacity for key lobby groups to make hay. What does the Government decide to do? Introduce a Bill and take it through the Parliament on urgency in 2 days with 3 of the 6 Indigenous MLAs crossing the floor.

There may have been a worse way to handle this but you would need to go back to the days of the CLP to find it.

The real point, and I have wandered off this a bit, is that the ALP government did what it was advised to do and relied on an understanding of the rules and principles of the Party, the culture if you like, to bring all of its members along. This put the Indigenous MLAs in an impossible situation. They well understand the principles of collective action, they live by them. But their first responsibility is to their family and to other Indigenous people. Allegiance to the Party is down the line a bit.

Does this mean they can't be part of the ALP or any other group that depends on collective action? I don't think so but I do think that it means that the two have to sit down and understand together what they are doing and why. Then they need to work out a way of dealing with the problem because, if they fail, the Labor Government will gradually be destroyed and Aboriginal MLAs run the risk of becoming a weak 'third force' with a CLP government in constant power.


Oh, and the other thing I would do is find someone to go into the Department of Mines and start removing the incompetent fools who stuffed up the original advice on the decision and then proposed an insensitive way of solving the problem.

Oh Susannah

Susannah Janvin was 19 years old when she climbed on board the ship 'Comet' in Cork in 1841. She was on her own when she set off on a ship to the other side of the world and, unlike many others who came to Australia at that time, she was free.

Eighteen months after she made it to Australia Susannah married William Simpson. He was a convict serving 21 years for desertion from the British Army in Canada. They had 11 children. One of them was my great grandfather.

Susannah was born in Mountmelick, County Laois in Ireland in 1822. There is no record of her birth. There was a fire in the records office in Dublin that took out many of the records of that time. But there is also no record, anywhere, of Susannah's parents. Her marriage and death certificates don't show any names for her parents. Janvin is not an Irish name and we have been unable to find any record of Janvins anywhere in Ireland.

Janvin is possibly a French name. There are some Janvins in France and, at about the right time, in French Canada. Some of these moved to the USA and there are Janvins there now but, so far, there is no apparent connection with Susannah.

So, why were the Janvins in Ireland when Susannah was born? There are no records that I have found so far or French emigration to Ireland at that time although there were 1,100 French soldiers who went to Ireland in 1798 as part of the Rebellion. They were led by an officer named Humbert and succeeded in scaring the daylights out of the English for a few weeks. When they were beaten by tens of thousands of English soldiers, the French were swapped for English prisoners of war and were sent home. The Irish who fought with them were slaughtered - 30,000 of them. And some wonder why they have been so antsy for so long.

Back to the point though, did a French soldier get together with an Irish colleen? There was a strong contingent of women involved in the 1798 rebellion. Would not be beyond possibility that there was a marriage or at least a relationship and, if the women involved were tough enough to take on the English, they could be strong enough to keep the name of a child's father. Susannah could possibly be a daughter or granddaughter of such a relationship.

Then again there is William. He was busted for desertion in Canada and tried at Kingston on 16 January 1836. At the time he was 28. Some months later there was a mutiny in the same area. Many of the soldiers involved were executed. William, however, was long gone having been sent to Australia for 21 years. Now there were French Janvins in Canada. The British were there to fight them. Was there a 14 year old French Canadian girl who was the reason for the young-ish British soldier going AWOL? Did she somehow get herself to Ireland and, eventually, to Australia and link up again with her soldier who, by the way, was still unmarried at 35 years of age. Bit of a stretch, but the stuff of a good romantic saga.

Or were the Janvins the descendants of Huegenots. They were hounded out of Europe a fair bit earlier though and you would have to punt that, if some had settled in Ireland there would be some sort of records, somewhere, of someone. The name is not on any Huegenot list that I have found to date.

Susannah was my only ancestor on that side of the line who came here of her own free will. Surely she has a good story.

to burn or not to burn

The pressure is on again. It comes every year about this time in this part of the world. You have a block of land therefore you must burn it. A lot of people do it. It is the responsible thing to do say the Bushfires Council. You must reduce your fuel load early in the Dry so that it wont burn late in the Dry.

They tell me that the research is all in. Burning annually in the Top End is the way to go. Burn early though so that the burn is cool and doesn't do too much damage to the larger trees, gives the animals some chance of survival and, with a cool burn, there is less chance of it getting away and destroying someone elses's block - or taking out a touch more of yours than intended.

Aboriginal people did it. They still do in fact. Many plants require an annual burn to generate germination. Animals have learned to live with it and clearly many survive. Pastoralists need to to it to freshen up pasture and thus provide nutrient to their animals further into the Dry.

But what about the land. The soil pumps its nutrient into the plants that it hosts, the plants grow flat out during the Wet and in the early part of the Dry, seeding and getting ready to die off so that they will rot down and return some of the nutrients they have gathered and processed to the soil ready for the next stage of the cycle. What happens when we interrupt the cycle? Less nutrient goes back into the soil, more carbon into the atmosphere, less viable seed available for next year?

Aboriginal people burn for a number of reasons. It is a very effective means of chasing game out of the heavy scrub. Fire also brings on some bush foods or makes it easier to gather.

Is there another way of achieving the required purposes? We could slash the grass on the smaller blocks. Lot of work in this. We could try grazing in cells to manage the grass on larger holdings more effectively. We could make sure we have excellent firebreak networks so that wildfires can be stopped.

Research to date has looked at when to burn. Why not research on whether to burn? Is burning simply a lazy land manager's tool?

I have a slightly different problem but one shared by many in this area. We have gamba grass. This is an introduced grass from Africa. A wonderful grass that grows quickly in large clumps to 3 or 4 meters, loaded with nutrient and oils. It is a great stockfeed and is so efficient that, even when subjected to intense grazing pressure, it will shoot green at the end of the Dry season when there is bugger all moisture in the soil. Gamba burns hot and high. A gamba fire takes out everthing - trees and all. After the fire the gamba comes back bigger and brighter than before, shooting from the burn tussocks, faster than any of the native grasses. Given time gamba and fires will turn the savana woodland to savanna grassland - gamba grassland. We didn't sow this grass but we do have to manage it.

Don't think I will burn this year. Best get that tractor moving and sharpen the blades on the slasher. I have a lot of work to do.