The Right to Know

I guess I am easily bemused but what precisely is wrong with people knowing what the price of petrol is in their general area, how retailers of groceries in the area compare on price or how the local schools are performing against some agreed criteria?

Sure, it is not the government fixing things. The government wont be fixing the price of petrol at a more reasonable level - let's say at less than $1.00 a litre. Nor will it be going through all of the items on the supermarket shelf fixing prices.

I am becoming very tired of people telling me that I shouldn't have the chance to compare prices across Coles and Woolies - they are our only options here - or to compare unit prices on articles - without a using a calculator or TWOMDs brilliant mental arithmetic (her way of warding off Alzheimers). I am not suggesting that we are desperately poor, but the habits of a lifetime of trying to get the best value for money are still strong and unit pricing will make that much, much easier.

For us fuel is an important purchase. I know it says something about our carbon footprint but we use a lot of things with motors - ute, tractor, quad bike, ride-on mower, generator, chain saw and various pumps - and they all need to be fed. Our fuel bill is significant. Add to that the fact that the most competitive retailers are over 100 kms away and you should appreciate that it would be very useful for us to know where the best price is on a particular day. Infuriating to check prices on the trip in to find that they have changed on the way out.

I was prepared to ignore the various scoffings and sundry other criticisms of some on the fuel and grocery schemes but the education issue has brought a wider range of paternalistic comment into the open.

I appreciate that it is critical to the success of any scheme to measure the performance of schools that the measurement system properly take account of a wide range of factors and that appropriate balances be achieved. This is a matter for the governments and system adminstrators. My issue is to do with the principle.

As a parent I went to considerable effort to avoid any involvement in the School Councils of the schools that my children attended. My strong preference was to trust the system to deliver a quality education to my children letting me know how the kids were going from time to time. I am embarrassed to admit that I was successful in this avoidance while they were at primary school.

Things changed in high school. Against my better judgement I was convinced to go to a meeting to be involved in an action planning exercise. We received a lot of information, had a strong debate and came to some pretty reasonable conclusions. Then the representative of the Department thanked us for our time and, basically, said that while our approach was interesting it was not what was going to happen. The experts had a different idea of where the school would go over the next 5 to 10 years. Along with others from that meeting, I spent the next 7 years on the School Council.

Once our community had information and the opportunity to discuss it, we were able to make decisions about the direction that our school should take. We were also in a position to make the rest of the community aware and to use that grunt to take on the Department of Education. We succeeded, but not without the promise of bringing 200 4WDs complete with pig dogs to town for a chat.

It would have been an option, of course, for some parents to simply send their children to another school. Perhaps not so comfortable for the children who would have had to travel some distance or to board but it was an option that was taken up by some parents in the area.

The point of this little yarn, in case it is not clear, is that without information we would have had no chance. No chance to move to change the school and no chance to make a decision to send our kids elsewhere.

The experts may also have been right. The though never crossed my mind at the time but it is possible. But they could not convince the parents. They could not provide information or analysis that was compelling for a reasonably competent community.

Of course, even the provision of full and accurate information about the outcomes that schools achieve will be of limited value. It will provide us with 'league tables' and might inspire some to get stuck into their local school and try to improve their outcomes. If the money was to go to those on the top of the table then the poorer schools will slowly become worse and worse. And if you are in a place where there are very limited options and your local school is on the poor end of the table then you are in deep trouble.

The trick is to use the 'league tables' to focus on the bottom schools with money and other resources so that they don't stay at the bottom of the pile while providing enough incentive to the 'top' schools to do their best to stay there.

Julia Gillard seems to be singing that song strongly at the moment. If she is serious then she has a winner and perhaps there will be an education revolution.

And about time!

How to Bugger It Up

The analysis of the major scare that the Northern Territory Labor Government had last week has focused almost entirely on what went wrong with the election. But some, perhaps most, of the reasons for its smack in the mouth, started a long time ago. If they are to get their act together then they need to make a few changes. So I thought that I would get back into my blog and provide a bit of advice.

A large majority is something that feels good on election night. Everyone is happy. After a while though the groups start to form up, positions are allocated, noses go out of joint and aggravation grows. So it did with NT Labor. We had members crossing the floor and no resultant penalty. A Minister resigns on principle and the reaction is not much more than a shrug of the shoulders. A popular Chief Minister became isolated from the troops and was eventually removed. The new CM was someone who had been around but who was not as well known as some may have thought. That large majority allows for indulgence.

The larger problem with the Labor Government, however, is on the policy front. Every government, over time, gathers baggage. It is not the job of government, contrary to the apparent view of some of the media minders around, to make people happy all of the time.
The decision making, governing job, necessarily means that some people are going to be unhappy with some decisions. Of course, people are not silly. They know that it wont always go their way. They balance things out over time but the unhappiness can build up.

Up here, with mobile polling, we have election week or two rather than election day. Time on the booths here, and with not too many in a smaller community that turn out to work on the booths, means that you spend a long time in the sun. The great thing is that you get to meet all of your neighbours from around the community and you have time to chat. My survey of the people who passed through the booths I worked on was not in any way scientific. It was just talking to people who wanted to talk about what had crept up their noses and was causing them to think about how they might vote.

The calling of the election a year early was an issue along with the lousy strategy of having a go a Terry Mills. A nice bloke. OK he is useless and hopeless but kicking him wasn't necessary. The other issues varied:

• Local government reform. Had to happen but badly handled and arrogant. The government seemed to be hiding something and could never get its story about the need for reform sorted out;
• The Daly. We need a proper plan to protect the river - and the fishing - but at the same time to give certainty to the farmers. They have had time to come up with a proper plan and make a decision. Probably just holding off until after the election;
• Animal welfare. It has been on the agenda for a long time and they keep saying they will do something. Had a review but nothing has eventuated. They have had time;
• Litchfield Park. It needs a proper maintenance schedule. Not good enough that sites are not opened for months after the Wet. They have had time to sort it and don't seem to care. All the money is in the bloody Waterfront;
• Gamba. Great grass. Should be banned. It is time that a proper plan was put in place.
• Mimosa pigra. Government doesn't seem to care that it is getting out of control again.

I talked to a lot of people and very few mentioned law and order or the economy and the only people who talked about Impex were those who wanted to find out what it was or to laugh about calling an election about putting a gas plant in the harbour.

So, what should they do about the situation?

First, make decisions based on the evidence and after consulting with interested stakeholders. Don't delay and don't duck the tough ones. Take a line from the pool fencing decision. Unpopular with a lot of people and a strong anti line taken by the media but, 6 years down the track, it is part of the furniture and, based on the average number of deaths in the previous 10 years, there are now at least 14 children alive who would not have been around.

Secondly, get the process right. Talk to people. Explain, consult and negotiate. Don't duck the tough meetings and don't let public servants duck them either. For instance, local government reform had the potential to be a winner but forcing people was just stupid. At the cost of a little more time and more attention to meeting the needs of people, rather than the government, there could have been a lot of positive outcomes.

Thirdly, be a Labor Government. If the public had wanted a tough on crime, lock 'em up, government they would have put the other mob in. Certainly, they want the problem of anti-social behaviour fixed but not by following the policies promoted by the red neck letter writers to the NT News. Labor Governments should care about people. They should have the courage to look at problems holistically and maybe even the intelligence to find innovative solutions to difficult social problems.

And finally, don't be continually conned on the big projects. We all know we need them and they should never be ignored but they are not going to make people vote for Labor. You see we all know that the other mob can do that stuff too. They are not what sets Labor apart from the CLP.

How about not trying to steal the clothes from the CLP for a while and, instead, try to pinch some of the clothes from the Greens? Not all of them, just enough to let people know that you actually do care about the environment and that you aren't just reacting to an election cycle.

That will do for now. Get on with it and I will provide some more advice later.

Public Servants Beware

The apology to the Stolen Generation has been discussed by so many that almost every point that could be made has been. There is one area that hasn't had much coverage though and I think it is worth putting down a few words.

First though, I am very pleased that the apology has finally been made by the Australian Parliament. It will draw a line under a history that we can not be proud of and let us start to deal with the outcomes in a serious and respectful way - with any luck.

But, just for the moment let me put the people who were taken to one side and focus on the takers.

I had the task some years ago of preparing a submission to the inquiry that generated the Bringing Them Home report. It was a formal document and had to be accurate. I had access to a range of material including a lot from the Australian Archives. A lot of what I found has been talked about, some of it is available to the public but I don't think that is the case with it all. I guess, if I felt that I could speak frankly, I could put the lie to a lot of the rubbish that I have seen in the commentary. The habits of 37 years are hard to break though. And people wouldn't believe me anyway.

It was interesting as a sidelight in this work to consider the position of the public servants involved. These people were mainly police and welfare workers although a few nurses were also involved on occasion. I was able to talk directly to some of the people that had been involved during the 50's and into the 60's and even to one bloke who had been involved before WWII.

The law that was in place at the time and the policy on which it was based required that children of mixed race marriages be taken and placed in care. Public servants were required to do the job and, pursuant to the same requirements that exist today, they carried out their duties.

I came across a file that dealt in some part with policy issues. On it I found a document that had been prepared by a group of patrol officers working for the (then) Native Welfare Branch in the early 50's. These men were arguing that the policy was wrong and should be changed. If I recall the argument properly, and I have no copy - that would be illegal - the men put forcefully that the basis of the policy was completely wrong, that race was not and should not be an issue but that if children, any children, were in danger then they should be taken. The submission included examples of mixed race families who cared well for their children.

The submission did not get much of a run in the large Commonwealth Department. However, these blokes were obviously fired up so they eventually sent it direct to the Minister. There ends the story on the file.

I did get a chance to talk to one of the men who was still alive and prepared to talk.

They were not all sacked or disciplined but, in those days, and possibly in these, this type of behaviour is at least 'courageous', particularly when carried out by officers who are a long way down the pecking order. They were, after all, operational people far removed from the seat of power in the Commonwealth. They were not 'expert' and nor could they be expected to know all of the nuances of academic thinking that supported the policy position that they were required to enforce.

Not all of their colleagues supported the stand taken. Most of their colleagues in the system did what they were told. It is interesting though that, increasingly, purely race based seizures began to stop. Children were still removed but the cases for those removals were based on the needs of the child and the lack of care it was receiving in its home rather than on the race of the child. This had the effect of seeing a greater proportion of 'full blood' Aboriginal children taken whereas previously it was primarily mixed race children taken.

It wasn't until 1984, shortly following self-government for the NT, that the old Commonwealth Ordinance was overtaken by legislation that required that any Aboriginal child taken by welfare officers by fostered or adopted by Aboriginal families wherever possible.

The issues in this area are a minefield for those who make the laws but, I respectfully suggest, are much more so for those who must administer them. We now have welfare officers that are so worried about being labeled 'child stealers' that they leave kids in what can turn out to be dangerous situations. Where they do take kids they have great difficulty finding places for them where they will receive necessary care. Seventy percent of the population in the NT should not be fostering or adopting Aboriginal kids. Maintaining families is a priority.

If you are a public servant in the system working in the community at close to the bottom of the pecking order and you believe the system is wrong today then what are your options? Put your views up through the system, go public in the media, write to a politician or simply walk away. Not too different to the options 5o years ago.

I was a public servant for a long time. Over that time I was often in a position where I objected to or disagreed with a decision made although, as time went on, I had more opportunity to put my views and have them given a hearing. My job was still on the line on occasion and I can empathise to a degree with the position that those patrol officers were in back in the '50s.

The way to fix the system of course is to have legislators make better policy. That, in turn, requires that the community be better informed about issues and consequences.

Better get on with it.

A Class Act

It seemed that there would never be an ALP government in the Northern Territory. The CLP were there for 27 years - for 4 years before self government and the rest after. Incumbency in the Territory with small electorates is a powerful thing.

The CLP used the self-government package well to ensure its future. Of course, it ignored the bush but then most of the blackfellas didn't vote for them anyway. It was just a bit surprising that the CLP lost track but, when the rot set in and became obvious to all, Clare Martin was there to make them pay.

The first ALP victory in the Territory was no easy or assured thing. It took a centrist leader who could relate to people, who could convince them that there was another option, was not too frightening and who could possibly make the Territory a better place.

We needed someone who could take on the CLP and win. Clare did it and she did it where many had failed before her.

Clare took over as Chief Minister when unemployment was growing, the NT economy was dying, infrastructure spending had stopped, there was no secondary school in any Indigenous community and much, much more money was spent on fighting land claims than on supporting Indigenous enterprises. She took over a public service that had lost its enthusiasm for the task and where good governance was not given priority.

In government, Clare, and her deputy Syd Stirling, have led a government that has been careful and centrist. It has worked hard to support and build the economy using the well tried formula of getting cranes onto the skyline and mines into the ground. Unemployment is at very low levels, gas is now on-shore and the place is booming.

In social terms we are now a different place. We are no longer automatically regarded as red neck or racist. We have more Indigenous MLAs than any other parliament and now have a female Deputy Chief Minister. Who would have thought that could happen before Clare?

Social policy advances have not matched those in the economic area. The Government has struggled, I believe, to deal effectively with the law and order issue. Allegations that crime is on the increase are rubbish but the perception that things are getting worse are growing. It has taken a long time to deal with issues of alcohol and substance abuse, although recent moves appear to be in the right direction. It started out well on local government reform but has become frustrated and is now making a mess of the area (but then I am by no means a disinterested observer on this one).

The Indigenous area is one where Clare has been lambasted. The criticisms have been very unfair. She had the courage to take on the job as Minister for Indigenous Affairs and to continue with it. Any Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Territory is on a hiding to nothing. You simply cannot win. Clare could have given it to one of her Indigenous Ministers but that would have simply meant that she was painting a target on them. Clare was always a Minister who gave strong support to any sensible proposal for changes to Indigenous policy. Her reactions and judgement were good and she had the courage to carry through on decisions.

When she came in Clare inherited a public service that both desperately wanted a new government but where some key individuals wondered whether they would survive. She guaranteed public servants their jobs, calmed them down and has worked with them ever since.

As a long time professional public servant, it pains me to say it but it could have been a different world if Clare had followed up on her removal of the (then) head of the Department of Justice with the removal of a few others. By removing the blockers and self servers she could have sent a message to all that it truly was a different world and that she wanted advice on both what she should do to make a change and how that could be done. Instead, after an initial period where the public service tried to do the job that seemed to be required, enthusiasm waned as the blockers continued to operate and the self servers prospered.

Clare was not perfect but she was just about the only way that the ALP was going to get through the CLP stranglehold. She has changed the Territory from a red neck, racist place to one where we are still optimistic and happy to have a go but where we now better recognise the value that our cultlural diversity brings.

It is often the little things that stand out. For me, two instances define Clare Martin's Chief Ministership.

Not long after she was installed the long time CEO of a major agency was pulling the pin. He was 60 and, in going that day, he was carrying out a decision he had made when he was 18. On the day of his departure a car pulled up in front of the building. Out came the CM with a bunch of flowers. She simply walked in, handed them over, gave him a kiss on the cheek, said thanks and left. Absolutely no fanfare - nothing. If she hadn't already won every vote in the department then that day she won the rest.

Many years later at Wadeye shortly after a series of well publicised riots, the CM visited to see for herself what was going on. She had appointed a Coordinator to pull together a whole of government response and develop a plan to try to ensure that this never happened again.

At the airport on that day she didn't climb into a car to travel around the community. Instead, to the concern of some of her advisors, she agreed with the idea that she walk. She visited all key locations, including the house where a major gang was headquartered.

Unfortunately, while the place was settled down and the community engaged in the development of a plan that was negotiated through the bureaucracy, much of it didn't hit the ground and Wadeye has recently exploded again.

Clare is a person with good judgement, excellent reactions and great courage. She has not been well served at all times by her advisors and public service. Perhaps if she had been just a little more ruthless she would have had more success - but then she may not have been so good.

I am sorry to see Clare go. She will be remembered with affection by most.

Not another 1961 please

It is that time in an election campaign when those closely involved are in the zone. Totally focused on not putting a foot wrong until THE DAY. Keeping those things that are going wrong to a minimum. Dealing with the daily disasters so they sound ok to everyone else and, above all, holding the line.

For those of us who are interested but not insiders it is a tough time. We think it looks good. We read all of the polls, examine all of the analysis, nervously watch the leaders for signs of panic/ disappointment/worry etc etc. It all looks good but we know it can all go very bad and get very sad, very quickly.

It may be just a case of too many scars but they were nasty ones.

Take 1969 for instance. Election late in the year - 25 October.

The previous election in 1966 was the 'khaki' election. ALP slaughtered - Holt the PM - and we were in Vietnam for the long haul. But by 1969 it was all different. The protests against the war had kicked in and I couldn't see why anyone would think it was a good idea to keep a government that was keeping us in a war like this. I also took extreme umbrage at being told to register for conscription before I had the chance to have a vote.

The Libs campaign was all about '17 Faceless Men' who ran the ALP. Union bosses telling Gough and Lance what to do and neither of them were even on the Fed Executive of the ALP. Lovely photo of Gough outside the door. All sounded pretty silly stuff as far as I was concerned. I mean as if an unelected group could tell a representative government what to do. I was young.

The ALP needed to win about 25 seats. It didn't. It did win 18 and it did get a swing of just under 7% across the nation. One of the great victories of all time.

That is, it was a victory if you really didn't expect to win, you were really interested in numbers and you were closely in touch with reality.

I was none of the above and found the whole exercise to be one of the most depressing experiences of my life.

1969 followed 20 years of conservative rule.

The thing that worries me is that the closest the conservatives came to being turfed out during the Menzies/Holt era was in 1961. Menzies was returned but only with the help of some preferences - from the Communist Party I think - for Jim Killen in Moreton. In the unkindest cut of all the ALP actually won the same number of seats as the conservatives but two were in the ACT and NT and these members didn't have full voting rights in those days. The ALP received many more votes than the LNP overall.

What makes me nervous is that they made it with 130 dodgy preferences in 1961 and we had another 11 years of them with the Vietnam war, conscription and the continuation of 1930s and 40s ideas and policies.

It doesn't look like it will happen again. It can't can it?

Do They Think We Are That Stupid?

Are we a reflection of the media or is the media a reflection of us?

Put another way - are we as stupid as they think we are or are they?

We are being treated like fools again over this issue of the death penalty for the Bali bombers.

Both major parties have long standing policies against the death penalty. Both major parties hold the basic principle of equal rights for all. Australia signed the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1949 and has since confirmed that view many times.

Somehow there are those, possibly in both parties but certainly in the Liberal/National Parties, who are able to ignore logic and principle and agree that the knocking off certain people is OK.

Now I am confused. Does that mean that it is OK to kill people or not? Is it OK to kill people, for instance:

• if they are in another country?
• if they are in another country and are not Australian?
• if they are in another country and have killed Australians?

Does that mean that just killing Australians is bad? How does that fit with our long standing, bi-partisan national position?

There doesn't seem to me to anything terribly complex or difficult about putting such questions but, faced with politicians running obvious lines, the media have ignored logic and gone completely to the so-called 'populist' position. They are running Alexander Downer's lines as if they mean something, not putting obvious questions to John Howard and gleefully tearing into Robert McClelland as somehow incompetent for stating the bleeding obvious.

Maybe we are fools. If we let the media get away with this sort of rubbish over and over again then it is arguably so.

The Other Kevin

Our school bus used to bring kids from the valley up to town winding around bush roads for about 30 kms on the way to pick up the kids from Reidsdale who, for some reason, were allowed on to the Araluen bus.

There were no Catholics from Araluen. I have no idea why not. But there were a few from Reidsdale. Not many though. We gave them a terrible time. All dressed up in their neat uniforms with their neat haircuts they were a lot of fun for the public school kids.

Whenever I see Kevin Andrews on TV I am reminded of excessively neat, prissy, hidebound, righteous school kids who seemed to look down their noses at everyone else secure in their knowledge that they knew what is best for everyone else and had the right to tell them.

Outside of school and the bus, those Catholic kids were actually reasonable people and we got on pretty well. And it turned out they were not always neat. They also grew up.

Unfortunately for Kevin Andrews, he never did grow up. He clearly still thinks that he has the right to make judgements for everyone else. He did it in his sponsorship of the legislation to overrule the NT Rights of the Terminally Ill. He was not concerned that the ROTI legislation was introduced and passed only after a long and pretty well informed debate. He simply knew that he was right so he introduced the bill to overrule.

As Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations he stayed true to form. He was so bad, so uncaring and so completely sycophantic to big business that, eventually, even John Howard had to shift him.

Now, where do you put someone like this? Knows he is right, has no feeling for people and knows he is better than everyone else. Immigration! What a perfect fit - that is, if you want to run an immigration policy that ensures that anyone who comes here is properly grateful and if you want to keep out anyone who is not neat.

I saw the interview with Dr Haneef the other night on Four Corners. I guess he could be a terrorist but, to me, he just looked like a young, keen, slightly naive doctor who embodied the hope of his family and gave them some financial security.

Kevin Andrews had the advantage over me - and everyone else. He has seen all of the information that we were given on Four Corners, read all of the transcripts and all of the analysis. Unless there is something that is not yet even hinted at, Kevin Andrews formed a view of Dr Haneef's character that is totally at odds with all of the information available.

You would expect him to do so though because he is, after all, right. He has a capacity to see through the reality to the darkness behind.

Now Kevin Andrews has decided to get stuck into those terrible Sudanese. The kid who was bashed to death in Melbourne brought it all on himself because he 'failed to integrate'. We should stop them coming here because they are from a war torn country and it takes them a while to learn how to live in a peaceful, compassionate country. So don't let them come here. Keep them where they are until they learn how to live peacefully. We are not the sort of country to give anyone a chance.

Kooyong is as safe a seat as the Liberals hold. Kevin Andrews will be there, I expect, for as long as he wants to be. Let us hope that, for the good of us all, he is restricted to fulminating on morality and righteousness from the Opposition benches for the rest of his political career.

Feet of Clay??

I knew Bob Collins.

I had to brief him once when he was Opposition Leader in the NT on a new piece of legislation. Over 500 sections and relatively complex stuff. There was a hole in it but it had been pretty well disguised. Handed the Bill to Bob and he started flicking through it while I started the spiel. He was respectful, waited till I drew breath and then hit me with the question. Nailed me to the wall. Luckily, he agreed that we were trying to do the right thing and never raised the question again. No one else ever spotted the problem.

Driving down the highway one morning saw a Landcruiser pull up on the side of the road. Bob jumped out and headed into the bush. I thought he must have been caught short but not this time. He had spotted a bloke laying there. Turned out to be a drunk who had been trying to walk home. Bob loaded him into his vehicle. A lot of other people had passed the spot before Bob arrived.

I know some of those who accused Bob.

I wouldn't feed them bad meat.

Bob may have had feet of clay. I do know that he often developed a yearning for pizzas and champagne often late at night. His self control where food was concerned was not always evident. Did he also succumb to a yearning for young boys. I don't know and now we will never know.

He was a good man who did a lot of good. A lot of good people have feet of clay. Doesn't mean that they weren't good.

It is a Sin

Graham Richardson used to say that you do 'whatever it takes' to win an election. It looks a lot like John Howard and Kevin Rudd agree.

Howard has shown he will give 'non-core' commitments. Rudd has perfected the 'me too' art, winking at Labor policy which might not always fit precisely.

I am not averse to the view that you do what you have to in order to win. I have run and worked in campaigns where we have done things that have gone pretty close to the bone. Vote early, vote often was useful once - very useful. 'Bin teams' did a top job in another. Dirt Committees are a feature of most campaign teams, even if no one normally admits it.

But there are rules, places you don't go. For me the most important has been that you don't use people unless they know about it and agree.

I know that it is dangerous to require that everyone else follow your principles but I make an exception for this one. It really gets up my nose when I see political campaigns using people without their consent.

A lot of people suspected that Howard and Brough were not serious about saving the Indigenous children from sexual abuse in the NT, but many have been prepared to go along because it was clear to everyone that something needed to be done.

We are now starting to see the results. Brough says that $500million will be spent. In briefings to senior people in organisations it is now becoming clear that the majority of this is 're-badged' money. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much 'new' money at all. The money seems to be flowing from programs that funded services back into administration - high priced administrators who are often new and inexperienced.

New money is coming in but a lot of it seems to be coming from the Aboriginal Benefits Account. This is the money that is the royalty equivalent for mining on Aboriginal Land. The committee that does the distribution is being asked to deliver the funds to the Federal agenda rather than projects that the committee might see as useful.

I am told that over 1,300 children have had the medical checks so far and that 73 communities have been surveyed. No case of sexual abuse or suspected sexual abuse has been located yet. Four kids have been referred to Family and Children's Services for follow up.

Brough talked about new houses as a major component of the effort to be made. New houses were promised for people who went along with the Federal agenda. Now they are being told that the houses wont actually be 'new'. They will actually be current houses that are refurbished and repainted. The Fed officers are telling organisations that, when people have demonstrated that they can live properly in these houses, then they might get new ones.

The estimated cost of each refurb and repaint will be $20-30,000. They obviously have a really good manager because when I was running Indigenous Housing we normally worked on about $40,000 for a similar job. The saving is apparently going to come from the squads of volunteers coming up from down South to help.

CDEP is being dismantled. The 8,300 people who were 'employed' on CDEP and achieved some dignity as a result - for being paid a little over what they would have received on Newstart - will all lose their jobs. At this stage it looks as if less than 1,000 will find 'proper jobs.

Brough and his off siders are blaming the Territory, Indigenous organisations and the non-government organisations for failing to put in the effort.

It is increasingly clear that it is all a con job and that has every sign of turning into a massive stuff up but a lot of people still want to hope that good will come. After all it has been possible to get some good out of other similar, if less dramatic, exercises.

Howard and Brough have committed a sin. They are using people for their own electoral ends and causing pain to people who have limited avenue for complaint. They deserve what the polls are telling us is on the way for them.

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.

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.

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.

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.