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.
Thursday, 4 October 2007
Thirty!!!
How about that? My son turns 30 today - or, more precisely, he turned 30 very early this morning. I can't remember the exact time but his mother will.
Amazing thing it was welcoming this new son into the world. It was the first time for me - and for him for that matter.
I clearly recall walking out of the hospital - the old one in Canberra that has now been blown up -and getting into the car. The news came on the radio and I was very surprised that the first item was not about the birth of this new baby boy - seriously.
Over the next few days I came to understand why people often carry on about the birth of babies, gooing over them, congratulating the parents and generally being very chuffed about the state of the world. I wandered about with my chest puffed out as if I had actually done something special.
Which of course I had.
My son has made it to 30 as a competent, confident person. He will go on from here making his own decisions and his own life.
We got him started and I am pretty proud that we did.
Amazing thing it was welcoming this new son into the world. It was the first time for me - and for him for that matter.
I clearly recall walking out of the hospital - the old one in Canberra that has now been blown up -and getting into the car. The news came on the radio and I was very surprised that the first item was not about the birth of this new baby boy - seriously.
Over the next few days I came to understand why people often carry on about the birth of babies, gooing over them, congratulating the parents and generally being very chuffed about the state of the world. I wandered about with my chest puffed out as if I had actually done something special.
Which of course I had.
My son has made it to 30 as a competent, confident person. He will go on from here making his own decisions and his own life.
We got him started and I am pretty proud that we did.
Tuesday, 25 September 2007
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.
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.
Monday, 17 September 2007
A Shed Raising
Any afficionado of Louis L'Amour books, people who know about the practices of the early settlements in the USA and Canada and people who watch movies about Mennonites and the Amish will know what I am talking about.
Someone decides to build a barn - in my case a shed. On the appointed day people come from everywhere and every one gets into it and either builds the shed or feeds the people who build the shed. Every one has a great time. The shed goes up and they all go home again feeling that very nice sense of community. Importantly, no one gets shot at a barn raising.
My Shed Raising happened on the weekend. Because we live a bit of distance from their residences the work gang arrived on Friday night complete with many pizzas and the occasional bottle of beer and red wine. The plan was to commence work at pretty close to first light and, as happens with good plans, we were at it at pretty close to first light.
The first portal frame was already in place and there were another 5 that had been constructed and packed in a careful pile near the construction site.
Raising the first portal frame had been a difficult job. It was built in 3 different ways and raised 3 times. Without spending too much time on it I should note that the first 2 attempts were successful in the achievement of an outcome of raising a portal frame but not successful in that the frame would not have held up its required element of a shed. The 3rd attempt had worked though and it stood supreme as a starting point. It took some weeks, much cursing, a couple of hits on the head (mine) with bracing and a bit of panel beating. Of course, it did only take one person.
The remaining 5 portal frames are now in place. Not only are they in place, they are held in place by foundations that were almost all (29 of 32) in precisely the right place, they are bound together by roof purlins and most also have eave purlins binding them together.
I trust this doesn't sound like an easy or insignificant achievement.
Each portal frame is constructed of columns, rafters, haunch brackets, an apex bracket, knee braces, an apex brace and lots of nuts and bolts etc. They are heavy and difficult to handle. They must arrive in their appointed position in as close to the state in which they leave their home on the ground. If they don't - if they go out of square - they will not fit the foundations and it will be impossible to get the rest of the frame or cladding to fit. Our team was able to raise the portal frames with only a little help on occasion from the tractor (yet again being used as a precision instrument).
All of this was done in 35 degree heat and 60% humidity.
The best teams are those who are fed well and we were. Liquid to replenish that which had been lost in the heat was required and consumed. We probably also replenished some extra.
Injuries? None that I know of. There were one or two almosts. Bracing came down pretty close to one head. Things occasionally became a little tense when the pressure was really on and those bloody frames were neither up nor down. But we came through and are still friends.
Amazingly for me everything fitted together. I had spent a lot of time on those foundations. Measuring, digging, cutting and welding structures and mixing concrete (almost 5 meters). I have complete faith that they will never leave the ground in the worst of cyclonic winds but none whatsoever that they would be in precisely the right place. One test was whether we could get the purlins on. Towards the end one did not fit, looked a long way out but a swing of the hips by our Amazon and, presto, the frame moved smartly into position.
So now it remains to put up the rest of the frame - the easy bits - and to clad it. I intend to finish this well before mango season - this week if I can.
What a birthday present eh?
Oh and I did find an extra 16/18mm ring spanner, an 18/16 open ender and a shirt that were not included in the tools that were intentionally left behind. I will return them.
And no one was shot.
Someone decides to build a barn - in my case a shed. On the appointed day people come from everywhere and every one gets into it and either builds the shed or feeds the people who build the shed. Every one has a great time. The shed goes up and they all go home again feeling that very nice sense of community. Importantly, no one gets shot at a barn raising.
My Shed Raising happened on the weekend. Because we live a bit of distance from their residences the work gang arrived on Friday night complete with many pizzas and the occasional bottle of beer and red wine. The plan was to commence work at pretty close to first light and, as happens with good plans, we were at it at pretty close to first light.
The first portal frame was already in place and there were another 5 that had been constructed and packed in a careful pile near the construction site.
Raising the first portal frame had been a difficult job. It was built in 3 different ways and raised 3 times. Without spending too much time on it I should note that the first 2 attempts were successful in the achievement of an outcome of raising a portal frame but not successful in that the frame would not have held up its required element of a shed. The 3rd attempt had worked though and it stood supreme as a starting point. It took some weeks, much cursing, a couple of hits on the head (mine) with bracing and a bit of panel beating. Of course, it did only take one person.
The remaining 5 portal frames are now in place. Not only are they in place, they are held in place by foundations that were almost all (29 of 32) in precisely the right place, they are bound together by roof purlins and most also have eave purlins binding them together.
I trust this doesn't sound like an easy or insignificant achievement.
Each portal frame is constructed of columns, rafters, haunch brackets, an apex bracket, knee braces, an apex brace and lots of nuts and bolts etc. They are heavy and difficult to handle. They must arrive in their appointed position in as close to the state in which they leave their home on the ground. If they don't - if they go out of square - they will not fit the foundations and it will be impossible to get the rest of the frame or cladding to fit. Our team was able to raise the portal frames with only a little help on occasion from the tractor (yet again being used as a precision instrument).
All of this was done in 35 degree heat and 60% humidity.
The best teams are those who are fed well and we were. Liquid to replenish that which had been lost in the heat was required and consumed. We probably also replenished some extra.
Injuries? None that I know of. There were one or two almosts. Bracing came down pretty close to one head. Things occasionally became a little tense when the pressure was really on and those bloody frames were neither up nor down. But we came through and are still friends.
Amazingly for me everything fitted together. I had spent a lot of time on those foundations. Measuring, digging, cutting and welding structures and mixing concrete (almost 5 meters). I have complete faith that they will never leave the ground in the worst of cyclonic winds but none whatsoever that they would be in precisely the right place. One test was whether we could get the purlins on. Towards the end one did not fit, looked a long way out but a swing of the hips by our Amazon and, presto, the frame moved smartly into position.
So now it remains to put up the rest of the frame - the easy bits - and to clad it. I intend to finish this well before mango season - this week if I can.
What a birthday present eh?
Oh and I did find an extra 16/18mm ring spanner, an 18/16 open ender and a shirt that were not included in the tools that were intentionally left behind. I will return them.
And no one was shot.
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Crook Foot
You should always look for the positives they say. Well my foot - and ankle - is bloody sore and I find it difficult to walk around too much. Can't get a boot on and this makes it less than safe to work on my building site (although I am not really sure why I should worry about a foot that is being such a nuisance.)
Read a book yesterday. I read a lot of books but, unfortunately rarely get a chance to read one all at once. The one I read yesterday is one that I didn't really want to finish - wanted to savour it - but one that I couldn't put down.
I am not normally inspired to read books by reviewers. This book "The Broken Shore" by Peter Temple was reviewed on the ABC Book Club program. They raved about it. I spotted it in a shop and bought it on spec. It is a beauty. The reviewers were right - and I should learn not to dismiss all reviewers as wankers.
I do enjoy crime novels and 'The Broken Shore" does fit into that category. It is a good crime novel. A better than average plot. Some good twists and excellent pace. But the crime is not the point with this book.
Peter Temple uses a technique that sometimes works well and it does in this case. He does not lead in with a detailed establishment of the scene, no obvious setting of the context and no detailed character development. Instead you move into the events with the characters and context being built as these events proceed.
But the events are quickly overtaken by the characters and the context. Temple describes the area, somewhere on the southern Victorian coast, in a way that you can feel, without actually spending too much time doing so. You meet his two dogs and you know them. His hero, Joe Cashin, is flawed and pretty much buggered, but you don't find out why until it comes up in the context of the story.
The story is like moving into an area and gradually getting to know the place and the people in it. There is a gradual process of revelation as there is in any new place. In this case we have the assistance of a bloke who has lived here before and can fill in some of the history.
An excellent book, whether or not you like crime novels.
Read a book yesterday. I read a lot of books but, unfortunately rarely get a chance to read one all at once. The one I read yesterday is one that I didn't really want to finish - wanted to savour it - but one that I couldn't put down.
I am not normally inspired to read books by reviewers. This book "The Broken Shore" by Peter Temple was reviewed on the ABC Book Club program. They raved about it. I spotted it in a shop and bought it on spec. It is a beauty. The reviewers were right - and I should learn not to dismiss all reviewers as wankers.
I do enjoy crime novels and 'The Broken Shore" does fit into that category. It is a good crime novel. A better than average plot. Some good twists and excellent pace. But the crime is not the point with this book.
Peter Temple uses a technique that sometimes works well and it does in this case. He does not lead in with a detailed establishment of the scene, no obvious setting of the context and no detailed character development. Instead you move into the events with the characters and context being built as these events proceed.
But the events are quickly overtaken by the characters and the context. Temple describes the area, somewhere on the southern Victorian coast, in a way that you can feel, without actually spending too much time doing so. You meet his two dogs and you know them. His hero, Joe Cashin, is flawed and pretty much buggered, but you don't find out why until it comes up in the context of the story.
The story is like moving into an area and gradually getting to know the place and the people in it. There is a gradual process of revelation as there is in any new place. In this case we have the assistance of a bloke who has lived here before and can fill in some of the history.
An excellent book, whether or not you like crime novels.
Monday, 10 September 2007
Bugger!
I am not spectacularly good at seeking or accepting help. I am not sure why this is the case but there you go.
My shed has been waiting quietly for 3 years to be built. This is a good sized shed in a kit. To build it you need to put together portal frames and then lift them into position on the pre-prepared footings. Everyone who has put one of these sheds together tells me that precision is essential and that, if you are able to be precise at each step, the shed will go together pretty well.
The foundations are done. Took a while but there were other things to do along the way. One of the most difficult portal frames is in place. Looks a lot bigger than I expected. The second (of a total of 6) has been constructed but I have not yet found away to get it into place. My neighbour is very keen to give me a hand. Two others have offered to help.
One technique I have used to some effect is to use my tractor as a lifting tool. Unfortunately, tractors are not really all that good as precision instruments and it has been difficult to achieve the necessary level of accuracy.
Anyway these wonderful friends of ours have made a decision that they are coming down to help. This is to be my birthday present and one of the best I reckon. A job that I would struggle for a couple of weeks on could conceivably be done in a day or so.
To achieve the best benefit I need to put the frames together before they get here. There is a week or so in that job.
So, yesterday I was getting into it. Needed to clear a bit of ground to allow me to lay out the frames. Stepped off the tractor as I have a thousand times before. Sprained my ankle. Can't walk too well.
Bugger!!!!
My shed has been waiting quietly for 3 years to be built. This is a good sized shed in a kit. To build it you need to put together portal frames and then lift them into position on the pre-prepared footings. Everyone who has put one of these sheds together tells me that precision is essential and that, if you are able to be precise at each step, the shed will go together pretty well.
The foundations are done. Took a while but there were other things to do along the way. One of the most difficult portal frames is in place. Looks a lot bigger than I expected. The second (of a total of 6) has been constructed but I have not yet found away to get it into place. My neighbour is very keen to give me a hand. Two others have offered to help.
One technique I have used to some effect is to use my tractor as a lifting tool. Unfortunately, tractors are not really all that good as precision instruments and it has been difficult to achieve the necessary level of accuracy.
Anyway these wonderful friends of ours have made a decision that they are coming down to help. This is to be my birthday present and one of the best I reckon. A job that I would struggle for a couple of weeks on could conceivably be done in a day or so.
To achieve the best benefit I need to put the frames together before they get here. There is a week or so in that job.
So, yesterday I was getting into it. Needed to clear a bit of ground to allow me to lay out the frames. Stepped off the tractor as I have a thousand times before. Sprained my ankle. Can't walk too well.
Bugger!!!!
Sunday, 9 September 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Headed in the Right Direction?
The mantra for Government Ministers and many of the commentariat for some time has been the line that 'The country is headed in the right direction and eventually the voters will realise this and come back to the government".
Alexander Downer made the comment again last night on Lateline and Tony Abbot repeated it today in interviews about the latest poll results.
It is highly unlikely that anyone from the LNP campaign team will read this blog but an old mate of mine, Peter Conran, is a key Howard advisor and I used to work in the same small building as Mark Textor - before he became a super hero - so I feel just a tiny bit of an obligation to let them know that they have it wrong.
I like being proud to be Australian. I don't like it when my government makes me ashamed. I am ashamed of our laws about immigration and refugees and have been ashamed for a long time.
I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, notwithstanding their race, religion or beliefs. We are not headed in the right direction when we treat Indigenous Territorians as pawns in a ham fisted attempt at wedge politics.
I felt good about our respect for other cultures and out embrace of multi culturalism. It is not right for our government on our behalf to use dog whistle messages to sanction abuse of Muslims or any other group.
A sensible economic strategy for individuals, businesses and governments in good times is to both address outstanding requirements and set yourself up for the future. This means that priority should have been being given to issues, say, like public housing for Indigenous people (the $2billion necessary would scarcely cause a blip in the surplus), up-grading transport infrastructure, making child care an affordable right for everyone and ensuring greater access for all to the whole education system. Instead, we have some money put away and the rest put into an election war chest.
And also on economic management we are not headed in the right direction if the level of government with the money is not effectively shifting that money in reasonable amounts to the places where it is needed for services. I know the GST con worked on most of the States and I could accept you having a bit of a giggle at their expense but there comes the time when you need to address the financial imbalance issue. Your job that one and it has not been done well.
Climate change is, and has been an issue known to governments for many years. For crying out loud I attended national meetings on greenhouse in the early 90's. We knew well how serious it was then. (You remember Peter. You sent me.) Our government is not headed in the right direction if it ignores issues of importance because there are some who wont like the solutions.
The list could go on but I don't really have the time.
You need to know that this is just me. Others will have different views. Unfortunately for you there could be a lot of views but at least if you address mine you will make a start.
On second thoughts don't bother. You have left it too late.
Alexander Downer made the comment again last night on Lateline and Tony Abbot repeated it today in interviews about the latest poll results.
It is highly unlikely that anyone from the LNP campaign team will read this blog but an old mate of mine, Peter Conran, is a key Howard advisor and I used to work in the same small building as Mark Textor - before he became a super hero - so I feel just a tiny bit of an obligation to let them know that they have it wrong.
I like being proud to be Australian. I don't like it when my government makes me ashamed. I am ashamed of our laws about immigration and refugees and have been ashamed for a long time.
I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, notwithstanding their race, religion or beliefs. We are not headed in the right direction when we treat Indigenous Territorians as pawns in a ham fisted attempt at wedge politics.
I felt good about our respect for other cultures and out embrace of multi culturalism. It is not right for our government on our behalf to use dog whistle messages to sanction abuse of Muslims or any other group.
A sensible economic strategy for individuals, businesses and governments in good times is to both address outstanding requirements and set yourself up for the future. This means that priority should have been being given to issues, say, like public housing for Indigenous people (the $2billion necessary would scarcely cause a blip in the surplus), up-grading transport infrastructure, making child care an affordable right for everyone and ensuring greater access for all to the whole education system. Instead, we have some money put away and the rest put into an election war chest.
And also on economic management we are not headed in the right direction if the level of government with the money is not effectively shifting that money in reasonable amounts to the places where it is needed for services. I know the GST con worked on most of the States and I could accept you having a bit of a giggle at their expense but there comes the time when you need to address the financial imbalance issue. Your job that one and it has not been done well.
Climate change is, and has been an issue known to governments for many years. For crying out loud I attended national meetings on greenhouse in the early 90's. We knew well how serious it was then. (You remember Peter. You sent me.) Our government is not headed in the right direction if it ignores issues of importance because there are some who wont like the solutions.
The list could go on but I don't really have the time.
You need to know that this is just me. Others will have different views. Unfortunately for you there could be a lot of views but at least if you address mine you will make a start.
On second thoughts don't bother. You have left it too late.
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Happy Birthday
I reckon that my mum would have loved the blogosphere. As the family communicator she took on the responsibility of writing to those of her children who were away from 'home', that is, where Mum was, once a week, on a Monday.
This practice started when someone left 'home'. I think it probably started when my older sister went off to boarding school. It certainly carried on when my little brother who left initially for Melbourne and then went to work in London. The practice expanded when one sister went to live in Canada and, again when another went to live in Washington. It continued when my family went off to live in the Top End.
We bought Mum a computer in her later years so that she could email 'the letter'. It worked sometimes. She had problems with the way the computer worked - it was different from the typewriters she had spent 50 years working with. But I have no doubt that, perhaps if she had been introduced a little earlier and particularly if she had been able to blog, she would have loved it and would have found a great way to give and get news of the family.
I guess that Mum found it difficult on many Mondays trying to think of something to tell those of us that were away from the centre of the family. At times she apologised for a letter being a 'poor effort' but the letters always arrived and were always read with interest. Every now and then I would reply. That would give Mum something to say in her next letter, carefully answering everything that I had said.
I don't know whether there is anything that follows this life but I do know that something has followed my Mum's life. She lives on in our memories, some of our habits and probably more of our beliefs than we know.
'Everybody is equal. You are no better than anyone else - and no one is any better than you.' 'A smile costs nothing.' And every time I find that I have been chewing my bloody tongue. The list could go on and on.
Today would have been my Mum's birthday.
This practice started when someone left 'home'. I think it probably started when my older sister went off to boarding school. It certainly carried on when my little brother who left initially for Melbourne and then went to work in London. The practice expanded when one sister went to live in Canada and, again when another went to live in Washington. It continued when my family went off to live in the Top End.
We bought Mum a computer in her later years so that she could email 'the letter'. It worked sometimes. She had problems with the way the computer worked - it was different from the typewriters she had spent 50 years working with. But I have no doubt that, perhaps if she had been introduced a little earlier and particularly if she had been able to blog, she would have loved it and would have found a great way to give and get news of the family.
I guess that Mum found it difficult on many Mondays trying to think of something to tell those of us that were away from the centre of the family. At times she apologised for a letter being a 'poor effort' but the letters always arrived and were always read with interest. Every now and then I would reply. That would give Mum something to say in her next letter, carefully answering everything that I had said.
I don't know whether there is anything that follows this life but I do know that something has followed my Mum's life. She lives on in our memories, some of our habits and probably more of our beliefs than we know.
'Everybody is equal. You are no better than anyone else - and no one is any better than you.' 'A smile costs nothing.' And every time I find that I have been chewing my bloody tongue. The list could go on and on.
Today would have been my Mum's birthday.
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Australians All
I took the chance to read the booklet that has been issued by the Commonwealth Government on being an Australian last night. I have to say that, in my opinion, it is reasonably well written and will provide some people with a statement that will allow them to feel that, yes, they are right.
Of course, there are bits of the booklet that jar and bits that I believe are sure to draw criticism from significant parts of the community. At one point there is a comment made about those who pioneered the land, white people that is, or rather white men. Women were recognised though. They were the ones who stepped in when the men died or needed some help.
In another area the writers mention the '8 hour day' campaign. They speak approvingly of the principle of '8 hours work, 8 hours leisure, 8 hours sleep'. Strange that there is no mention, not even a hint, of the battle fought by the union movement with the employers and the government of the day to achieve the acceptance of this principle.
Indigenous people get a number or mentions, although I suspect that they will find it hard to accept that the analysis provided is as complete as they might reasonably believe it should be. There is, for instance, no suggestion that the policy of removal of mixed race babies from their mothers - which operated for over 30 years - was done in pursuance of a rascist policy even though there is mention made of the rascist nature of the White Australia Policy when discussing early Chinese migration - without mentioning the name of that policy.
For me, the point is not that this is a poor document - it isn't too bad - but that it tries to achieve something that is both unnecessary and impossible.
I am an Australian. Born here and so was my father and grandfather. In fact I can go back almost 200 years to when the first of my forebears arrived here. It wasn't his choice. He was expelled for life from his homeland. My mum wasn't born here. She was proudly a 'British citizen' and the holder of a Canadian passport - and, an Australian one as well. Nor was TWOMD born here but she holds an Australian passport.
I don't think I would have any difficulty explaining to a new arrival what it means to be an Australian from my perspective. I suspect that there would be similarities to the way my mother or wife would discuss the same subject but I am equally convinced that it wouldn't be the same explanation.
My neighbour on one side is a proud Greek - spray painted his fence blue and white when Greece won the European Cup. He is no less an Australian though - and seen as no less an Australian - than the Aboriginal bloke who is my neighbour on the other side, or me for that matter.
What good comes from trying to set out in one set of words from one perspective what it means to be an Australian when we are a mixed bunch and when we owe most of our shared values to the fact that we are a mixed bunch and that we have developed ways of generally getting on together.
There are a couple of reasons for the production of this booklet. It may be that some are worried that they are no longer really seen as Australian, or perhaps they don't like being called 'skips' by the newer arrivals. Perhaps some are trying to create a barrier that all must pass through and, by doing so, are somehow turned into true blue Australians who forget where they came from. Maybe some just need some statement that gives them some security.
It worries me though that this exercise is about an attempt to engender a greater sense of nationalism and this is a much more serious issue. Nationalism is a step too far along the road to fascism for me.
I am as proudly patriotic as anyone. I will cheer Australian teams and individuals when they take on the world. I am proud of the achievements of Australians and have been proud to identify as an Australian overseas (normally).
Nationalism is a term that, at its heart, is a concept that aims for the identification of a group, normally an ethnic group, and the exclusion from the group of those who are not seen to belong. Australia is a state that is a 'nation' that is not comprised of one ethnic group and one which has, for many years, aimed to be inclusive of people of other nations rather than exclusive. Exercises that seek to place some artificial set of values or ethnic requirements on being an 'Australian' take us a step closer to place where many of 'us' would be very uncomfortable.
It worries me that John Howard is talking more and more of national identity and now of 'aspirational nationalism'. He likes the idea of nationalism - or he doesn't understand it. Either way he is a worry.
Of course, there are bits of the booklet that jar and bits that I believe are sure to draw criticism from significant parts of the community. At one point there is a comment made about those who pioneered the land, white people that is, or rather white men. Women were recognised though. They were the ones who stepped in when the men died or needed some help.
In another area the writers mention the '8 hour day' campaign. They speak approvingly of the principle of '8 hours work, 8 hours leisure, 8 hours sleep'. Strange that there is no mention, not even a hint, of the battle fought by the union movement with the employers and the government of the day to achieve the acceptance of this principle.
Indigenous people get a number or mentions, although I suspect that they will find it hard to accept that the analysis provided is as complete as they might reasonably believe it should be. There is, for instance, no suggestion that the policy of removal of mixed race babies from their mothers - which operated for over 30 years - was done in pursuance of a rascist policy even though there is mention made of the rascist nature of the White Australia Policy when discussing early Chinese migration - without mentioning the name of that policy.
For me, the point is not that this is a poor document - it isn't too bad - but that it tries to achieve something that is both unnecessary and impossible.
I am an Australian. Born here and so was my father and grandfather. In fact I can go back almost 200 years to when the first of my forebears arrived here. It wasn't his choice. He was expelled for life from his homeland. My mum wasn't born here. She was proudly a 'British citizen' and the holder of a Canadian passport - and, an Australian one as well. Nor was TWOMD born here but she holds an Australian passport.
I don't think I would have any difficulty explaining to a new arrival what it means to be an Australian from my perspective. I suspect that there would be similarities to the way my mother or wife would discuss the same subject but I am equally convinced that it wouldn't be the same explanation.
My neighbour on one side is a proud Greek - spray painted his fence blue and white when Greece won the European Cup. He is no less an Australian though - and seen as no less an Australian - than the Aboriginal bloke who is my neighbour on the other side, or me for that matter.
What good comes from trying to set out in one set of words from one perspective what it means to be an Australian when we are a mixed bunch and when we owe most of our shared values to the fact that we are a mixed bunch and that we have developed ways of generally getting on together.
There are a couple of reasons for the production of this booklet. It may be that some are worried that they are no longer really seen as Australian, or perhaps they don't like being called 'skips' by the newer arrivals. Perhaps some are trying to create a barrier that all must pass through and, by doing so, are somehow turned into true blue Australians who forget where they came from. Maybe some just need some statement that gives them some security.
It worries me though that this exercise is about an attempt to engender a greater sense of nationalism and this is a much more serious issue. Nationalism is a step too far along the road to fascism for me.
I am as proudly patriotic as anyone. I will cheer Australian teams and individuals when they take on the world. I am proud of the achievements of Australians and have been proud to identify as an Australian overseas (normally).
Nationalism is a term that, at its heart, is a concept that aims for the identification of a group, normally an ethnic group, and the exclusion from the group of those who are not seen to belong. Australia is a state that is a 'nation' that is not comprised of one ethnic group and one which has, for many years, aimed to be inclusive of people of other nations rather than exclusive. Exercises that seek to place some artificial set of values or ethnic requirements on being an 'Australian' take us a step closer to place where many of 'us' would be very uncomfortable.
It worries me that John Howard is talking more and more of national identity and now of 'aspirational nationalism'. He likes the idea of nationalism - or he doesn't understand it. Either way he is a worry.
Friday, 17 August 2007
Their Just Deserts
I really do feel for the people who have invested in the share market only to see it bounce around as it is at the moment and I am sorry that some of them are losing money they might have made if they had sold a little earlier.
But I have the this sneaking suspicion that well deserved retribution is being visited upon the hedge funds and those greedy sub-prime lenders. I know that trading in money is something that provides a lot of good for some people but I can't help seeing it as being as unproductive as any other form of gambling. Much fun for some of course but still unproductive. They don't actually make anything of any value to anyone.
The pity is that people who have invested in productive investments for quite proper purposes are being caught up in the correction/melt down/minor glitch etc.
But I have the this sneaking suspicion that well deserved retribution is being visited upon the hedge funds and those greedy sub-prime lenders. I know that trading in money is something that provides a lot of good for some people but I can't help seeing it as being as unproductive as any other form of gambling. Much fun for some of course but still unproductive. They don't actually make anything of any value to anyone.
The pity is that people who have invested in productive investments for quite proper purposes are being caught up in the correction/melt down/minor glitch etc.
Thursday, 16 August 2007
Brough vs the Yolgnu
Poor Mal Brough. He has run into a problem in Arnhem Land and it seems to be upsetting him.
Brough's survey team were quietly asked to leave Yirrkala last week and didn't get much of a run at Raminginning a day earlier.
Ronnie Baramala, the spokesperson for Rammo, told the survey team that he had no problem with them. They were just public servants doing their job. He told them that they should come back with the two 'troublemakers', Howard and Brough and that they should be prepared to answer questions about the linkages between the takeover of land, removal of the rights of landowners to control access to their freehold land and child sexual abuse.
The survey team then went to Yirrkala where they were told that, if they were unable to answer questions then, they might as well leave. The team was told that they should get Minister Brough to come to the community and answer the questions. Their questions were similar to those of Rammo but they were also worried about the prohibition of kava.
All of this was pretty calmly done. Not too much in the way of histrionics. Everyone was being pretty respectful, although they were clearly not happy.
Then Mal had a good idea. He would talk to Noel Pearson and Galarrwuy Yunupingu. It is not clear what he talked to them about but he did it in NE Arnhem Land on the weekend so there are many who assume that it had something to do with recent events at Rammo and Yirrkala.
The perception is, and was always going to be, that Mal came to talk to Galarrwuy as the bull goose of the Yolgnu. But, while Galarrwuy is a powerful man and has played a significant role, in NE Arnhem Land he is simply one of the senior men of one of the eighteen clans in the general area. He has no right to speak on behalf of others and there have been, at times, deep distrust between his clan and others.
Inevitably, there was criticism of the meeting. Mal responded by saying that the people complaining, and who threw his survey team out, were really just doped up kava drinkers who
were upset about the prohibition on kava couldn't care less about children.
Let the games begin!
Mal sees himself as a pretty tough guy. The Yolgnu clan leaders are not shrinking violets. Djawulpi Marika is the Town Clerk of Yirrkala. He was a CLP candidate at the last Territory election. The Rev Dr Djinyniyi Godarra is ex-Moderator of the Uniting Church in the Territory. He is a leader of one of the more significant clans. Wali Wunungmurra was the Principal of the Yirrkala School. Raymatja Marika is an internationally regarded artist and a woman who serves on a number of authorities. There are many other men and women of real standing and considerable capacity who would have no fear of a public stoush.
These are people who have never 'lost' their lands. Ownership has never passed to anyone else. The Land Rights Act formally recognises their ownership, but the people didn't need the Act to tell them they owned the land. They have known that, except in extreme circumstances (such as the Gove Mine), they are in control - until now.
It is relatively easy to deal successfully with the Yolgnu people. You show respect and an appreciation of their interests and concerns. If you are going to try to divide and conquer then be sure to get it right. Make sure that the group you divide off has some real numbers and will be able to hold sway against opposition. Oh, and be prepared to fail completely with the people you have divided off.
This dispute gives all indications of getting more messy. It probably wont worry Brough too much. He is playing to an audience who believes that something, anything, needs to be done to 'sort out' the Aboriginal affairs mess. He doesn't really need to care what anyone in the NT thinks, let alone five thousand or so Yolgnu.
But these people will not give up easily and they have long, long memories. I wish them well.
Brough's survey team were quietly asked to leave Yirrkala last week and didn't get much of a run at Raminginning a day earlier.
Ronnie Baramala, the spokesperson for Rammo, told the survey team that he had no problem with them. They were just public servants doing their job. He told them that they should come back with the two 'troublemakers', Howard and Brough and that they should be prepared to answer questions about the linkages between the takeover of land, removal of the rights of landowners to control access to their freehold land and child sexual abuse.
The survey team then went to Yirrkala where they were told that, if they were unable to answer questions then, they might as well leave. The team was told that they should get Minister Brough to come to the community and answer the questions. Their questions were similar to those of Rammo but they were also worried about the prohibition of kava.
All of this was pretty calmly done. Not too much in the way of histrionics. Everyone was being pretty respectful, although they were clearly not happy.
Then Mal had a good idea. He would talk to Noel Pearson and Galarrwuy Yunupingu. It is not clear what he talked to them about but he did it in NE Arnhem Land on the weekend so there are many who assume that it had something to do with recent events at Rammo and Yirrkala.
The perception is, and was always going to be, that Mal came to talk to Galarrwuy as the bull goose of the Yolgnu. But, while Galarrwuy is a powerful man and has played a significant role, in NE Arnhem Land he is simply one of the senior men of one of the eighteen clans in the general area. He has no right to speak on behalf of others and there have been, at times, deep distrust between his clan and others.
Inevitably, there was criticism of the meeting. Mal responded by saying that the people complaining, and who threw his survey team out, were really just doped up kava drinkers who
were upset about the prohibition on kava couldn't care less about children.
Let the games begin!
Mal sees himself as a pretty tough guy. The Yolgnu clan leaders are not shrinking violets. Djawulpi Marika is the Town Clerk of Yirrkala. He was a CLP candidate at the last Territory election. The Rev Dr Djinyniyi Godarra is ex-Moderator of the Uniting Church in the Territory. He is a leader of one of the more significant clans. Wali Wunungmurra was the Principal of the Yirrkala School. Raymatja Marika is an internationally regarded artist and a woman who serves on a number of authorities. There are many other men and women of real standing and considerable capacity who would have no fear of a public stoush.
These are people who have never 'lost' their lands. Ownership has never passed to anyone else. The Land Rights Act formally recognises their ownership, but the people didn't need the Act to tell them they owned the land. They have known that, except in extreme circumstances (such as the Gove Mine), they are in control - until now.
It is relatively easy to deal successfully with the Yolgnu people. You show respect and an appreciation of their interests and concerns. If you are going to try to divide and conquer then be sure to get it right. Make sure that the group you divide off has some real numbers and will be able to hold sway against opposition. Oh, and be prepared to fail completely with the people you have divided off.
This dispute gives all indications of getting more messy. It probably wont worry Brough too much. He is playing to an audience who believes that something, anything, needs to be done to 'sort out' the Aboriginal affairs mess. He doesn't really need to care what anyone in the NT thinks, let alone five thousand or so Yolgnu.
But these people will not give up easily and they have long, long memories. I wish them well.
Wednesday, 15 August 2007
The Blues Cup
It may be an omen, in fact I think it is, but I am not too sure what it all means.
I have had a Carlton cup, just a coffee cup that is, for many, many years. Not sure when it first arrived here but I know that when it first arrived it had a bright, dark blue Carlton badge.
Over time it faded. So did the fortunes of the team and the entire club for that matter. Chairman John Elliot was finally shifted along with others on the board, we lost draft picks for two years and dropped from a regular finals contender to the bottom feeders.
I have been supporting Carlton since the early 60's when I had a compelling reason to pick a team to support (having just moved to Canberra, knowing nothing about the game but thrown into a school yard where everyone had a team). Alex Jezualenko played for Eastlake and he was getting married to a girl from the suburb I lived in and he went to play for Carlton so Carlton it was.
I didn't actually join the club in the good days - they didn't need me -but, when they slipped down to the bottom, I joined up and hand over my money every year.
Anyway, back to the cup. It faded until TWOMD believed it was actually just a white cup - a bit like Carlton's away jersey but without the touch of blue. That was OK. Sort of symbolic. But now it has cracked, right through, completely buggered.
What does this mean? Is it all over for the team? Will they never win again? Or does it, could it possibly mean, that they have broken their run of bad times and are about to start to climb the ladder again?
I believe that it is the latter - of course. The cup deserves respect. It will receive an appropriate fate. The club should never forget the bad times but let this be the end of it. For 2008 let us see a finals campaign with the Blues battling to win.
For this to happen I suspect that it might be a good strategy to sell Fev - unless he performs a miracle and grows up in the next few weeks - and use the money to get a couple of good un's.
But with or without Fev just remember that Carlton will be there in September in 2008!
I have had a Carlton cup, just a coffee cup that is, for many, many years. Not sure when it first arrived here but I know that when it first arrived it had a bright, dark blue Carlton badge.
Over time it faded. So did the fortunes of the team and the entire club for that matter. Chairman John Elliot was finally shifted along with others on the board, we lost draft picks for two years and dropped from a regular finals contender to the bottom feeders.
I have been supporting Carlton since the early 60's when I had a compelling reason to pick a team to support (having just moved to Canberra, knowing nothing about the game but thrown into a school yard where everyone had a team). Alex Jezualenko played for Eastlake and he was getting married to a girl from the suburb I lived in and he went to play for Carlton so Carlton it was.
I didn't actually join the club in the good days - they didn't need me -but, when they slipped down to the bottom, I joined up and hand over my money every year.
Anyway, back to the cup. It faded until TWOMD believed it was actually just a white cup - a bit like Carlton's away jersey but without the touch of blue. That was OK. Sort of symbolic. But now it has cracked, right through, completely buggered.
What does this mean? Is it all over for the team? Will they never win again? Or does it, could it possibly mean, that they have broken their run of bad times and are about to start to climb the ladder again?
I believe that it is the latter - of course. The cup deserves respect. It will receive an appropriate fate. The club should never forget the bad times but let this be the end of it. For 2008 let us see a finals campaign with the Blues battling to win.
For this to happen I suspect that it might be a good strategy to sell Fev - unless he performs a miracle and grows up in the next few weeks - and use the money to get a couple of good un's.
But with or without Fev just remember that Carlton will be there in September in 2008!
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
Mary River
For many years a group of people have hired house boats on the Mary River for one long weekend. We drive slowly up the river, meet for one lunch, drive further, look at things - crocodiles, birds, buffaloes, sunsets, sunrises, water - eat some excellent food, drink excellent wine and beer, play cards, play mahjongg and generally have a very relaxing time.
Many of us only see each other once a year but there are some that come from a long way to play.
Now I will try to put some photos up.
Unfortunately the croc was hiding his head. He wasn't by any means the biggest but he was very calm about us - or perhaps trying to lure us in just a little closer.
The fish the jabirus were eating looked a tad off but they are beautiful birds. The sea eagle took off just a little later - but you will have to imagine that.
I have many, many more of the sunsets. Perhaps this will do for a taste.
Many of us only see each other once a year but there are some that come from a long way to play.
Now I will try to put some photos up.
Unfortunately the croc was hiding his head. He wasn't by any means the biggest but he was very calm about us - or perhaps trying to lure us in just a little closer.
The fish the jabirus were eating looked a tad off but they are beautiful birds. The sea eagle took off just a little later - but you will have to imagine that.
I have many, many more of the sunsets. Perhaps this will do for a taste.
Thursday, 2 August 2007
Is It Ignorance or Doesn't He Care?
Our local councillor is a woman, Sue, who lives up the road. She works at the local servo, has been known to have a beer and smokes rollies - but she is going to give up. Thanks to Sue's representations, our road has now been sealed past our gate, but not to Sue's place.
Sue and I don't agree about everything but, on most things that matter at the local council level - roads, fire and weed management, community services, development and animal control - we are pretty much in agreement. And if we don't agree we can have a chat. In fact, if we disagree enough then I could get myself organised and run against her. Probably wouldn't win but it would shake things up enough to have my point well heard by all.
Our MLA, Rob, is a mate of mine. He used to work for me and stayed a mate afterwards. Rob doesn't get involved in local issues. Instead he is held accountable for the things that are the Territory Government's responsibility - health, major roads, education, housing, infrastructure development. Rob may not always agree with me but he always pays attention. He knows that I am a vicious sod and if he upsets enough people like me then he is out of a job. In an electorate of just over 4,000 electors everyone is a potential 'vicious sod'.
Rob is a member of the ALP and, while he is personally accountable to his electors, his party is also accountable. Rob may do the right thing but we still might have to throw him out if his party stuffs things up. This is precisely what happened to Tim, the previous MLA - good bloke, good representative, wrong party.
Warren, or more properly Wozza, is our local MHR. Wozza is also a pretty good sort of bloke. He has been there for a long time and I suspect that the next will be his last term unless he cracks it and becomes a Minister. Lingiari is a safe Labor electorate. Some would call it rusted on. Voters in this electorate obviously make their decisions on all sorts of factors but it would be no surprise to find that Indigenous and regional development issues are up there for most people and the ALP is clearly seen as better on those.
All of these people are my representatives. They are accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties - and they know it. The people who stand against them were also held accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties and that is why they were not elected.
It seems to me to be stating the absolutely bleeding obvious that the capacity to hold our representatives accountable is at the heart of a representative democracy.
Buck passing and cost shifting are diseases that can make this 'heart' of our representative democracy very ill. They are probably impossible to cure completely but they are so much more debilitating where it is not completely clear who is responsible for something. No level of government is immune from the seductive influence of being able to spin a line that someone else is to blame. A bureaucrat who fails to get someone else to pay for something that needs to be done when that is remotely possible would not last.
So I would argue that the first step in allowing us to hold our representatives accountable, and thus keeping the heart of our representative democracy well exercised and healthy, is clarity of responsibility.
As with anything that involves the division or provision of power, achieving clarity of responsibility between Federal, State and local levels of government is very hard to achieve. Those who developed our Constitution were well aware of the issue. Unfortunately, they were actually 100% wrong in thinking that they needed to try to protect the Commonwealth from the States, but they still provided a system for sorting out problems.
The system is actually pretty simple. Specify the powers of one level of government, add a couple of absolute prohibitions, leave all other powers and functions to the States, give the High Court the power to interpret and, if all else fails send the issue to the people in a referendum.
Many, many people would say that we have an imperfect system. Gough Whitlam as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in 1966 in a speech to the Fabian Society proposed a system that would abolish the States and create 18 regional governments. It might have been a good idea but it never had a show because the other side of politics - and probably most of his side - wouldn't wear it. And as everyone knows a referendum that is not supported by both major parties has no hope.
There are other ways of changing the system. Again it is basically very simple. You simply get control of the money and use it to both strangle the States and pursue your own agenda. You can do this now quite legally under the Constitution. The High Court is likely to support your moves.
This situation, by the way, is not new. The Concrete Pipes Case in 1971 gave the Commonwealth a very powerful weapon in the corporations power and Moore v Doyle on industrial relations was decided in 1969.
It may be legal but is it right? Do we want a system where one level of government makes all policy decisions? Do we want a system where our State/Territory governments wither on the vine and where our local councils, in whatever shape they end up, are simply purveyors of the policy of our federal government?
I don't know what everyone else wants but I know that I want to have a say. I want the chance to have the case debated and, on something this important, I want to have a vote.
And I have to say, in my most restrained voice, that I object strenuously to a Prime Minister and a government that, for short term political purposes, are prepared to create precedents that will make it so much easier for another government to move just a bit further and further and further ....
And what is this rubbish about the Commonwealth's supposed 'overwatch' role. Where the blazes did that come from? Certainly not the Constitution.
Sue and I don't agree about everything but, on most things that matter at the local council level - roads, fire and weed management, community services, development and animal control - we are pretty much in agreement. And if we don't agree we can have a chat. In fact, if we disagree enough then I could get myself organised and run against her. Probably wouldn't win but it would shake things up enough to have my point well heard by all.
Our MLA, Rob, is a mate of mine. He used to work for me and stayed a mate afterwards. Rob doesn't get involved in local issues. Instead he is held accountable for the things that are the Territory Government's responsibility - health, major roads, education, housing, infrastructure development. Rob may not always agree with me but he always pays attention. He knows that I am a vicious sod and if he upsets enough people like me then he is out of a job. In an electorate of just over 4,000 electors everyone is a potential 'vicious sod'.
Rob is a member of the ALP and, while he is personally accountable to his electors, his party is also accountable. Rob may do the right thing but we still might have to throw him out if his party stuffs things up. This is precisely what happened to Tim, the previous MLA - good bloke, good representative, wrong party.
Warren, or more properly Wozza, is our local MHR. Wozza is also a pretty good sort of bloke. He has been there for a long time and I suspect that the next will be his last term unless he cracks it and becomes a Minister. Lingiari is a safe Labor electorate. Some would call it rusted on. Voters in this electorate obviously make their decisions on all sorts of factors but it would be no surprise to find that Indigenous and regional development issues are up there for most people and the ALP is clearly seen as better on those.
All of these people are my representatives. They are accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties - and they know it. The people who stand against them were also held accountable for their actions and the actions of their parties and that is why they were not elected.
It seems to me to be stating the absolutely bleeding obvious that the capacity to hold our representatives accountable is at the heart of a representative democracy.
Buck passing and cost shifting are diseases that can make this 'heart' of our representative democracy very ill. They are probably impossible to cure completely but they are so much more debilitating where it is not completely clear who is responsible for something. No level of government is immune from the seductive influence of being able to spin a line that someone else is to blame. A bureaucrat who fails to get someone else to pay for something that needs to be done when that is remotely possible would not last.
So I would argue that the first step in allowing us to hold our representatives accountable, and thus keeping the heart of our representative democracy well exercised and healthy, is clarity of responsibility.
As with anything that involves the division or provision of power, achieving clarity of responsibility between Federal, State and local levels of government is very hard to achieve. Those who developed our Constitution were well aware of the issue. Unfortunately, they were actually 100% wrong in thinking that they needed to try to protect the Commonwealth from the States, but they still provided a system for sorting out problems.
The system is actually pretty simple. Specify the powers of one level of government, add a couple of absolute prohibitions, leave all other powers and functions to the States, give the High Court the power to interpret and, if all else fails send the issue to the people in a referendum.
Many, many people would say that we have an imperfect system. Gough Whitlam as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in 1966 in a speech to the Fabian Society proposed a system that would abolish the States and create 18 regional governments. It might have been a good idea but it never had a show because the other side of politics - and probably most of his side - wouldn't wear it. And as everyone knows a referendum that is not supported by both major parties has no hope.
There are other ways of changing the system. Again it is basically very simple. You simply get control of the money and use it to both strangle the States and pursue your own agenda. You can do this now quite legally under the Constitution. The High Court is likely to support your moves.
This situation, by the way, is not new. The Concrete Pipes Case in 1971 gave the Commonwealth a very powerful weapon in the corporations power and Moore v Doyle on industrial relations was decided in 1969.
It may be legal but is it right? Do we want a system where one level of government makes all policy decisions? Do we want a system where our State/Territory governments wither on the vine and where our local councils, in whatever shape they end up, are simply purveyors of the policy of our federal government?
I don't know what everyone else wants but I know that I want to have a say. I want the chance to have the case debated and, on something this important, I want to have a vote.
And I have to say, in my most restrained voice, that I object strenuously to a Prime Minister and a government that, for short term political purposes, are prepared to create precedents that will make it so much easier for another government to move just a bit further and further and further ....
And what is this rubbish about the Commonwealth's supposed 'overwatch' role. Where the blazes did that come from? Certainly not the Constitution.
Monday, 9 July 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, 8 July 2007
They're Watching
There are many good things about working in the bush on your own all day. There is, for instance, no one about to see the stupid things you do. At least not everything.
I am putting in a fence around our big block at the moment. The fence is going in a fair way from habitation. Most of it about 2 kms away, but coming closer down the northern boundary.
My dad taught me to fence in the very different conditions of the Southern Tablelands of NSW. He built good strong fences that kept the rabbits out and the sheep, cattle and horses in. They were always straight, the posts were straight up and things were done properly.
My fence needs to keep cattle, horses and (if I can convince the appropriate authority) buffalo in but needs to allow wallabies, pigs and all wildlife easy movement.
I thought the ground down South was hard but I have to say that, compared with some of the ground I am digging in here in Eva Valley, it wasn't so bad. When you drop the posthole digger into the ground and it simply polishes the surface, you know this is going to be a difficult one.
But every Wet season the ground gets very soggy almost everywhere. So the trick is, as it is with most things to do with soil up here, to add water. I am pretty sure that my dad would smile and shake his head if he heard this but standard procedure is to dig out as much as I can - you know when the crow bar bounces back up and smacks you in the ear - and then add as much water as you can get in the hole. Walk away and come back in a few hours. Repeat.;
Part of the problem is over engineering, possibly. I am putting in a fence that will be 1200 mm high. Strainers need to be in the ground 1/3 of their length. These are the rules. Thus they should be in about 600mm. I have built strainers that are 2m long, at least, just to be sure.
There should only need to be 3 sets of strainers for this job because I only have 2 sides left to fence but, instead there are 6 and I may need to put in a couple more. This requires 12 holes, at least.
This happens because, as my neighbour tells me, either the first surveyor - who marked out the blocks 100 years ago - or the one I hired at great expense to tell me where the boundary is, were drunk at the time. Possibly both. The boundary wanders a bit you see. Nice straight lines are really what you want. They are easier and everyone can admire them.
To make things more interesting, one part of the boundary goes through a Wet season creek line. This means that, although it is like iron at the moment, the ground will turn to soup during the Wet. What will happen to the strainers in there? Two sets of them. I have a plan based on bracing them to others that should be more solid but I don't know if it will work.
The location of these labours is, as I said, well away from anyone along a track that the council does not maintain.
Neighbour gives me a call to discuss shifting his cattle, 'that fence is going to be a bugger to build through that swamp'. Up at the shop to get the paper another bloke 'how many pickets will you be putting in? About 350? They'll be a bugger to drive in that country'. Yet another 'jeez mate, you have taken on a big job there. You should get someone in to give you a hand'.
My current worry is putting up a 1.6 km line, dead straight up a bit of a hill. Problem is that, when it is built, you will get a glimpse of some it from the main road, if you happen to look.
My occasional adviser on matters to do with the development of this block would say to me - I can almost hear her, - 'what does it matter if there is a little kink in the fence. People don't go round checking whether other peoples fences are straight do they? Don't worry about it.'
They aren't watching! They don't look! Don't kid yourself.
I am putting in a fence around our big block at the moment. The fence is going in a fair way from habitation. Most of it about 2 kms away, but coming closer down the northern boundary.
My dad taught me to fence in the very different conditions of the Southern Tablelands of NSW. He built good strong fences that kept the rabbits out and the sheep, cattle and horses in. They were always straight, the posts were straight up and things were done properly.
My fence needs to keep cattle, horses and (if I can convince the appropriate authority) buffalo in but needs to allow wallabies, pigs and all wildlife easy movement.
I thought the ground down South was hard but I have to say that, compared with some of the ground I am digging in here in Eva Valley, it wasn't so bad. When you drop the posthole digger into the ground and it simply polishes the surface, you know this is going to be a difficult one.
But every Wet season the ground gets very soggy almost everywhere. So the trick is, as it is with most things to do with soil up here, to add water. I am pretty sure that my dad would smile and shake his head if he heard this but standard procedure is to dig out as much as I can - you know when the crow bar bounces back up and smacks you in the ear - and then add as much water as you can get in the hole. Walk away and come back in a few hours. Repeat.;
Part of the problem is over engineering, possibly. I am putting in a fence that will be 1200 mm high. Strainers need to be in the ground 1/3 of their length. These are the rules. Thus they should be in about 600mm. I have built strainers that are 2m long, at least, just to be sure.
There should only need to be 3 sets of strainers for this job because I only have 2 sides left to fence but, instead there are 6 and I may need to put in a couple more. This requires 12 holes, at least.
This happens because, as my neighbour tells me, either the first surveyor - who marked out the blocks 100 years ago - or the one I hired at great expense to tell me where the boundary is, were drunk at the time. Possibly both. The boundary wanders a bit you see. Nice straight lines are really what you want. They are easier and everyone can admire them.
To make things more interesting, one part of the boundary goes through a Wet season creek line. This means that, although it is like iron at the moment, the ground will turn to soup during the Wet. What will happen to the strainers in there? Two sets of them. I have a plan based on bracing them to others that should be more solid but I don't know if it will work.
The location of these labours is, as I said, well away from anyone along a track that the council does not maintain.
Neighbour gives me a call to discuss shifting his cattle, 'that fence is going to be a bugger to build through that swamp'. Up at the shop to get the paper another bloke 'how many pickets will you be putting in? About 350? They'll be a bugger to drive in that country'. Yet another 'jeez mate, you have taken on a big job there. You should get someone in to give you a hand'.
My current worry is putting up a 1.6 km line, dead straight up a bit of a hill. Problem is that, when it is built, you will get a glimpse of some it from the main road, if you happen to look.
My occasional adviser on matters to do with the development of this block would say to me - I can almost hear her, - 'what does it matter if there is a little kink in the fence. People don't go round checking whether other peoples fences are straight do they? Don't worry about it.'
They aren't watching! They don't look! Don't kid yourself.
Saturday, 7 July 2007
This AWA Business
There has been a hell of a lot written about AWAs and I am sure that every point and its brother have been covered many times in the debate. But there is one that I haven't heard yet.
Most of what we hear is about people on the bottom of the pile being done over by bosses or about how those workers in high demand are able to negotiate good contracts with their bosses.
My situation was not covered by either of the above situations. I was a 'permanent' public servant for many years. I reached a level where permanence was considered not appropriate by my employer and I was offered a fixed term contract. I resigned my permanent post and signed up for a contract.
Now I had a job that I loved. I had the power to make things happen that I believed were important to significant parts of the community. I was able to influence decisions of government in a pretty direct way and I was able to create teams that were often enthusiastic and highly productive. The fact is, and my bosses knew it well, I would have done the same job, with the same amount of zeal, for half the money.
My negotiation skills were considered sufficiently good for me to lead negotiations on behalf of government in major inter-governmental agreements and I believe that I had the reputation of bringing in a good product.
There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that the only reason that I received a reasonable contract from my employers was because others had set the precedent. I was simply a terrible advocate on my own behalf.
When I decided to leave it wasn't because I was not receiving enough. It was primarily because I realised that, if I was ever going to do some of things I had always wanted to do, then I had better get moving. When I left they broke my job into 2 and then added 3 more off siders.
The point is not that I felt I was done over. It is that I was not, am not, unique. There are many people in public services, non government organisations and private enterprises who are dedicated to their jobs and who feel that they are playing an important role. These people are easy meat in any contract negotiation.
In the new world of individuals I suppose there is less place for people who are not able to represent themselves. I am not convinced that this is a good thing or that the world will benefit in the long term.
Neither is the high end of town. Unions of workers may be on the nose but business continues to operate collectively bigger and better than ever before.
It all strikes me as a con job - and the surprise for me is that people don't seem to realise it.
Most of what we hear is about people on the bottom of the pile being done over by bosses or about how those workers in high demand are able to negotiate good contracts with their bosses.
My situation was not covered by either of the above situations. I was a 'permanent' public servant for many years. I reached a level where permanence was considered not appropriate by my employer and I was offered a fixed term contract. I resigned my permanent post and signed up for a contract.
Now I had a job that I loved. I had the power to make things happen that I believed were important to significant parts of the community. I was able to influence decisions of government in a pretty direct way and I was able to create teams that were often enthusiastic and highly productive. The fact is, and my bosses knew it well, I would have done the same job, with the same amount of zeal, for half the money.
My negotiation skills were considered sufficiently good for me to lead negotiations on behalf of government in major inter-governmental agreements and I believe that I had the reputation of bringing in a good product.
There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that the only reason that I received a reasonable contract from my employers was because others had set the precedent. I was simply a terrible advocate on my own behalf.
When I decided to leave it wasn't because I was not receiving enough. It was primarily because I realised that, if I was ever going to do some of things I had always wanted to do, then I had better get moving. When I left they broke my job into 2 and then added 3 more off siders.
The point is not that I felt I was done over. It is that I was not, am not, unique. There are many people in public services, non government organisations and private enterprises who are dedicated to their jobs and who feel that they are playing an important role. These people are easy meat in any contract negotiation.
In the new world of individuals I suppose there is less place for people who are not able to represent themselves. I am not convinced that this is a good thing or that the world will benefit in the long term.
Neither is the high end of town. Unions of workers may be on the nose but business continues to operate collectively bigger and better than ever before.
It all strikes me as a con job - and the surprise for me is that people don't seem to realise it.
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
An Experiment - Sort of
Well. It has happened. The woman of my dreams has left me. Only for a week though. Has had to go to Perth and Alice Springs. I suspect it is for playing up purposes but she would have me believe she has work to do. Is that believable? And on Saturday night there is a major function in Alice that she is working on getting all done up for. Even less believable.
Now this is a strange situation. You see she is a woman who just loves to shop. She is going to a place where there a lot more shops than here or even in Darwin. Her Perth meeting will only last for a few hours but she has to stay on until she can pick up plane connections. Loads of free time and she is in the center of a city with lots of shops. Should be heaven.
Not so.
She will shop alright, but that simply means looking - and very occasionally trying something on. It doesn't mean actually buying. That is where I come in. Not to pay or anything like that. My role is to work out what she might actually want to buy and then try to convince her to actually make the purchase. I always err on the side of buying more rather than less so it can be a painful process - for me that is. The lady just keeps looking and is totally relaxed about it all. Smiles a lot.
With me not there she is going to be in trouble. Unless there are some excellent specials I suspect that this whole trip will be a shopping failure.
Of course, she may read this post. That will be interesting. I am prepared to punt that she will either buy a lot or buy nothing. Interesting eh? Sneaky perhaps but you have to be sneaky sometimes.
Now this is a strange situation. You see she is a woman who just loves to shop. She is going to a place where there a lot more shops than here or even in Darwin. Her Perth meeting will only last for a few hours but she has to stay on until she can pick up plane connections. Loads of free time and she is in the center of a city with lots of shops. Should be heaven.
Not so.
She will shop alright, but that simply means looking - and very occasionally trying something on. It doesn't mean actually buying. That is where I come in. Not to pay or anything like that. My role is to work out what she might actually want to buy and then try to convince her to actually make the purchase. I always err on the side of buying more rather than less so it can be a painful process - for me that is. The lady just keeps looking and is totally relaxed about it all. Smiles a lot.
With me not there she is going to be in trouble. Unless there are some excellent specials I suspect that this whole trip will be a shopping failure.
Of course, she may read this post. That will be interesting. I am prepared to punt that she will either buy a lot or buy nothing. Interesting eh? Sneaky perhaps but you have to be sneaky sometimes.
Monday, 2 July 2007
Have a Look
at this one on Club Troppo. The bloke who wrote this must be intelligent. We agree with each other.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)