It's official. According to representatives of both sides of the political spectrum, democracy is dead. Or at least woefully lacking in our current society.
According to the "Occupy (insert metropolis here)", they are part of a large proportion of the population not being heard or represented. What they need is more democracy.
On the other side of the divide, it is obvious that democracy doesn't need a doctor, it needs a priest. The passage of the carbon reduction scheme is proof positive that, in Australia at least, democracy is no longer alive.
Now read those first few paragraphs again and try to suspend your disbelief. Done?
This is clearly hogwash, but claiming a lack of democracy is a wonderful and effective tool for advocating for a policy position, and criticising those who don't agree with you.
Those who occupied city centres across the world are critical of the current capitalist system that operates in many successful nations. That is their policy position.
Their problem is the democratic process hasn't worked for them, or they're just not very good at it. In fact, what many anti-capitalist policy positions have in common is they've been adopted by nations at roughly the same time as they've abandoned democracy. So pluralism isn't one of the anti-capitalist's strong suits, but don't let that get in the way of a really good demonstration and sit-in, followed by the inevitable removal and scuffle with law enforcement officers.
On the other hand, does the passage of the carbon tax really signal the death of democracy, such as those who participated in the "convoy of no-confidence" suggested? Of course not.
In fact, the whole damn saga related to the Gillard Government's efforts to introduce a scheme to reduce the amount of carbon Australia collectively emits has been a clear demonstration of democracy at work, for all its successes and failures. Australia, pluralist and tolerant, with her government expressing a compromise between mainstream and minority opinion, arriving at a policy position developed by representatives as wide ranging as the land it comes from; the laneways and townhouses of inner Melbourne, and the wide expanses of the frontier of north-western New South Wales.
What we see in this debate is not another fatal blow for democracy, but a mere policy disagreement, albeit on a area of policy which may or may not be the most important to human kind since the Cold War.
It is important that a wide range of views are represented in a vibrant democracy, but this clearly is happening. Bob Brown and Barnaby Joyce share the same house of our parliament. And both are having a meaningful effect on our national discourse, and the legislation our democratically elected parliament is passing.
So, for now, save the obituaries for democracy. It's quite clearly alive and well.
And let's consign the lack of democracy talk to the archives of overblown political hyperbole.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, October 24, 2011
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Beware of One Term Too Many
If you have a relative in Queensland or New South Wales, it may be an idea to give them a call or drop them an email before the weekend.
If you do just that, ask them about the performance of their respective state governments since the last time the state went to the polls.
If you don't have a relative north of the Murray, you may just want to cast your minds back, if you can, to what happened after Paul Keating won the 1993 Federal Election, or John Cain won the 1988 Victorian State Election.
Australian political and electoral history is littered with examples of Labor Governments somehow eking out a final victory against the odds, only to keep on performing like the tired old government they were previous to the election, but managed to keep under wraps enough to get 50%+1 of the seats.
The writing was on the wall in 1988, with financial disasters completely of the Cain Government's making just about to become public knowledge, coupled with the global downturn associated with the stockmarket crash of 1987, conspiring to create a most important election. Only nobody knew it, and after Jeff Kennett made a silly remark about not needing the Nationals to govern, any chance of a change of government was very slim. We all know how that turned out, with the state exponentially more of a economic basketcase in 1992 than it was in 1988. Those were a very costly four years to the people of Victoria.
To a lesser extent, the surprise victory of Paul Keating and his government in 1993 against the John Hewson-led Coalition led to a three year term of indifference to real problems facing middle Australia. Keating instead chose to focus on the Republic, the Arts and Aboriginal Affairs, in a vain attempt to reshape Australia in his own image and likeness. Clearly a government governing for one term too many.
These all pale in comparison with the sideshow that has become the New South Wales ALP Government. This term, after Morris Iemma beat the unelectable Peter Debnam in 2007, has seen three Premiers, voluminous changes to the ministry, corruption allegations related to the urban planning processes, criminal proceedings against former ministers, and swings of biblical proportions in a number of by elections caused by the resignation, whether voluntary or forced by political embarassment, of many members of this dysfunctional government. To call it a dog's breakfast would be an insult only to what canines eat first thing in the morning.
While you may accuse me of hyperbole, the truth is 2010 in Victoria feels a lot like 2007 in New South Wales, or 2009 in Queensland, or 1988 here in Victoria. It doesn't appear to be an important election, but , at the time, neither did the ones I mentioned, with the exception of the 1993 Federal Election. Unfortunately, you sometimes don't know how important an election was until it is over and done with.
Sometimes it is said about sporting figures that it is better to retire while you are missed, rather than being forced out after your welcome has been warn out. So it is in politics, and it is certainly time for John Brumby and his crew of merry meddlers to be put out to pasture. Time for a change.
If you do just that, ask them about the performance of their respective state governments since the last time the state went to the polls.
If you don't have a relative north of the Murray, you may just want to cast your minds back, if you can, to what happened after Paul Keating won the 1993 Federal Election, or John Cain won the 1988 Victorian State Election.
Australian political and electoral history is littered with examples of Labor Governments somehow eking out a final victory against the odds, only to keep on performing like the tired old government they were previous to the election, but managed to keep under wraps enough to get 50%+1 of the seats.
The writing was on the wall in 1988, with financial disasters completely of the Cain Government's making just about to become public knowledge, coupled with the global downturn associated with the stockmarket crash of 1987, conspiring to create a most important election. Only nobody knew it, and after Jeff Kennett made a silly remark about not needing the Nationals to govern, any chance of a change of government was very slim. We all know how that turned out, with the state exponentially more of a economic basketcase in 1992 than it was in 1988. Those were a very costly four years to the people of Victoria.
To a lesser extent, the surprise victory of Paul Keating and his government in 1993 against the John Hewson-led Coalition led to a three year term of indifference to real problems facing middle Australia. Keating instead chose to focus on the Republic, the Arts and Aboriginal Affairs, in a vain attempt to reshape Australia in his own image and likeness. Clearly a government governing for one term too many.
These all pale in comparison with the sideshow that has become the New South Wales ALP Government. This term, after Morris Iemma beat the unelectable Peter Debnam in 2007, has seen three Premiers, voluminous changes to the ministry, corruption allegations related to the urban planning processes, criminal proceedings against former ministers, and swings of biblical proportions in a number of by elections caused by the resignation, whether voluntary or forced by political embarassment, of many members of this dysfunctional government. To call it a dog's breakfast would be an insult only to what canines eat first thing in the morning.
While you may accuse me of hyperbole, the truth is 2010 in Victoria feels a lot like 2007 in New South Wales, or 2009 in Queensland, or 1988 here in Victoria. It doesn't appear to be an important election, but , at the time, neither did the ones I mentioned, with the exception of the 1993 Federal Election. Unfortunately, you sometimes don't know how important an election was until it is over and done with.
Sometimes it is said about sporting figures that it is better to retire while you are missed, rather than being forced out after your welcome has been warn out. So it is in politics, and it is certainly time for John Brumby and his crew of merry meddlers to be put out to pasture. Time for a change.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Right Kind of Campaign
Victorian Election pretty boring, huh? Good. As it should be.
Recently, we've seen a increase in the amount of loud hyperbole coming from politicians. Some of it can seem to be lacking thought, and some of it can seem downright psychic, like Joe Hockey's comments on the banks, but for many politicians and elected representatives, it seems like they only have one volume that is constantly stuck on 11.
Take the midterm congressional elections in the United States as the best example. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives behind a groundswell of resentment at the economy, Washington politics, and reforms proposed by President Barack Obama, such as those relating to health care, the financial industry, economic stimulus packages, and the military.
Americans know and love hyperbole better than most, and their politicians even more so. The use of emotive terms like "death panels" and "refounding our constitution" are meant to elicit visceral, emotional response, and mostly they do from citizens who feel very strongly about being patriotic to the American ideal.
The problem is that this sort of fearmongering doesn't address the real issues facing the US Congress and the United States as a whole: a poorly performing economy, a Federal Government laden with trillions of dollars of debt with no end in sight and no program to reduce the deficit with any chance of being approved by Congress, and fighting two wars on the other side of the world without a realistic exit strategy.
The number of high-profile Republicans proposing realistic, yet necessarily drastic, solutions to United States' crippling debt, could be fit into a small room. And because many of these people are libertarians, their lack of support for moral issues, such as outlawing abortion or preventing same-sex marriages, make them unattractive to many Republican "values" voters.
So you get elections with, as Shakespeare put it, "a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing". That is why it is so refreshing to have a low key election campaign here in Victoria, with the focus on announcing programs to address the problems facing Victoria and her citizenry.
While the media shows many signs of tiring at this understated campaign, focussing on "process stories" such as preferences and candidates flip-flopping about whether they will remain the endorsed candidates, both campaigns have on the main, with the exception of the entirely hateable Rob Hulls, stuck on a policy oriented message. This is to be commended.
Hopefully people will continue to engage with the leaders between now and November 27, and this engagement will produce a result that provides real action for all Victorians.
Hopefully the campaign will not degenerate into namecalling and the like, no matter what Rob Hulls wants.
So, don't be too unhappy this election is not very entertaining: that's the way it should be.
Recently, we've seen a increase in the amount of loud hyperbole coming from politicians. Some of it can seem to be lacking thought, and some of it can seem downright psychic, like Joe Hockey's comments on the banks, but for many politicians and elected representatives, it seems like they only have one volume that is constantly stuck on 11.
Take the midterm congressional elections in the United States as the best example. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives behind a groundswell of resentment at the economy, Washington politics, and reforms proposed by President Barack Obama, such as those relating to health care, the financial industry, economic stimulus packages, and the military.
Americans know and love hyperbole better than most, and their politicians even more so. The use of emotive terms like "death panels" and "refounding our constitution" are meant to elicit visceral, emotional response, and mostly they do from citizens who feel very strongly about being patriotic to the American ideal.
The problem is that this sort of fearmongering doesn't address the real issues facing the US Congress and the United States as a whole: a poorly performing economy, a Federal Government laden with trillions of dollars of debt with no end in sight and no program to reduce the deficit with any chance of being approved by Congress, and fighting two wars on the other side of the world without a realistic exit strategy.
The number of high-profile Republicans proposing realistic, yet necessarily drastic, solutions to United States' crippling debt, could be fit into a small room. And because many of these people are libertarians, their lack of support for moral issues, such as outlawing abortion or preventing same-sex marriages, make them unattractive to many Republican "values" voters.
So you get elections with, as Shakespeare put it, "a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing". That is why it is so refreshing to have a low key election campaign here in Victoria, with the focus on announcing programs to address the problems facing Victoria and her citizenry.
While the media shows many signs of tiring at this understated campaign, focussing on "process stories" such as preferences and candidates flip-flopping about whether they will remain the endorsed candidates, both campaigns have on the main, with the exception of the entirely hateable Rob Hulls, stuck on a policy oriented message. This is to be commended.
Hopefully people will continue to engage with the leaders between now and November 27, and this engagement will produce a result that provides real action for all Victorians.
Hopefully the campaign will not degenerate into namecalling and the like, no matter what Rob Hulls wants.
So, don't be too unhappy this election is not very entertaining: that's the way it should be.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Time for an Appointed Speaker
If you thought a pair was a piece of fruit that was a not-so-distant relative of the apple, then you haven't been keeping an eye (or ear) on what has been happening in Australian Federal Politics recently.
A hung parliament, the result of Australia not really deciding on August 21, leads to all sorts of issues, not the least of which is the common practice of the Speaker of the House being taken from the government ranks, leaving them with one less vote on the floor than they normally would have, except when there is a tie when the Speaker can cast a deliberative vote to break the tie.
Now, I'm not calling on Harry Jenkins to use that vote to ensure a premiership for St Kilda. But the razor thin majority the Gillard Government has in the House of Representatives is effectively halved when Jenkins gets up in his high chair and starts presiding over parliamentary proceedings.
This means that any planned government travel during sitting days, illness, parental leave or unexplained absence at an inconvenient time could leave the government without the required numbers to pass legislation, regardless of the whims of Messrs Bandt, Wilkie, Oakeshott and Windsor.
Government ministers need, on occasion, to travel overseas to meet important people, and that opportunity may not always present itself during a week where parliament is not sitting. If Tony Abbott insists on playing hardball with parliamentary numbers, this may render the House of Representatives largely unworkable from a government standpoint until the minister returns to the House.
Which begs the question: why does the Speaker still need to be a member of the House?
It has been mentioned during the process to attract the support of the independents previously mentioned that taking the role of the Speaker would render the member unable to represent their constituents through Adjournment Debates, Matters of Public Importance, Member's Statements, and debates on individual pieces of legislation. To summarise, the Speaker cannot make any statements in the House except to rule on the conduct of the House and its members.
Despite the pay rise and additional staff, this makes the Speaker's job a less attractive one. You also need to be ever present in Parliament House in case of a division, and you need to be an expert on all the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders of the House.
Surely, this is a job that could be given to an appointed public servant, above party politics, expert on parliamentary procedure and practice, who would administer the rules of the House, without having a say on the composition of those rules, which would remain the responsibility of the lawmakers themselves.
In this country, governments appoint judges whose role is to interpret and administer law, but not to write law. The Speaker of the House would be a legal expert on the government payroll but administratively independent, part of the Department of the Parliament.
The person would also not be an elected member of a political party, and would therefore be above accusations of bias and partiality in their rulings in the House, which has often been a problem with governments usually enjoying more favour from the Speaker's chair than oppositions.
This would leave all 150 members of the House of Representatives free to represent their constituencies equally, and would also reflect the totality of the will of the people expressed at the most recent general election. This could also be applied to the Senate, although the reasons relating to representation, as Senators do not represent small constituencies but large states, are not as compelling.
Surely it is time that Australia leads the way, as it did with the secret ballot and the extension of the vote to women, in this important area of parliamentary practice, and made the Speaker of the House an appointed official, rather than a elected politician.
A hung parliament, the result of Australia not really deciding on August 21, leads to all sorts of issues, not the least of which is the common practice of the Speaker of the House being taken from the government ranks, leaving them with one less vote on the floor than they normally would have, except when there is a tie when the Speaker can cast a deliberative vote to break the tie.
Now, I'm not calling on Harry Jenkins to use that vote to ensure a premiership for St Kilda. But the razor thin majority the Gillard Government has in the House of Representatives is effectively halved when Jenkins gets up in his high chair and starts presiding over parliamentary proceedings.
This means that any planned government travel during sitting days, illness, parental leave or unexplained absence at an inconvenient time could leave the government without the required numbers to pass legislation, regardless of the whims of Messrs Bandt, Wilkie, Oakeshott and Windsor.
Government ministers need, on occasion, to travel overseas to meet important people, and that opportunity may not always present itself during a week where parliament is not sitting. If Tony Abbott insists on playing hardball with parliamentary numbers, this may render the House of Representatives largely unworkable from a government standpoint until the minister returns to the House.
Which begs the question: why does the Speaker still need to be a member of the House?
It has been mentioned during the process to attract the support of the independents previously mentioned that taking the role of the Speaker would render the member unable to represent their constituents through Adjournment Debates, Matters of Public Importance, Member's Statements, and debates on individual pieces of legislation. To summarise, the Speaker cannot make any statements in the House except to rule on the conduct of the House and its members.
Despite the pay rise and additional staff, this makes the Speaker's job a less attractive one. You also need to be ever present in Parliament House in case of a division, and you need to be an expert on all the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders of the House.
Surely, this is a job that could be given to an appointed public servant, above party politics, expert on parliamentary procedure and practice, who would administer the rules of the House, without having a say on the composition of those rules, which would remain the responsibility of the lawmakers themselves.
In this country, governments appoint judges whose role is to interpret and administer law, but not to write law. The Speaker of the House would be a legal expert on the government payroll but administratively independent, part of the Department of the Parliament.
The person would also not be an elected member of a political party, and would therefore be above accusations of bias and partiality in their rulings in the House, which has often been a problem with governments usually enjoying more favour from the Speaker's chair than oppositions.
This would leave all 150 members of the House of Representatives free to represent their constituencies equally, and would also reflect the totality of the will of the people expressed at the most recent general election. This could also be applied to the Senate, although the reasons relating to representation, as Senators do not represent small constituencies but large states, are not as compelling.
Surely it is time that Australia leads the way, as it did with the secret ballot and the extension of the vote to women, in this important area of parliamentary practice, and made the Speaker of the House an appointed official, rather than a elected politician.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Climate Change Policy - You Decide - NOW
While many in our society like to complain that our elected officials don't know what it going on in "the real world", or aren't in touch with the real issues facing "real Australians", the fact is that we elect them to do a job and run the country, the government, and the economy. Julia Gillard would like that to change.
Climate Change is one of the more contentious issues facing policy makers today. Not only do we have a debate about whether the climate is changing, we also have debates on whether we should have a debate (hard-line climate change believers like to use words like "we need to move on from debate", "the science is settled", and "there is a consensus"), whether it is caused by human activity, what we should do about it, and whether we should do anything if bigger and larger overall polluters like China and India do nothing, preferring economic growth to carbon reduction.
Regardless of what has occurred in the last three years, Kevin Rudd and the ALP ran at the 2007 election on a platform of introducing a scheme to reduce the amount of carbon Australia emits. Faced with a hostile Senate, filled with Liberals and Nationals who felt the scheme went too far, and Greens who felt the scheme didn't go far enough, the scheme did not pass the Senate and was not reintroduced by the Government, or used as a trigger for a Double Dissolution election.
Now, at the next election with Kevin Rudd relegated to local member and the ground shifting in this policy area, Julia Gillard wants to create a "Citizens Assembly" to develop a "consensus" on climate change.
The assembly, which would include 150 "ordinary Australians", would be "informed by experts" about climate change before making recommendations. The speech announcing this, of which The Australian has obtained a copy, apparently states "this must not just be a debate between experts ... it must be a real debate among involving many real Australians".
Firstly, I don't know who to be more offended for first, but experts are experts for a reason: they know what they are talking about. Could you imagine the government creating such an assembly to determine economic policy? Not in a million years. Also offensive is the implication that experts, or to put it more plainly, public servants, are not real Australians, but live in a land of make-believe called "Government land". They have mortgages, grocery and petrol bills, friends, hobbies, children, and all that other stuff that "real Australians" have as well.
It's also a significant abrogation of the responsibility of government, chosen from the party in the majority in the House of Representatives. We elect governments to govern.
There already exists a "Citizens Assembly", which has 150 "real Australians", informed by experts on various areas of policy and public administration: it's called the House of Representatives.
Gillard is being disingenuous as well as condescending and offensive when she plans to handball this key area of public policy, labelled by her predecessor and member of her party as "the greatest moral challenge of our time", off to 150 people, randomly selected like they have just won the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes.
What Gillard should do, considering she has been in Government for 32 months, is outline what she and her colleagues in the ALP is the best course of action regarding this issue, and if the Opposition offers a different policy, then let the people decide at an election, which we will be having on August 21. That way 13,000,000 Australians, rather than 150, can decide on policy direction the Commonwealth Government should head on Climate Change.
Australia needs better leadership than this, and this proposal demonstrates exactly why Gillard is unfit for office.
Climate Change is one of the more contentious issues facing policy makers today. Not only do we have a debate about whether the climate is changing, we also have debates on whether we should have a debate (hard-line climate change believers like to use words like "we need to move on from debate", "the science is settled", and "there is a consensus"), whether it is caused by human activity, what we should do about it, and whether we should do anything if bigger and larger overall polluters like China and India do nothing, preferring economic growth to carbon reduction.
Regardless of what has occurred in the last three years, Kevin Rudd and the ALP ran at the 2007 election on a platform of introducing a scheme to reduce the amount of carbon Australia emits. Faced with a hostile Senate, filled with Liberals and Nationals who felt the scheme went too far, and Greens who felt the scheme didn't go far enough, the scheme did not pass the Senate and was not reintroduced by the Government, or used as a trigger for a Double Dissolution election.
Now, at the next election with Kevin Rudd relegated to local member and the ground shifting in this policy area, Julia Gillard wants to create a "Citizens Assembly" to develop a "consensus" on climate change.
The assembly, which would include 150 "ordinary Australians", would be "informed by experts" about climate change before making recommendations. The speech announcing this, of which The Australian has obtained a copy, apparently states "this must not just be a debate between experts ... it must be a real debate among involving many real Australians".
Firstly, I don't know who to be more offended for first, but experts are experts for a reason: they know what they are talking about. Could you imagine the government creating such an assembly to determine economic policy? Not in a million years. Also offensive is the implication that experts, or to put it more plainly, public servants, are not real Australians, but live in a land of make-believe called "Government land". They have mortgages, grocery and petrol bills, friends, hobbies, children, and all that other stuff that "real Australians" have as well.
It's also a significant abrogation of the responsibility of government, chosen from the party in the majority in the House of Representatives. We elect governments to govern.
There already exists a "Citizens Assembly", which has 150 "real Australians", informed by experts on various areas of policy and public administration: it's called the House of Representatives.
Gillard is being disingenuous as well as condescending and offensive when she plans to handball this key area of public policy, labelled by her predecessor and member of her party as "the greatest moral challenge of our time", off to 150 people, randomly selected like they have just won the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes.
What Gillard should do, considering she has been in Government for 32 months, is outline what she and her colleagues in the ALP is the best course of action regarding this issue, and if the Opposition offers a different policy, then let the people decide at an election, which we will be having on August 21. That way 13,000,000 Australians, rather than 150, can decide on policy direction the Commonwealth Government should head on Climate Change.
Australia needs better leadership than this, and this proposal demonstrates exactly why Gillard is unfit for office.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Wonky Politics
Kevin Rudd apparently loves policy detail. "Policy wonk" is the term of endearment used most often to describe his way of doing things ("control freak" is not a term of endearment).
Rudd led a government that for all intents and purposes still exists. While Julia Gillard may have replaced Kevin Rudd as the leader of that government, Rudd himself is the only change to the government. The continuity is so set in stone that Ms Gillard has chosen to retain two "lame-duck" cabinet members who have indicated they will not continue in the cabinet past the next election.
Another way you can tell this is the same government is the way that they develop policy, which has demonstrated that suggesting Mr Rudd is a policy wonk is a little like suggesting Michael Barlow has an intact tibia bone.
This Rudd/Gillard Government has in fact a well earned reputation for glossing over policy detail in order to announce and implement policies and programs as soon as possible, for maximum PR effect.
The most glaring example under the previous Prime Minister was the insulation scheme. Rather than creating a much needed regulatory framework for the registration and examination of competency of tradespeople performing the work of installing insulation in private homes, the Rudd Government got the money into the economy as soon as possible. This was the main objective of the insulation scheme.
However, this dereliction of basic policy development, admitted by outgoing Finance Minister Linsday Tanner, contributed to thousands of homes becoming "live-wired", and the increase of activity also led to the deaths of a number of installers.
The provision of solar hot water heaters to various community used facilities was also another policy where the overarching objective overrode the proper development of policy detail, leading to football ovals across Australia
Unfortunately under our new Prime Minister little has changed. Ms Gillard announced that she had discussed with the President of East Timor the possibility of processing asylum seekers in the tiny nation.
Now, here's a lesson of what not to do in politics, especially government: don't think out loud about policy.
The result of Ms Gillard's thought bubble has been that the media has been taking her "plans" as official government policy. Only problem is that all Ms Gillard has done is talk to the President of East Timor, not the Prime Minister who would usually make this sort of decision, and the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Her total discussions with these national leaders has probably totalled about sixty minutes.
This policy of a processing facility for asylum seekers on East Timor is light on for detail, hasn't been agreed to by East Timor itself, and is opens Ms Gillard to accusations of hypocrisy, given her previous opposition to the Howard's Government "Pacific Solution", which also processed asylum seekers away from Australian soil.
If Ms Gillard wants to spend longer than 100 days in the Prime Minister's chair, then it may be an idea to increase the level of work done on important government policies between now and the election, or else it may be experienced former government minister Tony Abbott who gets her job.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Our latest Ex-Prime Minister
So how will history remember Kevin Rudd?
Let's start out by stating that things weren't nearly as bad for Rudd in the electorate as the mainstream media made it seem. This week's Newspoll, Morgan and Essential Research surveys all had the ALP with a small two-party-preferred lead. The man on the other side of the house, Tony Abbott, while differentiating himself emphatically as the anti-Rudd, is prone to bouts of public utterances that can bring more harm than good. There was a good chance he may say something refreshingly honest but possibly offensive between now and polling day.
However, the media had the die cast. Once the polls started diving after Rudd's backdown over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, he was unsalvageable as far as they were concerned. Bored by the new found stability in Opposition ranks, they played up a contest on the government benches.
After all this, still nothing would have happened today if Rudd didn't get suspicious and send one of his staffers, instead of himself, to count the numbers. It was around this time that Julia finally decided enough was enough, and relented to the pressure being brought on her by factional heavyweights inside the Parliamentary ALP. Rudd blinked and called for a spill he eventually didn't even contest.
Rudd now, despite his somewhat ridiculous choice to stay in Parliament past this upcoming election, will be consigned to the annals of history.
Rudd's greatest achievement was the avoidance of a recession that enveloped the rest of the developed world. While the more begrudging of us may try to take this away from Rudd by claiming that China's demand for our natural resources mean Rudd's measures were only slightly contributory to the economy's resilience, the stimulus did get a massive amount of money into the market, which powered demand and kept the economy growing.
Rudd's real problem with his stimulus legacy is not just the rows of unneeded, unused solar hot water heaters littering the outside of sporting pavilions around the country, or the volume of school halls built over the last few years, but the incompetent handling of the insulation scheme.
In short, flooding an unregulated trade with tons of cash is asking for trouble, without serious regulation and bureaucracy in place before hand. The scheme was simply asking to not only be exploited by fly-by-nighters looking to make a quick buck at the expense of John and Jenny Q Taxpayer, but was also making the always possible safety problems that are associated with working in the roof space of residential homes more likely. In short, more tradespeople, not necessarily trained and certainly not regulated, in the roofs of homes all over the country, working in cramped spaces in close proximity to electrical wiring.
But, by admission, the Rudd Government didn't have "time to cross the 'i's and dot the 't's." It would have been better for everyone if they had made the time.
These were the most grandiose of Rudd's great schemes. He apologised to both the Stolen and Forgotten Generations, and signed the Kyoto Protocols, but these were all symbolic measures.
Rudd won't be remembered as well or as fondly as Gough Whitlam, who became a Labor hero by failing grandly and losing power incredibly. Some of Whitlam's measures still endure today, which is unlikely to be said of Rudd's.
Unfortunately for Rudd, the post-war Prime Minister he will most likely be coupled with will be William McMahon, in that, for many, the Rudd years will be completely forgettable. He will never be judged to be the equal of the man he defeated in 2007, or the great reformers Hawke and Keating. He will never be remembered as having the infamy of a Malcolm Fraser, the incredible circumstances of the Gorton premiership, the electoral success and demise of Harold Holt, the endurance of Menzies, the gumption of Chifley or the toughness of Curtin.
Rudd's greatest punishment may be, for someone whom it has been suggested longed for a legacy and a place in the collective memory of the nation, that he, and his time as Prime Minister, may be largely forgotten. For that, he can blame the media. He can blame the ALP factional heavyweights. He can blame the polls. But he should also keep a little bit of the blame for himself.
Let's start out by stating that things weren't nearly as bad for Rudd in the electorate as the mainstream media made it seem. This week's Newspoll, Morgan and Essential Research surveys all had the ALP with a small two-party-preferred lead. The man on the other side of the house, Tony Abbott, while differentiating himself emphatically as the anti-Rudd, is prone to bouts of public utterances that can bring more harm than good. There was a good chance he may say something refreshingly honest but possibly offensive between now and polling day.
However, the media had the die cast. Once the polls started diving after Rudd's backdown over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, he was unsalvageable as far as they were concerned. Bored by the new found stability in Opposition ranks, they played up a contest on the government benches.
After all this, still nothing would have happened today if Rudd didn't get suspicious and send one of his staffers, instead of himself, to count the numbers. It was around this time that Julia finally decided enough was enough, and relented to the pressure being brought on her by factional heavyweights inside the Parliamentary ALP. Rudd blinked and called for a spill he eventually didn't even contest.
Rudd now, despite his somewhat ridiculous choice to stay in Parliament past this upcoming election, will be consigned to the annals of history.
Rudd's greatest achievement was the avoidance of a recession that enveloped the rest of the developed world. While the more begrudging of us may try to take this away from Rudd by claiming that China's demand for our natural resources mean Rudd's measures were only slightly contributory to the economy's resilience, the stimulus did get a massive amount of money into the market, which powered demand and kept the economy growing.
Rudd's real problem with his stimulus legacy is not just the rows of unneeded, unused solar hot water heaters littering the outside of sporting pavilions around the country, or the volume of school halls built over the last few years, but the incompetent handling of the insulation scheme.
In short, flooding an unregulated trade with tons of cash is asking for trouble, without serious regulation and bureaucracy in place before hand. The scheme was simply asking to not only be exploited by fly-by-nighters looking to make a quick buck at the expense of John and Jenny Q Taxpayer, but was also making the always possible safety problems that are associated with working in the roof space of residential homes more likely. In short, more tradespeople, not necessarily trained and certainly not regulated, in the roofs of homes all over the country, working in cramped spaces in close proximity to electrical wiring.
But, by admission, the Rudd Government didn't have "time to cross the 'i's and dot the 't's." It would have been better for everyone if they had made the time.
These were the most grandiose of Rudd's great schemes. He apologised to both the Stolen and Forgotten Generations, and signed the Kyoto Protocols, but these were all symbolic measures.
Rudd won't be remembered as well or as fondly as Gough Whitlam, who became a Labor hero by failing grandly and losing power incredibly. Some of Whitlam's measures still endure today, which is unlikely to be said of Rudd's.
Unfortunately for Rudd, the post-war Prime Minister he will most likely be coupled with will be William McMahon, in that, for many, the Rudd years will be completely forgettable. He will never be judged to be the equal of the man he defeated in 2007, or the great reformers Hawke and Keating. He will never be remembered as having the infamy of a Malcolm Fraser, the incredible circumstances of the Gorton premiership, the electoral success and demise of Harold Holt, the endurance of Menzies, the gumption of Chifley or the toughness of Curtin.
Rudd's greatest punishment may be, for someone whom it has been suggested longed for a legacy and a place in the collective memory of the nation, that he, and his time as Prime Minister, may be largely forgotten. For that, he can blame the media. He can blame the ALP factional heavyweights. He can blame the polls. But he should also keep a little bit of the blame for himself.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Bring back the AK
Does anyone know who the most decorated Australians are?
The highest award an Australian can currently receive is to be made a Companion of the Order of Australia. Twice a year (Australia Day and the Queens' Birthday holiday), a handful of worthy Australians are bestowed this honour, and they receive a medal, and the ability to put "AC" after their name. You can find the list of ACs here.
But do we know who they are? More importantly, is the simple addition of two letters after a name sufficient reward for a life's work making a real and lasting difference to the quality of life of fellow Australians?
That is why I suggest the Australian Government re-establish the Knight (AK) and Dame (AD) of the Order of Australia.
I'm sure many of you would be surprised, but such a honour did in fact exist, from the creation of the Order of Australia on 14 February 1975 under then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, until being abolished by new Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke.
During that time, twelve Knights and two Dames were created. This included three Governors-General, a state Governor, a Prime Minister, a state Premier, two Industrialists, the first woman elected to the Federal Parliament, a historian, a physiologist, and the Prince of Wales.
The Australian Labor Party's policy is anti-titles, but this smacks of good old-fashioned class warfare and Britain-bashing. So I don't expect Kevin Rudd to re-establish the AK and AD, even if tempted by eventually being known as Sir Kevin.
However, we live in one of the greatest meritocracies in the world, where great achievement is accessible to any person talented and motivated enough to try. Anyone who understands Australia knows that such an honour would be available to people of all racial and socio-economic backgrounds, as long as they had had achieved the highest level of public service.
And do we have a better idea for a before-name title than "Sir" or "Dame"? They are titles of utmost respect, and despite some republican dislike for the titles, they are entirely appropriate.
So who should currently be an AK or AD, who isn't? Professor Marie Bashir, long-time Governor of New South Wales, Professor Graeme Clark, developer of the Cochlear Ear Implant, General Peter Cosgrove, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Tony Fitzgerald, head of the Fitzgerald Inquiry, Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of the High Court and former Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Marjorie Jackson-Nelson, Olympic Gold Medallist and former Governor of South Australia, Major General Michael Jeffrey, former Governor-General and Governor of Western Australia, Ian McFarlane, former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Reverend Dr Gordon Moyes, founder of the Wesley Mission, Professor Fiona Stanley, leading maternal and child health specialist and Nancy Wake, WWII hero, would all be uncontentious receipients of either an AK or an AD, who currently have an AC.
I wouldn't have any problem with calling any of these people Sir or Dame. It would be an honour, and a richly deserved recognition of a life full of achievement. It's about time we started making these recognitions once more.
The highest award an Australian can currently receive is to be made a Companion of the Order of Australia. Twice a year (Australia Day and the Queens' Birthday holiday), a handful of worthy Australians are bestowed this honour, and they receive a medal, and the ability to put "AC" after their name. You can find the list of ACs here.
But do we know who they are? More importantly, is the simple addition of two letters after a name sufficient reward for a life's work making a real and lasting difference to the quality of life of fellow Australians?
That is why I suggest the Australian Government re-establish the Knight (AK) and Dame (AD) of the Order of Australia.
I'm sure many of you would be surprised, but such a honour did in fact exist, from the creation of the Order of Australia on 14 February 1975 under then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, until being abolished by new Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke.
During that time, twelve Knights and two Dames were created. This included three Governors-General, a state Governor, a Prime Minister, a state Premier, two Industrialists, the first woman elected to the Federal Parliament, a historian, a physiologist, and the Prince of Wales.
The Australian Labor Party's policy is anti-titles, but this smacks of good old-fashioned class warfare and Britain-bashing. So I don't expect Kevin Rudd to re-establish the AK and AD, even if tempted by eventually being known as Sir Kevin.
However, we live in one of the greatest meritocracies in the world, where great achievement is accessible to any person talented and motivated enough to try. Anyone who understands Australia knows that such an honour would be available to people of all racial and socio-economic backgrounds, as long as they had had achieved the highest level of public service.
And do we have a better idea for a before-name title than "Sir" or "Dame"? They are titles of utmost respect, and despite some republican dislike for the titles, they are entirely appropriate.
So who should currently be an AK or AD, who isn't? Professor Marie Bashir, long-time Governor of New South Wales, Professor Graeme Clark, developer of the Cochlear Ear Implant, General Peter Cosgrove, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Tony Fitzgerald, head of the Fitzgerald Inquiry, Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of the High Court and former Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Marjorie Jackson-Nelson, Olympic Gold Medallist and former Governor of South Australia, Major General Michael Jeffrey, former Governor-General and Governor of Western Australia, Ian McFarlane, former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Reverend Dr Gordon Moyes, founder of the Wesley Mission, Professor Fiona Stanley, leading maternal and child health specialist and Nancy Wake, WWII hero, would all be uncontentious receipients of either an AK or an AD, who currently have an AC.
I wouldn't have any problem with calling any of these people Sir or Dame. It would be an honour, and a richly deserved recognition of a life full of achievement. It's about time we started making these recognitions once more.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
This Australia Day, here's something to give thanks for...
If any of you have seen Michael Moore's film Sicko, you probably don't want to get sick in the United States of America. While his movies are more essays than documentaries, he paints a picture of the USA being almost the worst place in the world to require medical attention. To prove his point he travels to Cuba, and is assured he will receive low-cost quality care.
Probably quite a few people who watched Sicko voted for Barack Obama in November 2008. The reasons they voted for him are wide and varied, but many of them would have agreed that the health system in the USA was fundamentally flawed. It needed fixing.
Therefore, armed with the Presidency, a large majority in both houses of the US Congress, Obama championed reform and a bill was introduced.
Now, it is said that the two things you should never see how they are made are laws and sausages. (I would add black pudding to that list.) The process of how a bill becomes a law in the US is one of the more convoluted legislative situations in the world today.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the passage of any bill through the US Congress is the Senate filibuster.
In Australia, the party which has the majority of the members in the house can stop any other member talking by simply moving a "Point of Order" that the member who is talking no longer be heard. This is called "the guillotine", and is usually used by governments to ran through contentious legislation at speed.
This is the same in the United Kingdom, and in many parliamentary democracies all over the world that subscribe to the Westminster tradition.
However, in the United States Senate, the tradition that members should debate any issue or bill uncensored and uninhibited prevails over nearly all other rules.
Therefore, as long as a United States Senator can stay upright, and keep talking, they never cede the floor. There is no time limit on how long any Senator can speak. They can speak for as long as they are physically able to. This is known as a filibuster.
Over time, the US Senate has worked to put some roadblocks in front of the filibuster. Currently, it takes 60 Senators to invoke what Australians would know as the "guillotine", that is, to stop another Senator talking.
Yesterday, Democrats lost their 60th member of the US Senate, as Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown in the Senate seat that has been effectively held by the Kennedy family since 1953. The seat became vacant due to the death of Ted Kennedy.
This will almost certainly kill any chances of meaninful reform to the health care system in the USA. So the next time you are lamenting the sort of country you live in, or the inability of governments in Australia to get anything done, look over the Pacific Ocean, and thank your lucky stars.
Probably quite a few people who watched Sicko voted for Barack Obama in November 2008. The reasons they voted for him are wide and varied, but many of them would have agreed that the health system in the USA was fundamentally flawed. It needed fixing.
Therefore, armed with the Presidency, a large majority in both houses of the US Congress, Obama championed reform and a bill was introduced.
Now, it is said that the two things you should never see how they are made are laws and sausages. (I would add black pudding to that list.) The process of how a bill becomes a law in the US is one of the more convoluted legislative situations in the world today.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the passage of any bill through the US Congress is the Senate filibuster.
In Australia, the party which has the majority of the members in the house can stop any other member talking by simply moving a "Point of Order" that the member who is talking no longer be heard. This is called "the guillotine", and is usually used by governments to ran through contentious legislation at speed.
This is the same in the United Kingdom, and in many parliamentary democracies all over the world that subscribe to the Westminster tradition.
However, in the United States Senate, the tradition that members should debate any issue or bill uncensored and uninhibited prevails over nearly all other rules.
Therefore, as long as a United States Senator can stay upright, and keep talking, they never cede the floor. There is no time limit on how long any Senator can speak. They can speak for as long as they are physically able to. This is known as a filibuster.
Over time, the US Senate has worked to put some roadblocks in front of the filibuster. Currently, it takes 60 Senators to invoke what Australians would know as the "guillotine", that is, to stop another Senator talking.
Yesterday, Democrats lost their 60th member of the US Senate, as Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown in the Senate seat that has been effectively held by the Kennedy family since 1953. The seat became vacant due to the death of Ted Kennedy.
This will almost certainly kill any chances of meaninful reform to the health care system in the USA. So the next time you are lamenting the sort of country you live in, or the inability of governments in Australia to get anything done, look over the Pacific Ocean, and thank your lucky stars.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Opening post
Well, I never did get MySpace back on at work, so I've created my own blog. Hopefully this gives me a bit more cache in the wider community. Hopefully this will enable to help some people I know discover what "cache" means. And not in the I.T. sense.
So here it is. Favourite subjects will be AFL, politics, cricket, the culture wars, TV, movies, music, religion, and maybe some other stuff. I'm going to keep it professional, so don't expect any updates of what is going on in my life. I still get Facebook at home, and I'll use it for that.
Some random thoughts for a Tuesday morning:
So here it is. Favourite subjects will be AFL, politics, cricket, the culture wars, TV, movies, music, religion, and maybe some other stuff. I'm going to keep it professional, so don't expect any updates of what is going on in my life. I still get Facebook at home, and I'll use it for that.
Some random thoughts for a Tuesday morning:
- I'm not sure who comes into Collingwood's side for Alan Didak and Heath Shaw on the weekend. But I'll be happy if Didak doesn't play. GO SAINTS!
- Brendan Nelson will still be Opposition Leader when Parliament resumes.
- The Dark Knight is good, but not incredible.
- Can't miss TV shows right now? Top Gear, Media Watch, Two and a Half Men, Spicks and Specks, and nothing else.
- God I wished The Hollowmen was better. But maybe I'm too close to the reality.
- Final ladder prediction? Geelong, Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, Sydney, Kangaroos, Collingwood & Adelaide. Bottom Eight Richmond, Brisbane, Essendon, Carlton, Port Adelaide, Fremantle, West Coast & Melbourne.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
