A Deteriorating Democracy and Public Service
There are many aspects of the corrosion of the democratic process in Australia but none more insidious than the
deterioration
of our public services across the nation.
This corruption of the service is the direct result of the actions of the senior politicians of the labor and the liberal parties. We can
see it every day.
John Howard and Kevin Rudd aspire to be leaders, yet mediocrity is the benchmark of both. They are manipulators, into political head games and one upmanship. The sport of gladiatorial
contest using the public's money.
Mediocrity is aped by those below in the parliaments and in the public services, particularly if they are beholden to those above them in the chain. We can see mediocrity every day.
Kevin Rudd offers nothing more than the "me too" maintenance of the status quo and the appointment of the loyal to public office and positions.
He offers to maintain the corruption, and the corrosion, ably supported by thugs of the labor movement inherent in Julia Gillard's threats, of some time ago,
to anyone who opposed labor. Woe behold when we come to office.
At least Mark Latham was open about thuggery. Kevin Rudd asks and answers his own questions, but stays silent on the issue
of what is his vision of a true "public service" and a "true democratic government", managed
in a system where we can trust every level. Highly unlikely that the fellow will deliver anywhere near a quality government and service, with
both performing in the public interest. He is into mind game plays not substantial reforms of our systems and integrity of process.
Damaging the Government's Relection Chances - Kevin Andrews - A Test of Character
(August 2007) Kevin Andrews never seems to understand that he should stay off the media trying to justify himself.
His performance on the ABC Insiders programme (August 5, 2007) demonstrates his mediocre media communications capability. He is a dry
backroom operator, a statistical, logical and measured thinker focused on decisions. The act governs how he must make his decisions and he did so within the act. He has nothing to
gain in seeking to reiterate dry facts in a confrontational interview. It is boring and Mr. Andrews should have dropped it the defence tactic days ago. But he did not.
What Constitutes Terror Tactics in An Economy?
At the end
of the interview the ground shifted under Andrews. He is asked if he is a patron of a US Pro Life organisation, an honourary adviser.
He responds in the positive that he is.
He is then told the tactics of the organisation which include economic blockades of companies making contraceptives using what some
might define as extreme, radical activism. Some liberal free marketers may well describe these as terror tactics.
Kevin Andrews is trapped and in his final moments on television
all but concedes he supports the organisations tactics and activism.
"Mr Andrews is officially listed as a
board member to
Life Decisions International (LDI),
Boards of Directors/Advisors: Members of LDI's Board of Directors/Board of Advisors:
Hon. Kevin Andrews
Member of Parliament (Hon. Advisor)
Cabinet Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service (Australia)" (extract August 6, 2007): Web Source http://www.fightpp.org/show.cfm?page=boards)
"The organisation's most recent boycott list includes respected global
pharmaceutical leader GlaxoSmithKline and entertainment giant Walt Disney.
GlaxoSmithKline manufactures and distributes contraceptive pills and
is involved with producing the so-called abortion drug RU-486.
The Howard cabinet has grappled with the contentious issue of allowing
the prescription of RU-486 in Australia. As a member of cabinet Mr Andrews
has also been involved in decisions relating to the multimillion-dollar
funding of national and international reproductive health programs." (Source:
Kerry-Anne Walsh and Michelle Singer, August 5, 2007, Fairfax Digital, Brisbane Times)
Project Fightback
sets out the agenda and the targets of the Minister's patronage.
They state the following on their web site at August 5, 2007. "Help fight Planned Parenthood by
refusing to do business with corporations that
fund their deadly agenda. Did you know that the following
corporations are boycott targets?
Walt Disney, Basics Office Products, Whole Foods Market,
JPMorgan Chase (including Chase Bank, & Bank One),
Johnson & Johnson, Bank of America, Lost Arrow (Patagonia), Wells Fargo,
Allstate (insurance), CCA Global (Carpet One, Flooring America, Flooring Canada,
Flooring One, Lighting One, etc.), Chevron (including Xpress Lube, & Texaco),
Comcast (cable television, Internet, etc.), eBay (including PayPal),
Four Seasons Hotels (including Regent Hotels), GlaxoSmithKline
(over-the-counter & prescription medication/treatments, personal care products, etc.),
OSI Restaurant Partners (Outback Steakhouse, etc.), Marriott (including Courtyard Hotels,
Fairfield Inn, Renaissance Hotels & Inns, Ritz-Carlton Hotels, etc.), Sears (Kmart),
Sonic (drive-in restaurants), Wawa (convenience stores),
Time Warner (HBO, Cinemax, AOL, etc.), and Wachovia.
And this is just a partial list! (Source: From the web site of the group).
The above gives us a small window into the mind set of a federal Minister, his beliefs and
attitudes. Kevin Andrews may well resign from the organisation but his days as a federal Minister are
numbered by the 100 days to election, maybe not, his days as Minister will be less if the Prime Minister follows the chain of evidence. Kevin Andrews is now a major liability to the government. Particularly in its relationship to business.
The deportation of Dr Haneef is not an electoral turn issue and the Minister for Immigration, Mr. Andrews, and the
Police Commissioner Mr. Keelty should simply stop responding to the media and the civil libertarians.
The Police Commissioner demonstrated the pitfalls again when he got it wrong when being questioned. But not as bad as the inexperienced Minister for Justice, Senator David Johnston.
He said that there should be no judicial oversight because Judges could not be trusted, they might leak the material.
There seems to be a general presumption among those who achieve high office in politics, corporations, bureaucracy and institutions that they are able to, and are, good communicators.
Invariably they are not. Yet they persist. Their spin doctors have not yet realised that modern technology, and its spontaneity, is diminishing
their ability to create illusions.
Politics, governments and the world of corporations is now open to orators, where ever they may be.
|
Can the Government and Labor Learn From the USA and Their National Broadband Legislative Approach?
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has opened up the
legislative process
to direct
suggestions and feedback from U.S. citizens over at the new
OpenLeft.com site,
where he has been live-blogging about a new, comprehensive Internet bill he is writing.
This post is about a parallel project we've started on
Congresspedia.
Cross-posted at OpenLeft.
Any good piece of legislation is built on a solid understanding of the available research and data.
Sen. Durbin has enlisted several knowledgeable experts to help him in this project and there's been some
great discussion in the comments on OpenLeft. But comment threads can only go so long before, well, the threads get tangled.
So, to fully enable collaboration between all the Internet wonks, policy geeks and regular Joes and Janes out there
who have some relevant information (or can find some), we've created an open knowledge base on the
Congresspedia wiki
for Sen. Durbin's project." (Source: Kevin R Beck Distribution Forum -
An email sent from the Center for Media and Democracy (USA), An Open Knowledge Base for the National Broadband Project (USA)
by Conor Kenny, :prwatch.org)
|
Neither side deserves to win government
At July 31, 2007,
despite continued poll results indicating different I believe that at this time Kevin Rudd and the labor party would not win the
2007 federal election.
This is disappointing because I do not think that the government deserves to be relected. Yet, I do not think that labor deserves to be elected with its current line up of cfandidates and
controlled factional preseelection process that walks union delegates into electoralo seats.
The choices we have are decided by a handful of people. Our democracy is corroded and in need of
revitalisation and reform. The two party system of control has relegated the citizen to an observer status. When I meet government ministers and senior public servants
I know that, unless I come bearing gifts that they can use for their political objectives, it is just a polite meeeting from which nothing will eventuate. This sistuation will not alter under Kevin Rudd.
The liberal and labor parties hear that there is significant disenchantment with the system but are not prepared to alter it. Rudd and Howard are not unqiue leaders who will become pioneedrs in reshaping the way we interact.
They are creatures of the power collective who have clawed their way up the sewer of party politics to get where they are. They are beholden to others. That is the system of government and politics in Australia. Organisations such as Get Up, with motto, "Take Back Our Democracy" are symptomatic of the
disenchantment, and disempowerment that we feel. However campaigning in the traditional manner and activism will not alter much at all.
It is a hobby interest. Get Up, like the Democrats and the Greens, rattles around the fringes creating mild interest for the media. The rotten heart of the two party system lies deep in its structure and it requires a large amount of money,
commitment and strength to penetrate to the depths and silence it. An election will not do it. Elections in Australia merely move the meery go round.
The statistics are against Mr Rudd, and labor, winning sixteen or more seats. This sobering obstacle remains
despite a deterioration in the trust factor for the Howard government brought about by an ongoing
lack of responsibility, and questionable integrity in public office, on the part of a number of Ministers. This is not to say that the people who occupy high office
are not
in essence good people. Quite the opposite, they are, they do devote themselves to public life when others cannot be bothered.
However they seem to always put the party political interest, and retention of their status and government, before public interest.
This is not surprising fo it is human nature and an ingrained modus opeandi of Australian politics.
Every word they utter is carefully chosen, to dissemble and redirect. Their mantra, and justifications, too often ring shallow and hollow.
The most recent example of the government's deliberate attempts at redirection are Kevin Andrews' continuing attempts
to justify his decision regarding Dr Haneef's revoked visa. He hever had to really justify his
decision but he chose to do so and opened the
pandora box. This is not politically astute. The general public accept quite meekly the probable guilt of people of certain ethnic backgrounds.
In addition they are territorial and worried about security of the nation. The Minister advised that he would unveil secret information to justify his decision. Instead he
rambled on about stuff on the court record. It was merely a repackaging, lacking in authority particularly when he was selective.
This is not steely strength of purpose and belief, whcih Philip Ruddock exhibits. Andrews did not tell the public that Haneef had actually rung
British police himself regarding his sim card before he was arrested in Queensland. The Minister's statements that certain things make him suspicious and strnghten his belief are unfortunate. There is little evidence that
some Ministers of the Howard government accept the separation of executive and judicial power. The court may well determine there
is little case to answer but a Minister, unfettered, may unilaterally
impose a sanction, a life changing decision.
There is no mechanism by which we can enquire into the efficacy of Ministerial
and public service actions through our parliamentary and discovery processes.
This is a major, major problem in Australia. More so since academic and rigorous debate is stifled and the
"chattering classes" are denigrated.
Our systems do not support open accountability and discovery
The Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mr. Keelty, may well be yet another face of the
deterioration and growing incomptence, and corrosion, within the
Australian Public Service ranks. He has spent his most recent days trying to blame everyone else for the Haneef stuff up.
There is much debate, in academic and intetrested circles, about
politicisation
of the service. Denials of this, over the past twenty years, particularly from within the Australian Public
Service itself cannot be sustained. The deterioration covers lack of experience, skill and in some cases a moral compass and understanding of the historical
indepenednece and integrity of the service. The current head of the Health Department, Jane Halton,
demonstrated the full capacity of a public servant to carry out the
will of the government, in the "Children Overboard" affair.
She has had much reported about her role in that particular manipulation by the Howard government of facts.
There was no independence, in terms of the Code of Conduct, demonstrated
in that episode by the public service, the special teams assembled or by the former head of the service, now gone to better pastures. The government was
assisted in its lies and
manipulation by compliant, and loyal, public servants. Reward, it is claimed by many has apparently duly flowed.
Today several years later (August 2007) we view a senior public servant appearing in
government advertisements, on television, extolling the features of the government's revamped Workplace Relations Act. This is a key political issue in the election. To my mind the public servant degrades the independence of the service and
is unprofessional. She has, to my mind, no place in the civil service if she fails to understand the fundamental principles that govern
the foundations of the "public service. This person's salary was alleged by Glenn Milne on the ABC Insider's Programme, Sunday
19, August, 2007 to be $500,000.
The code of conduct of the Australian Public Service lays in tatters. It never was, to my mind, a
reality in any event, just high sounding words, and concepts, on paper and electronically on the web.
Ethics,
spare me the hypocrisy. I spent weeks inside a public service office in Canberra in
the latter months of 2005 working alongside the spin doctors who massaged information to the Minister, employees and the public.
In 2005 have sat and watched a hypothetical, of the
code of conduct, with about twelve hundred public servants, presented by Geoffrey Robertson. It was an exercise in self gratification, and
delusion, on the part of senior managers of the Department.
The
justification for the advertisements in which Barabara Bennett, public servant, appears
is that the government will protect us from the baddies. She also goes on radio.
It is claimed she is imparting information to the public. This is a blatant political advertisement and the
senior head of the Australian Public Service is silent.
In dealing with the public serice I have no faith that retribution is not enacted
against those who speak out and challenge.
I believe that the processes of the Australian Public Service (in almost every aspect) are manipulated, externally by politicians and their advisers and
internally by bueaucrats seeking to protec t their interests. The system has evolved and is now self justifying cloaked within in a code of ethics and standards.
The most manipulated processes are in tenders. The tendering system is used by the Department's to explore the market and then to build their business cases for approval.
This means that they use business to carry out their reserach and then they may or may not put up the business case.
Thus the clause that they "do not have to actually buy anything out of the tender process is vital". Further the tenders may become redundant as is the case with the government's
Access card Systems Integration tender, known as T1. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars, even millions, for industry to tender and
there is a high probability that it is all a furphy designed to
the interests of the bureaucrat and agency that issues it. They bureaucrats and the Ministers in charge of the portfolios do not care. This cost is far greater than any red tape regulation.
There is no accountability, no responsibility and no cost recovery available for those who play the rigged game. Business has no choice but to play.
The secret to manipulation of the public service generated tender processes, on behalf governments, lies in the intent of the exercise (fishing for costs and information), the
way they are written,
the providers of the content and advice (the consultants, lawyers and experts) and the
timeframes. Ever wondered why so many tenders have such a short timeframe and why there are no standards across the public service? Ever wondred why there is no central independent purchasing agency fof all of
government? Such a body would make it transparent. This is not in the interests of the individual departments and their contracted experts. There is an anecdote - the Department already knows who will win. Telstra's senior executives are
obviously of a simiar inclination for they are challenging the process in the court. Telstra has deep pockets to challenge the corruption. Now they need Senate Estimates to use their full subpoena powers. They will not.
There is a cosy agreement. Those in oposition (at this time labor) will not call advisers and others who might enbarrass the government by exposing the
corruption and other practices, least the next opposition paty do the same. Kevin Rudd will do nothing to change this. He, like every senior labor, liberal and national party politician, is an integral part of the coruuption of the practice.
A deterioration, and incompetence, incorporating the traits of a severe lack of self responsibility, permeates the Austraian Public Service.
The most senior bureaucrat, of the service, Dr Peter Shergold actively denies this deterioraion and lack of professionalism, yet the advertisements fronted by one of the senior officers of the service run.
This is sad indictment on him and the service. In days gone by this would never have been allowed.
The permeating incompetence costs people their livelihoods,
their liberty, business hundreds of millions and communities the opportunity to achieve their potential. Every day across the nation the APS, infested not with
career professionals, but with a large proportion of contracted personnel and
highl paid "expert consultants". The Departments of the service, severally and quite often, makes decisions that are ineffectual, time wasting,
duck shoving and sometimes inordinantly stupid. The
hierarchy are engaged, like the politicians, in puerile and self interested antics. Their merry go round is also triggered by
political elections.
The majority of the Australian voting population have no interest in the finer points of public administration and democracy, operation of the parliament or our institutions.
They are, if anything, semi - literate when it comes to engaging with the higher level question - what type of governmet do we want and what role do we want to play in it?.
And What About the Role and Performance of the Australian Public Service?
The nation, I think, is in the grip of deteriorating skill, experience and ability, together with conflicted political demands, at senior levels in the bureaucracy, which is now
required
to meet complex challenges.
" The APS operates in a rapidly changing, devolved environment which demands significant organisational
agility and responsiveness, and a flexible, collaborative approach to public administration. We also operate in a
contestable policy environment, in which we must draw on the competitive advantages of the APS-its breadth,
institutional memory and track record of work in the public interest-to get the best outcomes possible for the Australian community." (source: Australian Public Service Commission,
October 11, 2005).
Politicisation of Australia's public services (all of them) is a major issue, and claim, for those who care about how our democracy, parliaments and governments operate.
Politicisation or the desire, on the part of governments and politicians, to reign in power?
"But it is worth remembering that many of the reforms now identified as 'new managerialism' were
not driven initially by the quest to turn the APS into a 'high performance organisation'.
Early reforms were prompted by a desire to ensure that public servants had less power and influence to
run their 'own' agendas. In large part organisational changes were pursued by politicians wanting to rein
in all powerful public service 'mandarins'. There was a strong view in the Parliament that Canberra bureaucrats
wielded excessive control over the political process, too often becoming the masters of the government they were
meant to serve. Since the 1970s, when the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration focussed on this
perception of inadequate bureaucratic responsiveness to government, the Service has been made more accountable." (Source:
Administrative Law and Public Service, Australian Institute of Administrative Law Opening Address, 3 July 2003,
Dr Peter Shergold, Secretary Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet)
These are erudite events, and debates, of little concern to Mr and Mrs, Ms average citizen. They do not have extensive dealings with the public service, they do not waste millions bidding for tenders that never eventuate or are
rigged. They have little regard for them until they are impacted personally. Cornelia Rau, Vivian Alvarez and hundreds of others now
know what can occur when the public service fails and the boundaries that separate the judiciary, the governmment and the public service become
blurred or are breached.
Dr Peter Shergold,
Australia's most senior federal public servant (at August, 2007), has taken
exception
to comments made by former
Australian Public Service Commissioner
Andrew Podger, According to Dr Shergold, Head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Podger's remarks on his retirement, which have resurfaced, denigrated the Australian Public Service (APS).
Shergold stridently defends the servce and their values:
"The SES has a key role in modelling core ethics and promoting the APS Values in their agencies and across
the APS more generally. This role is specifically reinforced in the Public Service Act.
Individual integrity and professional and ethical behaviour must be part of the common identity of APS leaders.
It is critical to sustaining public trust and employee commitment, and attracting high calibre young staff.
The SES need to lead the way in being apolitical, accountable and responsive public servants. They represent what the
APS stands for. They should be robust in the advice they provide to government, recognise the confidential basis on
which it is delivered and be committed to the effective implementation of policy once it has been decided." (Source: One APS - One SES,
11 October 2005, Australian Public Service Commission,http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac/oneaps.htm")
Mr Podger has a recent history of critiquing and questioning the role of the APS.
"In a carefully worded attack,
Podger spoke of public servants giving
more weight to the political needs of
their ministers than to the public
interest.
He also said they avoided accountability
by making few file notes, and
by destroying documents.
These criticisms are important, as
Podger was a senior and respected
bureaucrat." (Source: The Whistle November 44, 2005, quoting "Let public servants speak
Tony Harris,
Australian Financial Review,
5 July 2005, p. 62".
"Yes, minister. Your will is my command: By Michelle Grattan, July 6, 2005, inter alia, she wrote:
Public servants are reminded that their job is to serve the public.
You've probably never heard of Andrew Podger. Certainly through a long and distinguished
public service career he has commanded less publicity than most junior ministers in much shorter ones.
He is a very traditional public servant, dealing with both sides of politics in a straightforward,
non-partisan manner. One admirer is Fraser government minister Dame Margaret Guilfoyle,
who went to Canberra for his farewell last Thursday. Podger is also very much his own man, neither sucking up to politicians, nor cowed by them.
...
A combination of government secrecy, even paranoia, and a lack of
journalistic interest means we don't hear much about the bureaucracy,
which makes Podger's goodbye speech the more significant. It was tough and pointed; although
affectionate to former colleagues, it was also an indictment of the contemporary government-public service relationship."
Research and debate is
extensive.
There is also a litany of anecdotes from members of the APS talking of interference by political
advisers, receiving directions from Minister's advisers as to what the Minister requires or what the Minister will accept.
There is talk of senior officers of the APS
changing the context of documents to suit the Minister's required message. This might go some way to explain the
problems that the government has found itself in constantly.
I have personally observed, on many occasions,
Ministerial Minutes being watered down, redrafted and recast, hour after hour at extensive cost and with great waste in the Department of Education Science and Training. Media statements of thre paragrpahs be attended to over a full day and then changed and another day gone in what is essentially trivia.
Self protection, and survival, particularly in Canberra, is a major personal objective, and is thus a disincentive, to open debate and critique.
The turnover at Director level and the lack of experience are both high. The infiltration by contractors makes the development of relationships and the adherence to APS values and standards, to my mind, difficult.
Dr. Shergold also argues that the short appointment timeframes (3 years) for Department Secretaries is irrelevant and of no
influence on their behaviour. This is at odds with Andrew Podger and general opinion among public service watchers:
"He points to problems with performance pay and contracts for secretaries of departments. "All secretaries are affected and they are
being dishonest or fooling themselves if they deny it. They will hedge their bets on occasion, limit the number of issues on which to
take a strong stand, be less strident, constrain public comments, limit or craft more carefully public documents and accept a muddying of
their role and that of political advisers."
The Government decides each year whether departmental heads should receive bonuses of 20 per cent - which can be worth $60,000 - 10 per cent
or nothing. Podger quotes a departmental head as saying: "How will someone be rewarded for rightly doing something a minister doesn't like
(or rightly not doing something a minister wants)?" And he recalls John Howard telling him that if performance pay did not send messages,
then there was no point in having it. Podger argues that performance pay should be abolished and that contracts should be for five years
rather than three: that is, across more than one term of government to provide continuity and distance the job to some degree from politics." (Source:
The Australian Newspaper, Mike Skeketee: Telling them what they don't want to know: The public service is no place to play politics but that is exactly what has been happening, JUne 14, 2007".
He believes contracts of different lengths have been used to distinguish between favoured and less favoured bureaucrats.
Dr Shergold I believe lives in a world of fantasy perahps at his high level he sees this. At the middle and bottom the
public service world is distinctly different. The role of the public service is to implement govermment policy however in a number of departments the
primary objective may be to protect the Minister. These are distinctly different objectives. One question that arise: What will Kevin Rudd's expectations of the service be?
To be governmet or public servants looking after the government or the public interest? Are they synonymous?
"If Rudd becomes prime minister, he will set out to change the style and personnel of the federal public service at the senior levels.
That independence, he insists, is "critical to this country's future".
He wants to make it a core issue at the election, a difficult task given the lack of broad discussion on public service independence.
Rudd rejects the Government's rationale that top civil servants not only have a duty to advise, they also must help implement political programs.
Rudd insisted on Meet the Press on June 10: "The key to the future, whether you're talking about state or federal, is to restore Westminster."
(Source: Wash-minster muddying politics By Malcolm Farr, Daily Telgraph Newspaper, July 02, 2007 12:00am.)
A World Detached from Reality
I know that some federal government Ministers, and their staff,
examine this web site. I know because I have tracking software
on the forums and sites that tell me the domain systems from which they come. I believe that politicians lisetn but I think that many of them do not hear.
Despite a distribution of the liability table below
two particular federal ministers have managed to increase the national, and international, scrutiny of Australia's policies and actions.
This, as yet, may not be a vote definer here but Kevin Andrews and Alexander Downer are pushing the government's luck. Why push it? Why not let it die? Now there is the
prospect of federal court cases and defamation and liability suits against the government and thus the taxpayers.
Are these people in charge living in anoter world? Canberra seems to be a island.
Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade said, on
Monday 30 July 2007, that the critics of Kevin Adrew's and the government are "Howard haters". He saked whether the federal police should grivel?
he told the journalsist, and thus the critics, to "get real". Dr. Haneef is a celebrity in India, courtesy of Kevin Andrews.
There are a large number of people in that country asking questions. Is India not a big trading partner to Australia?
Well actually Alexander, according to the people I ask, needs a reality
check because he risks losing his seat in parliament and he risks escalating the situation. Watch Asian nations jump on board.
Malaysia will be voicing its concerns shortly along with Indonesia and every other
country that has a segment of its political class, and media, that likes to attack Australia.
Respondents use the words "hubris" and "arrogance", among the more
complimentary, and less uncharitable lables.
Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mr. Keelty, managed to add to the
international intrigue, and media coverage, by "blaming Scotland Yard".
Is he too an impolitic type, with little comprehension of the real world and of status.
The reputation of Scotland Yard versus the AFP under Commissioner "Plod" as he has been called in the media is a no brainer.
Are we to add senior bureaucrats to the list of "liabilities" for the
Howard government? Apprently we are.
This election is not actually about John Howard and Peter
Costello, they have credibility as a team.
The Treasurer Peter Costello decides to wade in on another issue.
Housing Affordability - Rudd Adds Substance
Peter Costello comes out in response
to Kevin Rudd's $A500M housing
affordability plan and claims it is all wrong. Being a numbers man Costello thinks that should be the thrust of the rebuff.
The labor party, endorsed by
every participant in the housing industry, says that the competitive tendering for a subsidy ($A500M over five years - yes it is a little piss ant number)against
infrastructure cost will reduce unit house costs by $A20,000. Costello says that the number is wrong that it is only $A650.00. So what? Where is his concern for housing affordabilty and his counter policy?
Why does he not then multiply the same number of houses that labor has (divide $A500M by $A20,000)
and put dollars where his mouth is. He can actually give people $A20,000 per house, Rudd can only promise that he might. Does he have core and non core promises?
Does he have smart advisers? Every educated citizen, who can vote, knows that the greatest
add on cost for an individual housing estate development is the infrastructure cost and the greed of state and local governments.
Any money looks good.
Trust Me, I'm A Howard Minister
The Howard government's credibility - "trust me" slogan, inherent in all of their key legislation,
has been demolished by some characters,
most recently by Kevin Andrews (the female focus group members do not like him at all, he can join Costello in this regard) and also by Alexander Downer.
They do not like him as a leader just as they do not like Peter Costello.
Then we can add P. Ruddock and unfortunately the Prime Minister, J. Howard. "The trust me" line is dead. There is animosity towards the proposition of allowing a minister to make life altering decisions.
The government, through its own efforts, seems hell bent on sliding inexorably towards defeat. The Prime Minister could do his man of stell routine and get rid of a bunch of ministers but after all, the view is that he is not really able to do this and is not in charge of such things.
The media will decry this as undisciplined, for all they know, and
the general opinion, of some who know these things,
is that factional party warriors, in each minister's camp, will put their personal interests before winning the next election.
Andrews, Downer (et al) Objective -
Let's Lose the Election?
So even though yesterday I said Kevin Rudd will not win, and today he still will
not, he produced another winner on housing affordability.
The government's most prolific talk before engaging the brain (not my words I have plageurised them)
manage to continue in their singular objective of diminishing the gap,or widening if the polls are actually correct,
(which I dispute) every day they open them.
Who is in charge of the liberal party's focus group research? Why don't they gag these people?
|
July 29, 2007 and Kevin Rudd will, in my opinion, still not
win the 2007 federal election.
The poor decision making, and shambolic, outcomes of the actions of the
Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, are not a vote changing catalyst at this stage for the genral public.
Although he is doing his best, it seems obliviously, to make the
government look stupid. Not knowing when to keep his mouth shut, Andrews has to give the media
his comments that about heightened suspicions regarding the doctor's swift departure. Those outloud musings are being played on the BBC World Service.
Is Andrews totally detached from reality?
The doctor was submitted to gross invasion and some believe injustice on the
imprudent decision making of a minister who has a record of poor judgement.
Why the Prime Minister has shifted Andrews to such a vital portfolio after
his last muddling effort in his previous portfolio of Worplace Relations is
a mystery to most articulate watchers of the Howard government. Andrews as replaced by Joe Hockey because Andrews was not considered capable of
managing that crucial office. Now he has stuffed up in immigration and managed to make it a worldwide issue of media attention. Even when the doctor left Andrews did not know enough to thank his lucky stars.
Andrews can, if he continues in the current fashion, damage the government.
Feedback across a number of internal liberal circles is that he is an incompetent
minister heading an incompetent department. Does the PM risk another incident? He has no choice, he cannot remove the
liability in an election campaign unless he has a real good motivation. The danger is that
Kevin Andrews is more than likely to give him one. He may already have.
The article published in Australia's media written by Andrews themed "me
of the knife edge upon which reelection is poised or he lacks judgement. Some say it is both.
Christopher Pyne is wasted in aged care and should be in immigration. Looking back at the last federal election
there are
similar examples of Kevin Andrews making inopportune statements during the election campaign.
This reinforces my view stated below in this web site, that there
are members of the
government who are liabilities.
Add to this there is damaging infighting between the bureaucracies which is more than a distraction. The underlying antipathy between the executive arm of government and the
judicial arm of the nation is extremely dangerous to the government's re-election
campaign given the resources and reach of the latter into the communities of the nation.
This antipathy, and deterioration in relationships,
is apparent to the most disinterested and is a direct outcome of Philip Ruddock's tenure in ministerial roles. The focus groups commented that Tony
Abbott, Joe Hockey, Peter McGauran, Christopher Pyne and Helen Coonan were far better and more likely to demonstrate competence in media and public forums.
The "me too" line is deliberately designed by the government
to annoy, and frustrate, the militant elements of the labor party and
union movement leading them to break ranks. This I know for a fact and the strategy is working as the Australian newspaper runs major stories on labor's internal problems.
However the proposition that Kevin Rudd has some strategic plan, with the cooperation of the Premiers, to
remain solid with the government whilst having the Premiers do the loud noises and attack strategies is silly and is not true. Obviously the government has no inside sources, or intelligence, planted
within the state headquarters of the labor party across Australia. In Sussex Street Sydney there is no such plan or strategy. The stance taken by Rudd and the Premiers, like most politicians, are ones they believe.
It is now the third day of intense focus meetings with people from NSW, Queensland and Victoria (32 in all) and the overall report is that the Queensland doctor incarceration, whilst bungled by Andrews, is a not of interest to the
electorate. Many people do not like "immigrant doctors" populating the Australian medical system on mass. It is concerning to them that there are a diminishing number of students in
Australian medical schools and they think this is the fault of the federal government.
They do not realise the nexus between the Australian Medical Association and Professional Medical Bodies, the universities and the governments. They do not realise the link between the availability of qualified medical trainers and
supervisors (they want to practice in their own businesses and research institutes) and the education process.
The reaction to immigrant doctors may be racist or it may be bigotry, but it is a fact. Peter Beattie's government in Queensland has fuelled this perception.
The extensive international recruitment campaign coupled with awful administration capacity in the Queensland Public Service has cemented this antipathy.
There is concern and prejudice, and this is largely a perception not based on fact,
knowledge or experience.
The underlying strength for the government is suspicion of certain ethnic groups in a world shaped for political and other purposes in the garb of terror.
The issue of an interest rate rise is evenly split. Those with
cash holdings (savings) want a rate rise. The mortgage stress
statements glibly made by media, fawning to Kevin Rudd's hollow populist propositions, are applicable only to a small percentage of the population particularly those who purchased houses above $500,000 with only a 10% deposit.
The labor housing summit is perceived by most thinking people as a waste of time. Generally voters do not grasp the broader implications and complexity of negative gearing.
Only those whose incomes are in the higher brackets understand and engage in this and they are the beneficiaries at the expense of the nation. This and the first home owner's grant coupled with greed of the states.
The mass electorate simply is not educated well enough to understand economic and discal theory and policy. This is what political parties play upon. Similarly the Greens, Democrats and politicians like Albanese and Garrett play upon ignorance
and lack of understanding.
In Victoria the water stance of the former Brack's government, now Brumby labor government, is seen as stupid and demonstrates yet again what happens when the boys cannot play nicely together.
The general opinion of all three state based groups in my meeting was that good things occur when they do play together - the aboriginal policy and action, anti-terror and foreign policy.
Kevin Rudd has never had to make a publicly accountable decision and has never been in charge of anything, levelled by the government is a powerful statement.
Generally people are aware of this. Some in the focus groups believe the electorate is flirting with Rudd and the polls are the peoples' way of toying with the government.
Julia Gillard is seen as a very major liability and is viewed with negativity or ambivalent. Added to this she exhibits a worrying propensity towards ideology.
The whole of the labor front bench is seen as somewhat light weight with "aged" ministerial experience. The party machine has a major inability to communicate outside its own circle of comfort.
There is no attempt made by any labor party operator in the federal or state arenas to make contact with and engage with critics, unlike the
liberal and national parties who actively do this. Whilst both major parties are viewed as non inclusive, and detached, the labor party is slightly ahead in this regard.
Neither have an inkling as to the real fabric of interests across the nation and their intelligence gathering capabilities and machinery are considered by external corporate strategists to be second rate and extraordinarily mediocre.
One participant observed that the labor party has kids running some of their offices.
|
Labor Party Shadows Commentary Sought From A Cross Section of Voters and Perceptions Gathered From Discussions
Some upper level comments - Kevin Rudd is a control freak and one man band, no apparent team work in labor party policy, conflicting messages and
lack of policy detail. Same policies different names,
waiting to see, thousands predict result is going to be
close despite what polls and media are saying. Internally there is disquiet in the ideological ranks and far left of the party.
The me too scenario running in the media, pushed by the liberal party, is assessed as a strategy to divide the party internally.
|
Parliamentary Member |
Role and Performance
| Unattributed Perceptions and Comments
|
| Kevin Rudd |
Leader of the Opposition
| Non threatening, may think he is already the PM. Some feel strategy is to win election by being the same party with same policies. Annoying habit of asking and
answering own questions. Talks in generalities and voters waiting to hear policy detail and content. Triggers populist debates (price of food, houses and petrol) without offering a solution, may
be found to be hollow at some future date. Some reference to past style under Goss as head of Queensland public service, is a negative particularly within public service circles.
Some public service watchers and employees are talking and existing federal Departmental Secretaries should be concerned.
|
Julia Gillard |
Deputy, Shadow IR and Social Inclusion
| Most voters have no idea what social inclusion means, nebulous labor party theory. Some are worried that power will go to Ms Gillard's head as she has issued threats.
Off to a por start in including business in labor's concept of society. Archaic ideas about employment and collectivism whilst herslf not being in a collective. Unpredictable liability.
|
Wayne Swan |
Shadow Treasury
| Talks in generalities with statements like "that is why Howard cannot be trusted". Wayne everywhere.
Boring and monochromatic. Affable and polite. Once a critic of Rudd now singing praises.
|
Chris Evans |
National development, Resources and Energy
| Low profile, no policy detail, some aspects of energy statements are fantasy to many experts.
Labor policy not enunciated. Some industry people feel he is unlikely to inspire vision for future.
|
Stephen Conroy |
Communications and Information Technology
| Viewed as more interested in party politics than creating policy. Broadband and telecommunications
policy has extraordinary holes, no demonstrable technology foundation. Unlikley to confront to Telstra's antisocial behaviour
|
Anthony Albanese |
Water and Infrastructure
| Unrealistic views about environment, captive to climate change hysteria and silent on Vicroria's peurile behaviour in relation to the Murray Darling Basin.
Silence demonstrates perceived approach to keep head down and let state labor leaders run on issues. Some comments imply that his views will be
more fantasy than substance.
|
Chris Bowen |
Shadow Assistant Treasurer
| Hidden by Swan and Costello shadows.
|
Tony Burke |
Immigration
| Low profile, in the past has been very critical now embracing government hard line.
|
Kim Carr |
Industry
| Seen by indusrty respondents, and backed up by published materials, as old labor, interventionist, industry is worried by his record and his role in a possible labor government. Similarly disposed to party politics as Conroy. Some comment that he can
be rude, derisive and abrupt.
|
Peter Garrett |
Climate Change, Environment and Heritage
| Wants government to name a carbon figure when he himself talks of numbers sixty years hence.
Fluffy statements with no real articulation of relationship between economy, industry, commerce and climate change. Part of labor machine's endorsement of corrupt Tasmanian government practices in foresty and commerce.
Some wonder what "heritage" means in relation to Tasmania.
Viewed by pure greenies as hypocritical. Captive to climate change and unlikely to be
open minded in environment portfolio. Silent on Victoria's behaviour re: water as is Albanese. If labor wins Garrett is likely to try and set a
carbon tax - carbon price at $A30.00 per tonne. Some believe energy prices will escalate under Peter Garrett's Ministerial stewardship.
|
Joe Ludwig |
Shadow Attorney General
| Trade unionist in a suit, low profile in role of Attorney General.
|
Jenny Macklin |
Community Services
| Some see her as uninspiring back room operator. Part of this portfolio is given to
Tanya Pliebersek (Human Services, focusing almost solely on Access Card)
both these shadows should be questioning Minister Ellison on performance of Human Services generally, its role and value including propensity to spend public monies on questionable technology infrastructure,
sitting above Centrelink and Medicare. Senator Conroy should be invetsigaing the value of a central IT system in Human Services, its cost and real intent.
|
Jan McLucas |
Aging, Disabilties and Carers
| Low profile, singular dimension compared to Christopher Pyne.
|
Nicola Roxon |
Health
| Generally viewed as capable. Might like to look at food labelling and manufacturing claims and use of words such as "low fat", "healthy" and general misrepresentation as part of Rudd's statements on consumer issues.
This would overlap into Laurie Ferguson's consumer portfolio. No apparent team work here.
|
| Kerrie O'Brien |
Forests, Fisheries and Primary Industries
| Low profile against Eric Abetz, shackled by Rudd's embracing of Tasmania forestry poicy. Allowing McGauran to get a free run on wheat export and
role of AWB in the market. Industry waiting to see what his capabilities are. No discernible linkages to farming and other industry sectors.
| | David Johnston |
Justice
| Extraordinary statetment to media arguing that judicial oversight should nnot be permitted in relation to
the terror laws application when people are in custody, because the Judges might leak the content. Insulting remark demonstrates government's disregard, or even contempt, for the doctrine of the
separation of powers and the role of the courts. No longer credible. Questionable suitability to be a Minister and to hold public office.
|
Nick Sherry |
Superannuation and Intergenerational
| Ignored by most voters, they do not know why intergenerational is singled out.
Silent on ethical question of advisers pushing particular products without disclosing relationships, fees, role of AMP in market. This is a consumer issue ignored by Rudd and Ferguson. No real push to increase superannuation or national savings limits.
Seen as light weight.
|
Peter Costello not favoured as Prime Minister
July 24, 2007, opinion polls have today shown the statements below regarding Peter Costello are accurate.
During the weekend Friday 20, 2007 to July 23, 2007 discussion groups were conducted in Warnambool, Port Fairy and Portland, Victoria. The mix of people were heavy industryw orkers, retirees, hospitality and small business,
builders and tradespeople. In this regional area of Victoria there was a general mistrust of the workplace relations legislation and the governmet's statements. One female respndent surprisd me when she said that she did not trsut
Federal Police Commissioner Bill Keelty. Whilst many thought the Advisers who assembled the paperwork, the Department of Immigration, and the Minister, had stuffed up they were not ready to say that Dr haneef should stay in Australia. There was mistrust of middle eastern immigrants.
The governmet's hard line on refugees is supported. Labor is well aware of this and thus remains silent on the issue. There is an expectation among members of the communities along the Great Ocean Road that Kevin Rudd and Labor will win.
This feling also is apparent in regional central Victoria in Cemperdown and Colac. The National Party does not seem to register in any responses along with the
Greens and Democrats. Water, health and roads are majorn issues. There are many state issues that appear to cross boundaries (in this coming election) as a result of the federal government's general intevention in education, aboriginal affairs and water.
General suspicion is indiacted by the view that the government's Access card is referred to as the "Australia Card" or the "national identity
card". it seems there is general support the proposition in the community with most advserse reaction being in the professions (their associations, civil liberties, legal), greeens, democrats and labor party political circles.
Media commentators in own world
Journalists and members of the parliamentary press, and media, galleries are all a twitter at the revelations (not)
that Peter Costello does not think much of John Howard. The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Newspaper along with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are
enthralled at the internal bickering. So parsimonious, tight arse Costello is bent, and twisted, about Howard's profligate spending, who cares the
punters say? They see Howard giving them back their own money. They do not appear keen to have Peter as PM. The biography in which Peter vents his spleen and desolation at the
prospect of never being Prime Minister is grist to the media. They prattle that the content of the book will fuel labor advertisements. For labor to use this in ads would be to waste their money.
A great number of the electorate, according to this observer's research and discussions, does not want Peter Costello as Prime Minister.
On the matter of terrorism, withdrawal of Visas and the case of the Indian doctor, the electorate is also unmoved. The debate may well rage about the legal issues - the doctrine of
separation of powers, the barbs and abuse bewteen government Ministers and external parties including human rights activists, peple worried about deteriorating relationships with judiciary etc and the stories that fire up the media.
This is indeed a worrying time and set of events in our history. I am bemused at the hard attitude of most people, without exception,
across all sectors of life in our discussion frames, towards Muslims and the extremist attitudes of others who bring
their bigotry and zealotry into Australia. Most people say that they are heartily sick of the Muslims, the Croats, the
Bosnians and and the other inhabitants of Australia who cannot co exist here.
They have no qualms about deportation or incarceration. There is a common thread and it is the perception, in their minds, that Islam is
regenerating the age old wars of the crusades. That these ancient attotudes have evolved to the state where they beleive that Muslims want to kill them. They trust none of them not the moderates and not the quiet ones.
|
Howard Cabinet members baffled
Are they really?
It is reported by some media commentators that members of the coalition federal government cabinet met on Monday 16, 2007 to brainstorm ideas including why the government has litle traction against the
Rudd labor juggernaut. Human nature is such that the leader might well question his capability and ask the assembled group if it is "him" that is causing the
swing to labor. Rarely, if ever, will members of a group, particularly those aspiring to leadership themselves or those for whom thewir job is them, for ego or whatever reason.
On this basis it is unlikely that they will actually ask the same question as
the leader might? Avoiding self introspection one may turn to the traditional or the factual in their eyes. The budget, the policies, the decisions they make. The things that they think they control or that they do well.
Research indicates, to me, that there are
liabilities
within the coalition. It is not the Prime Minister. Rudd does not have to exploit the foibles openly
he merely has to allow the public to discern this and to act on their own perceptions of senior Ministers of the government.
The basis by which politicians, and party members, judge the performance of their peers and colleagues is not the same assessment process used
by voters and political watchers. Merit and talent, even though the party leader will tell us the opposite, is not a major consideration for appointment to a ministerial, parliamentary secretary, senior parliamentary or
committee role. The possession of merit may be conicidental. If one looks at the Rudd machine, versus the Howard machine, there is a much tighter control within labor as to who speaks out.
The coalition is burdened by the fact that it is in government and Ministers are free to act and speak within
their portfolios and thus are in the public eye. There is a greater risk. People who have dominated in their game for a decade or more may not realise that
they perorm okay or are overlooked when things are all going well. But what do they do when there is a crisis or the world around them changes.
Many do not cope and many do not perform. There are the human foibles and the question of talent? Communication is largely non verbal. On the matter of Kevin Andrew's decision to revoke the
Queensland doctor's visa, Tony Burke, labor spokesperson has learnt less is more. The public may themselves judge.
The Democrats and Greens on the other hand have learnt no lessons.
|
Labor's Learning Systems Approach
Rudd Strategy Team Changes Gear - Hitting the Marks
July 16, 2007, the hidden networks alluded to in the body of this site have
suddenly changed feedback. They are reporting that Kevin Rudd's team is spreading out and causing pause for thought.
All that has to happen now is for Julia Gillard to
modify her approach and language, and for labor to get its industrial relations policy flawless, removing the incongruities and inconsistent messages.
An overpowering number of seats held by the Howard government, that should be a buffer, are now sliding towards labor, on a social agenda slide,
not an economic, one as Rudd skillfully, with his media and communications team, entwines economy into society.
The task for Rudd is being made easier by the superiority, and learning capacity, of his team over the coalition strategists and the
poor performance of some Ministers and their Departments. The public service senior executive seems oblivious to the proposition that it can turn voters from the
government to the coalition merely by its unseemly behaviour, intrigue, vicndictive behaviour towards employees and costly performance. The latter is particularly annoying to commerce and industry, which
quite often wastes thousand even millions on poor;y thought out tenders, delayed decisions and detachment from reality.
The attack on Kevin Rudd's strategy team, by Paul Keating, was
dismissed by public commentariat deriding Keating as yesterday's man. This no doubt delighted the Coalition strategy team. This was a Keating method of a clarion wake up call.
The media that lambasted it demonstrated that they are becoming less in tune with the influences, nuances and the
players in the election game. They are reporting the rise of the internet and technology with a detached ignoranceas to the long term impact on their particular medium and enterprise.
Rupert Murdoch warned of the encroachment some time ago. Let the multifaceted games begin. The colaition is falling behind in grasping the implications.
However Kevin Rudd has shown, for some time, that he is not a slouch at
listening, and hearing, unlike the coalition. The Keating barbs were taken by Kevin Rudd as constructive and not destructive,
something that the Howard governments has shown it knows little about.
They listen but rarely hear. They take criticism as destructuve and act reproachfully. The elements of creepiness in minsiterial behaviour
re-emerge. Kevin Rudd has a number of high peformers in his core strategy group and in the limbs that reach out into sub groups across the nation. They are not the unions and the ACTU, they are independent professionals
tied to Kevin Rudd and beholden to no one. They adapt.
Aming them are Simon Banks, Chief of Staff, Pradeep Philip the leader's Policy Director, and Michael Lye, Social Policy Director.
The Communications Director, Walt Secord supported by people such as Alex Cram, and there is Senior Adviser Kate Callaghan, people who
choose their media
intervention far more critically and carefully than the Howard team appears to do. It seems incongruous that
the coalition has not yet learnt, during its time in government,
that having Alexander Downer, and Brendan Nelson, out front can be fraught with danger.
Mr. Downer's performance on the ABC Insiders programme on Sunday 15 July 2007, rippled through the media as one of
arrogance and a typical dismissive attitude. Like Peter Costello's sarcastic reference to looking up the ABS figures to
learn the price of bread and biscuits demonstratesc that he has not yet learned that
his smirk and poor judgement reading the tea leaves, does not set him up well to be Prime Minister in the future and similar characteristics from Downer are a turn off.
But by all means stick to the past play sheet and punt. If the coalition wins then they can be truly vindictive.
Whilst ever the spin machine, an acquiescent and uncritical media, and similarly disposed political commentators, push the proposition
that John Howard, and the Coalition, are better economic managers,
the door is open for Rudd's superior public, and social, policy team to
create runs such as the
price of food
issue and the
industrial relations
and human resources environment, impacted by the legislation known as Work Choices and the
implementation of same by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.
There are a number of
departments, managing and implementing policy, that are very dangerous to the government. The danger lies in the stories that come to light about their internal activities.
The manner in which they treat people, inside their own department and in the wider society. They are predominantly the Departments of Defence,
Immigration, Human Services, Employment and Workplace Relations and Foreign Affairs. Not only are the policy sets active within these Departments
contentious but the culture,
management methodologies and questionable practices of the senior bureaucrats within these departments, are continually in the spotlight.
As of yet Kevin Rudd has not focused on these APS management attributes. Perhaps he
gives the senior executive service, and the departments, the professional courtesy of accepting that they are
apolitical and high performing. Many others, in the Australian community, do not extend the same courtesy or have similar perceptions. It may not be coincidental that
labor is running some ex-public servants and media personalities who have been on the receiving end of mercurial and unprofessional retribution and decision making.
July 13, 2007,
Howard losing ground in marginal and swinging seats as Kevin Rudd shifts labor machine into a learning system.
Under Kevin Rudd's leadership,
unlike Kim Beazley, Simon Crean and Mark Latham's, labor is becoming a learning system.
Kevin Rudd is tactical, and searching, out the hidden influences
and triggers, even if they perceived as populist, and shallow, such as his "cost of food" policy announcement.
They are only shallow to the academically inclined thinkers and those
focused on what they see as core issues such as economy, finance, industrial relations, energy, transport
and trade etc. The liberal, and national, parties whilst
being sophisticated in terms of campiagning and strategy,
do not appear as adept at learning. Hubris in terms of
how they see their own personal capacity is on show often. The dismissive throw
away lines of Alexander Downer made without a thought as to substance,
the careless attention to detail, and truth, by many members of government. Spin doctoring, by Ministerial media units, and Public Service
Departments own communication and parliamentary units, is making Rudd's task easier daily.
The Trade Union movement is not a learning machine and
is a liability to labor. Some labor front bencehrs are liabilities, but they are now yet in positions of government as Ministers.
Rudd's key staff, and close advisers and supporters, are now working in over drive. Whilst they have little awarnes as to the
landscape of interests and influencs, they have started filterng information,
over the last few weeks, on a much wider scale and depth. The members of the coalition who may be liabilities are more so than labor's, members such as Julia Gillard.
Some Ministers of government, and their departments, are perceived as
inept, destructive and very dangerous to citizens' well being and freedoms.
Labor's subtle messages about the PM's age are insulting to
the community of older Austalians, including myself.
Such a strategy demonstrates an arrogance of youth,
and an immaturity that will, as in the past, lead to a government that wil not
tap the talent
of the nation. No political party has demonstrated the capacity to unleash the nation's human potential since none of them have inspired individuals to
undertake
life long learning.
Perceptions of the coalition
Just as the electrate has views on the prospect of Peter Costello as Prime Minister tyey also have views on senior Ministers.
The perceptions
described below are the product of a number of ongoing discussions since 2000 with vested interests, in Australia and internationally -
Europe, Asia, United States and Canada. These discussions were face to face with senior executives of companies with operations in Australia across many industry sectors.
They were discussions with Australian public servants posted overseas and ex patriat Australians licving abroad. The owner of the Mosaic Portal has undertaken extensive and prolomged discussions here in Australia and has extensive
experience in media, reserach, web technologies and in business and community dealings with governments, public service and Ministers at state, federal and territory levels.
The product of researching of
published opinions, and articles, here and internationally. They are the views from people who have been denied acces or who see the government Ministers as
distant and uninteretsed.
The author of the critique is Kevin R Beck. If the content offends, then apologies are given.
In any event politicians seem to have thick hides and are prone to insulting people quite often.
Some personal interaction colours my own views. Those Ministers not listed are
generally perceived by many interests as
high performers (for example Nick Minchin,
Julie Bishop, Mal Brough, Joe Hockey, Malcolm Turnbull and Gary Nairn.
Some Parliamentary Secretaries have little or no profile. Julie Bishiop will have to exercise care for
there are (August 14, 2007) that she is not as bold and innovative as first thought.
This is not surprising given the consrevative bent of the Department of Education, Science and Training. This is a Department, of which Brendand Nelson, was the former Minister, which
is stultified by lack lustre management from Director level upwards.
The Prime Minister has intervened in the portfilio on a number of occasions regarding curriculum.
The deaprtment conducts its affairs as if it were a branch of a university research facility and not a leading department within the Commonwealth.
The coalition risks losing the edge on education to the labor party. The Minister's supporters want a stronger stance. It is not clear that she will
delibver this.
The effect of ministerial liabilities, and there are a number, is difficult to gauge in terms of votes.
It is not clear how people see their local member's individual performance and how they distinguish this from their view of governments.
The following comments about Ministers are not the sole view of the owner of this web site. They are provided to reflect gathered
opinion, noting the diversity and colour of the 2007 election and what may affect voting intentions.
| |
Parliamentary Member |
Role and Performance
| Liability/Perception
|
| Mark Vaile |
Transport and Regional Services
| Damaged by enquiry into AWB. Stayed on too long. Not innovative. Biased to rural (NP).
|
Jim Lloyd |
Local government, territory and roads.
| Uninspiring, territory relationships not nurtured, transport/roads ports bottle necks stifle commerce and trade
|
De Anne Kelly |
Parliamentary Secretary
| Part of the transport group viewed sceptically as lack lustre by commerce and industry
|
Peter Costello |
Treasurer
| Seen as high performer in portfolio but poorly received by many voters (particularly women) as future PM
|
Tony Abbott |
Health and Aging
| Viewed as hard uncompromising, aggressive, statisticallt inclined confusing, poorly received by women voters, poorly viewed administrative record in portfolios
|
Philip Ruddock |
Attorney general
| Generally disliked in community, chilly monotone delivery, uncompromising and heartless in immigration, poor administrative record, low regard in legal faternity due to failure to support and defend,
image
|
Alexander Downer |
Foreign Affairs and Trade
| Viewed as poor
administrator in portfolio, inattention to detail, damaged by AWB scandal and is geneally believed to have mislead
about his knowledge and role. Some, in diplomatic and business circles, described him as egotistical, prone to churlish and vindictive behaviour if he feels slighted,
part of the Iraq quartet with PM, Philip Ruddock and Brendan Nelson.
Not able to match Kevin Rudd in Foreign Affairs.
|
Brendan Nelson |
Defence
| Poor record in
education and science, viewed as impulsive and self opiniated
making decisions with little research foundation, hair style
|
Ian Macfarlane |
Industry Tourism and Resources
| Biased to tourism, low regard in small medium business sectors
|
Warren Truss |
Trade
| May have stayed too long, not seen as innovative, biased to
rural, poorly viewed by SME's, role of Austrade misunderstood and access to Minister is managed
|
Fran Bailey |
Tourism
| Significant liability, poor decisions, quick to act without adequate consideration, uninspiring
|
Kevin Andrews |
Immigration and Citizenship
| Robotic to task and regulations, cold, may reinforce old culture of disregard in inept,and dangerous department
|
Peter McGauran |
Agriculture Fisheries and Forests
| Fall out from AWB enquiry,
seen as very biased to National Party interests, takes road of least resistance maintaining status quo,
loud and sometimes abrasive,
perceived as listening but not hearing, appears to be
expanding portfolio into other arenas (health) causing
tensions. Little interest shown in forests and environment.
|
| Eric Abetz |
Forests
| Seen as academic, prone to
insults, viewed as biased, anti environmental image, politics before administration.
|
Chris Ellison |
Human Services
| Viewed as extremely poor
operator in all portfolios to date, did not bond the government and legal community when he was Minister for Justice and is
perceived as damaging to economy particularly in the customs arena, poor attention to detail in portfolios,
despite apparent lack of technical ability is given portfolios with high requirement for
technical responsibilities.
|
Bill Heffernan |
Nothing of merit
| Viewed as bordering on irrationality,
strange and erratic, diminishing the status of parliamentary representation.
|
July 11, 2007, Kevin Rudd has assailed us a with another riveting proposition that will appeal to the uninformed and
populist concepts. Kev's study into why things cost what they do.....
read more..
July 10, 2007,
Julia Gillard
not trusted, disliked by amny decision amkers, exhibits arrofgance and very pooor communication skills preferring
threats to cajoling. She is proving a liability to the Rudd support prospects.
Not liked as a possible Deputy to the aspirant PM.
Her handling of industrial relations is
proving a turn off to business, is lacking in skills and deopth of thought and understanding of the ramifications for economy and society.
She is not liked by quite a number who support labor. Perhaps women in politics perceive, or actually, need to
express themselves more forcefully to cut through and prove their
credentails and ability in a blokey world, particularly that of Canberra politics? Labor has a problem in this regard in the past.
One might consider how, under labor's policy, Australian business might
compete globally?
The continued "trust us we wil have a balance" mantra lacks punch and verve.
The union argument for collective bargaining protecting the wekare in employment is a social engineering philosophy smacking of welfare.
The simple proposition of a contract between employer and employee, with some mandated fair tests, and required
inclusions, offers beterr propsects for the canny negotiator and skilled individula. Collective bargaining implies that those being representeed may lack education training, skills and employment credits.
The question is then, why employ them?
Ms Gillard, in her confrontational legal representation style,
has been progressively building on her AFL "politics as a contact sport" analogy whilst
assuduoulsy maintaining, since May 2007, a lack of inspiration in regards to industrial relations. There is an undertone of "do as you are told" when we are in government.
Some might think it borders on arrogance. The polls are giving strength to conviction politics. Industry reaction initially cool.
"CHRIS UHLMANN: Labor's industrial relations policy has been under heavy fire under business from the moment it was released.
There are lots of bits that business doesn't like, but most of the flak has come from the mining industry over Labor's plan
to rip up individual contracts known as Australian Workplace Agreements.
This morning, Deputy Labor leader Julia Gillard offered to give the industry a
long transition to the new regime.
JULIA GILLARD: At the time of transition, if a worker is on an Australian Workplace Agreement and they are happy to remain on that agreement for the balance of its term, then they will be able to do so.
These agreements can be for as long as five years and obviously we have an election to fight and win and should we win that election, then we will need some time to legislate for Labor's new industrial relations system.
CHRIS UHLMANN: The Chief Executive of the Australian Mines and Metals Association, Steve Knott is unmoved." (Source: Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, Labor AWA announcement fails to impress miners, The World Today - Thursday, 17 May , 2007 12:10:00, Reporter: Chris Uhlmann -
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1925716.htm)
Travelling around, and talking, with small to medium business owners, international and multinational respresentatives seems to indicate that
nothing has changed from May until now, July 10, 2007. It is a fuddled, and muddelled, policy.
|
There is a fundamental reason for this which makes Ms Gillard's task very, very hard.
Labor has a similar problem to the liberal and national parties - looking after loyal long term supporters, and toilers, who
patiently await their just rewards. Labor however has the problem in spades.
It has a vast base of labor mates in unions, and other places, that it has to cater for.
They give bags of money to the labor election campaign. They participate in pre-seelection of parliamentary
candidates, including Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard.
They festoon the front bench and the parliamentary ranks of labor across the nation.
Kevin and Julia must try and convince the nation that they are not beholden to these powerful interests. They must argue that
parliamentary selection, and ministries, are allocated on merit. The most difficult being that a Rudd labor government will be independent
of vested union interests. Hard when almost everyone in the parliamentary parties are union or party political operatives. Hard when the
Kevin Rudd business advisory body consists of one knighted
individual indicating that most other independent types do not want to play on Ms Gillard's political football field.
While the coalition may appear beholden to business, and powerful, corporate interests it is nothing on the scale that compares to
labor's commitments.
There is no solution for Kevin Rudd, other than to spin the reality. Julia is having trouble keeping up.
This bright, and talented, lawyer (said without
sarcasm) carries the hopes of many wowmen. The parliamentary leadership of all governments in Australia is
vastly unrepresentative in terms of women participation as are our legal fraternity houses. Wwe await two appointments to the High Court. Theres eems no rush by the
Prime Minister and there is not whisperings as to female appointments.
Yet there will be. Why? John Howard must counter the antiptahy that a large number of women have towards the Tresaurer, Peter Costello.
Julia Gillard must not be dismissed by industry or any other powerful interest as
irresponsible. Yet worse she must avoid, at all costs, being labelled a labor airhead.
|
DEALING WITH TERRORORISM IS A STRONG SUIT
HIDDEN THREATS, GANGS AND LOCAL COMMUNITY FEAR
The exposure of a global network of educated professionals willing to kill, and die,
for some nebulous ideology has chilled the Australian blood.
The detention of children and refugees may have worn thin with the public but the detention of people, particularly professionals in our public and private enterprises,
will not and no other cases will.
The debate around
terrorism,
and legal arguments around the legislation
and the right to presumption of innocence are strong foundations but they are academic and secondary to pure fear.
In a bus in London in November 2006 I observed a man looking at a couple. He was young. He smiled and then ran his finger across his throat causing the woman to panic.
This is not an uncommon occurrence in England. There are residents of the United Kingdom who are keen to
follow the pathway to Allah and bliss and whose hatred of western civilisation including their own
country's residents is palpable. My initial reaction is one of physicality and similarly it is so with many Australians.
Strike them down and keep us safe. These people behave like animals so treat them as such. Where is Kames Bond when you need him? It is not that simple.
To respond in kind exascerbates the hatred, and reinforces their perceptions of non islam. To them we are animals invading
their holy lands and threatening Islam as a whole. They are on sacred mission. Ten virgins is a wonderful prize for the man willing to sacrifice his life in the cause.
Despite Kevin Rudd's words about his strength and ability many Australians including myself believe that labor harbours some bleeding
hearts, kept in check. They, like the strident critics of Howard's strong stance and Ruddock's unflinching prosecution of his task,
think that education, conversations and summits can
turn these manics around to common sense. They do not value democracy.
There is no such doubtful feeling, or perception, in my mind or that of most Australians, about the coalition.
Moderaetes who are strong on democracy and law are swayed by fear.
We have seen Philip Ruddock's unerring response, approach and dedication to his singular task. If the nation is to confront internal
Jihad,
by the perverted
terrorists
of unrelenting and unmoveable fanatics, then it is best we do it with John and Phil.
This is the majority belief of the Australian public and Kevin Rudd can dog whistle in the wind.
As the gangs of youth run riot in the suburbs of our nation,
though they may not be terrorists, they should worry that Howard and Ruddock may turn their
eyes there aware that the Commonwealth can actually do something the states cannot. Deliver local security to communities.
Though labor controls the greater number of police, across the nation and thus law and order, there is no evidence that
the labor Premiers, and Chief Ministers, know what to do to protect the community.
These gangs are inteferring in comerce and business scaring away customers and
damaging the local businesses. They may be refugees and others here on humanitarian grounds,
they may be feckless and stupid. Whatever. Their
violent actions can place them within the Constitutional power of the federal government.
Howard, wily as he is, may widen his protective cloak and encompass them too.
He may provide federal laws that assist the local state police where their own parliaments are weak, reticent and
anxious. Mr. Howard would be the recipient of public gratitude.
9 July 2007, Kevin Rudd and Labor will, under the conditions of today, not win
|
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY,
FREE MARKET AND POLITICAL SELF INTEREST
Ostensibly Australia's
governments will tell you that they are "free marketeers" who
develop policy, and take action, to reign in the more rampant, and anti-social aspects,
of free market behaviour. The Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission is the federal regulatory body, tasked with maintaining the
fairness, and freedom, of the marketplace up to a point.
They fail badly on petrol prices and housing. These are political hot potatoes for governments.
These issues are now galvanising the labor and colaition parties at the
federal level. The spin used by governments, of all persuasions, has resulted in the nation's voters having limited information
and gaining false perceptions on almost all issues including housing affordability. The propensity to withhold, lie, and misinform,
by the labor and coalition parties, across the nation, has backed the parties into corners. They have to either continue the practices or recant.
If you look at the Australian labor, and liberal party, musings and policy pronouncements,
on housing affordability, one realises that free market belief is often hollow rhetoric.
Wayne Swan, the shadow treasury spokesperson, commenting on labor's
newly released, labourious,
housing policy follows the hackneyed practice of blaming
the federal government. He is careful not to blame the labor
state labor governments that occupy every major post of the federation bar the Commonwealth government. He does not blame the ludicrous and myopic planning regimes and
policies of his state labor colleagues. He frames the argument in the political cloak of withholding, disinformation, lies and misrepresentations.
He wants consultation, a summit and a talk fest. That has been his
trademark and that of labor administrations since Hawke and Keating left the stage. Kevin Rudd wants a summit.
A summit brings together the labor team, the sole aim of which is to make Rudd look good, not to solve any crisis.
Rudd can do nothing else but propose a talk fest because he has to make it look like
that labor is addressing this issue for the aspirants who want a house but cannot afford to buy one.
Labor governments of the modern era are not big on action, and policy implementation,
unless it serves their political interest. They are even more reticent when the task is fraught with political danger.
Their limited life experience, and awareness, ensures that the policy set produced is narrow and
rarely suitable for the long term. The
policies
are founded on self interest, reticence and too often fear of offending vested interests and risking loss of office.
The election cycle has made the political mind mind atrophy.
What Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan will not add in to their public attacks on poor policy is the role of the
labor state and territory, and local governments. Despite having the GST growth taxes they are grasping atevery opportunity.
State labor and territory governments, would rather keep home buyers, and aspirants, on a knife edge than risk their surplus ideology and their own political hides.
The taxes on a developing a block of residential land are the primary disincentive to developers. They are adding as much as $100,000 to a block.
It is not land availability it is poor public policy. The Victorian labor government wil not allow growth of redidential blocks on the fringes because their goal is to curb urban sprawl.
If these areas did grow it would become patently apparent that Bracks' labor governmet had failed to address city infrastructure, particularly water and transport, in its
myopic, and uninspiring, period of governance.
One the other side of the political coin, the federal treasurer, Peter Costello,
has stifled the report (July 2007) of the
Australian Productivity Commission
on housing affordability since segments of it
cast doubt on Mr. Costello's tax reformer credentials.
Namely the matter of "negative gearing" and its affects on the price of houses. Absent landlords, rushing into the cheap finance and booming renovations markets have
always placed pressure on the system. Keating abandoned negaitive gearing totally which turned out to be political and financial poison. However the Howard government
resolutely tinkers at the edges and points the finger.
According to the political justification negative gearing is used to get people to invest in rental supply to try and aleviate high rents
in our society. The banks are culpable offering cheap funds and enticing buyers to get exorbitant loans. People are turning their home equity into a
lien on their future.
Both sides of politics are super careful and are extraordinarily risk averse in terms of policy.
In the modern era the welfare of the nation tends to take second
place to political interest. In NSW, during the ignominious reign of labor's Bob Carr, it was suggested by him that immigration into Sydney should be
capped. He felt that the city was being swamped.
Housing affordability is linked to the wealth measure of individuals and the natin as a whole.
According to the statistics Australians are far more wealthier today than in previous times.
Since Australians are not big savers, their wealth must be elsewhere. Largely in their
property (their home) and perhaps in their share portfolio, and perhaps the superannuation account.
It is not in cash. Australias are mired in debt. Dangerously so. The boom economic times are a double edged sword for governments.
Houses, in Australia, are expensive for a number of reasons, (a)there are not enough
and, (b), there are not enough where people want to buy them, work and live.
People want to live in the metropolitan areas and in the coastal corridors. They all want the good life and as such luxury comes at a hefty price.
The tax system is not use to shift them to outer and regional ereas. It is used to fill the coffers of governments to be used to keep them in government.
Only when crisis loms will governments invest in the public good and infrastructure. The balance is way out of whack as cities struggle with the population rise.
People want houses, not flats, in the city. New home buyes are the ones who buy in new housing developments on the fringes.
Now in a free market the pendulum would move to balance supply and demand.
In a free market landholders would release land and build houses.
The major holders of land are the governments of Australia,
followed by the speculative enterprises - the developers. To release
large volumes of land would cause the value of certain parts of the existing stock
to fall. This would affect the prospects of sitting members of parliaments and the aspirant candiadtes who want to replace them.
The value of houses would not necessarily fall in the sort after places, like around
Sydney Harbour, inner city Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide etc, where
demand is both local and international. It would fall in places
where the only people interested are the dwellers. If house values fall then their equity falls and the debt they owe may become less or even unsecured.
It would fall in the suburbs across the nation. The market may crash.
There are two things that scare governments, and the aspirants who want to be in government.
They are interest rate rises and any action that devalues existing property.
Thus the labor opposition and the
Australian government are being manipulative in their own political interest.
The price of housing is being controlled and manipulated. The hidden elephant in
the room is debt and in 2009 and beyond there will be a major
crash as more and more people become insolvent.
|
OBSERVING THE GHOSTS OF THE CAMPAIGN
The ghosts of the campaign are those who, having an interest in government, policy,
the public sector, unions and their actions, and the outcome of
elections, move largely unseen in the background. They predominantly do this as part of their work. They are listening,
interacting, presenting and influencing. Some are mercenaries earning their income as consultants in the buregoning economy and
others have retired from full time work and are carving out new endeavours.
The majority of "ghosts" utilise corporate resources, a few individuals fund their own activities. They all seek out
the attitudes, performance behaviours and power bases, of segments of the nation, within the electorates. Their objectives, in one form or another, are
to bring about outcomes at local, regional and national levels. These objectives are long term, often obscure and multifaceted. The "ghosts"
take account of triggers and emotive responses. For these reasons they may actually be
the
"real surveyors"
of public opinion, not the pollsters. They are the sphelogists too.
|
Welfare is an emotive voting issue
Delusions of relevance
Two aboriginal communities put on a turn and indicated that the task force from Canberra was not welcome in their
communities. This was a show of hollow defiance. These people should have their welfare payments stopped until they
demonstrate a maturity and respect for how they are being supported.
This defiant stance demonstrates the mentality of the welfare sector.
They are happy to take the money. This is not to say they are any less as humans, nor are they a different class,
it is just that people who rely on others should consider what would it be like to have no support, and no money. In less generous societies they would be left to fend for
themselves. Regardless what they may think of the Howard government, the consrevatives have not left the under privileged to fend for themselves as is the case in the
United States. To compare Howard's initiative to Hurricane Katrina, or children overboard, the Iraq invasion or some other stupid metaphor, as some have done and is reported in the media,
is insulting, ignorant and to be held in contempt. Is it no wonder that the
greater part of the Australian community holds little respect for
the recipients of welfare who do not exhibit thanks for what they are given.
Regardless of colour and where they live, many are believed, by the those not on welfare,
to think that it is their right. There are the disadvantaged and the afflicted and there are the
bludgers and the lazy.
There is a common language expressing arguments and demands, that are interpreted
by the community as: "my personal
life is less than I might think it should be, its is not my fault. I should be able to
own all of the gadgets that are the next big thing, smoke and drink too."
This is not a trait of the welfare mentality in indigenous communities alone, it is a trait of every part of society that gets a handout from
Australia's governments. It could be said that the Australian Council of Social Security (ACOSS)
that represents the welfare sector interest groups, promotes poverty.
It has assisted an entrenched mentality and behaviour.
Welfare is big business and many people earn their living from
representing the recipients of welfare and they earn a living from the existence of poverty.
They rely on the existence of poverty, and under privilege, for their livelihood,
esteem, and positions, in society. They organise conferences and dwell in academia and
in the sociology of poverty and apparent discrimination. Their role, as they see it, is to be the voice, and the negotiators, of the
consumers of welfare. Positioning themselves to imply that they represent faceless people who have no idea who they are and never electedc or aksed them.
They always believe that their status as "nebulous interest representatives"
can influence the vote at election time. They are the do gooders
and many people devote their lives to the
welfare of others and are to be applauded.
There are so many unsung heroes in our communities working quietly behind the scenes.
They are not the noisy ones demanding to be consulted.
Those who demand to be consulted, and deem it their right, may invariably be the cause of some or the majority of
problems.
Those who demand to be consulted are the talkers, not the doers.
They thrive on consultation and discussion, on whuinging and whining at the edges. They usually travel on someone else's dime.
They want participation but cry that they cannot afford it themselves.
They demand that the government, bsuiness or whoever is in charge should give them access and pay for them.
Some are dedicated to the task and add value, others are parasites on the system. Without the system they would have no status.
Hundres of them exist on the fringes, in state and regional bodies, feeding off each other for purpose, resources and strength in numbers.
They are not part solution participants at the
government table. When something like the current initiatve by the Australian government arises, the
intervention into the Northern Territory, they mobilise and move in from the fringes to centre stage,
barking and snarling, maintainig their outrage and demands as if they are credible voices.
They are paid from welfare. Invariably they may have limited individual thoughts,
and ideas, if any at all,
of their own. They like, most people in society across all sectors,
lay in wait for someone else to propose something so that they may
then ponder, criticise, embrace or reject. Such is human nature.
For even though they may work for ACOSS, or other community support interest groups,
the money that keeps them in their jobs is ultimately the product of the welfare sector and the taxpayer or some generous other party.
They may generate some of their own funds but that is small change
consumed in their machinery of self interest. It is a minority in any area that takes the nation, and its inhabitants, forward.
|
Policy Input and Access is Driven By Special Interests and Incumbents
I am sitting in a boardroom of a regional development enterprise in the outer region of Melbourne.
I am accompanying my client. I have known this person for years and never found them to be overtly political.
Today we are meeting with a group of
business people and consultants. The meeting is about their disenchantment
with the state and federal government. They cannot get access and want to inform the Minister/s of their views which are not being represented
correctly and coherently to their satisfaction.
As a consultant strategist, I have listened to these stories for years now. The two Mr. Hollywoods, gloss and glamour twins of the Victorian government, Steve Bracks and John Brumby,
and their cabinet of average to poor performers. Critics often say that John Brumby is the only really bright light in the Bracks labor government.
It is difficult to know if this is the case because the government is so secretive
that it makes rserach on their governance difficult if not impossible. They are less than accountable and the moral compass is absent.
The Victorian state government cannot manage water, transport, energy or health portfolios
and hand picked senior bureaucrats
offer a lack lustre value for money. The Transport and Roads portflio is particularly poor.
Yet every time they meet with someone from the state government the same story of surprise is expressed by the business owners.
The liberals, under Ballieu get a serve too. Thus, in a vein of disenchantment the meeting will progress.
Eventually we will get to the core, how much money are they allocating to their
local political campaign and can the story be simplified to one issue - IR? Probably not.
My client is a financial and business enterprise, not a political strategy
or advertising practitioner.
My function is to provide the ideas, the framework and the strategies in which
these people, and others, will operate their ongoing plans and their advisers will help them develop, and grow, their business.
This will be a hard slog over the next few months, my clients represent
hundreds of such small to medium businesses, and local promotional enterprises,
across Australia. These local government, and regional development, groups exist on government grants.
The government handout mentality seems to come with a belief that they are free to criticise and bite the hand that feeds them.
There is no real independence where there is a reliance on handouts.
This is a far better assignment than the one I had in Canberra working with the bureaucratic Department of Education, Science andTraining (DEST).
That is a dysfunctional and wasteful organisation with some a large number of people employed to spin the story, the facts and the reality.
The Department was being reorganised in 2004 and the idea was to push functions, responsibility and accountability out to the states. There was exterme resistance at corporate headquarters.
The tradition had been that the states were post boxes for the central office and all power and decision making resided in Mort Street, Canberra.
I visited them recently and it was still a work in progress. The revolving door of Ministers has never been of assistance for stability and the Department had gone from
the staewardship of Amanda Vanstone, to David Kemp, Brendan Nelson ending up finally with the extremely impressive Julie Bishop. Ms Bishop has confronted, head on, the
sanctimonious state and territory education fiefdoms demanding an end to the parsimony and the shallow outcomes based curriculums, which change like the seasons.
Of great interest currently are the views of the aboriginal education officers and mangers from DEST offices in Western Australia, New South Wales, the Northern Territory
and Queensland. I was somewhat taken aback when one of them told me that the Land Councils were the worst thing that ever happened to communities.
The notion of communal has apparently been a part of aboriginal culture for centuries. However it was alawys a communal without equity. It favoured some over others.
The elected representatives on the Land Councils enjoyed the fruits of control including the resources. The permit system ensured their domination of things was maintained.
The spittle of vitriole, amongst the derisive language, distorts Pat Turner's face. I sit and watch her articulate every word laced with venom and hate. She says that this ia land grab by Howard.
Perhaps she epitomises the very point the DEST officer had made some time ago. Sidelined when ATSIC was abolished and now made even more irrelevant she is determined to make every step as painful as possible for her political enemies.
ATSIC was an ATM for some leaders of the aboriginal community and the ATM is now looking rather distant now that many have lost their access cards.
We are on theperiphery here. Our only function is to help the mining companies, and their executives, avoid the fallout from their token actions which some say were
a cop out.
A number of employees of the mining companies have been party to the abuse of young people in the aboriginal communities.
The charge from a number of critics is that the managers allowed, by ommission of strong action and sackings,
their employees to add to the misery of the people. I do not want this assignment and decline to participate. From my perspective these corporate executives can stew in their own decrepit worlds.
The sooner they are brought to task the better for corporate responsibility needs a prominent and very public lesson. A spot of humility and penitence might help rather than employing pubic relations and media manipulators to get them out of their sewer.
|
Australia is a politicised nation.
It is a small country in population and economy.
Thus governments dominate, and politicians manage to
infiltrate most facets of business and community life. The bureaucracy is also politicised. Government owned entities like Tafe and University operate for profit businesses.
All of the above are as much a target of competition, for my clients,
as traditional competing businesses. This is predominantly where we
reside in the exercise.
We are retained to develop and
implement
competition strategies
on behalf of our
clients. We have done this all over the world and most of the time we
operate out of the country.
The last few years have been different.
We have undertaken "prejudicial assignments" in Australia that have had international
and national impacts.
Now we are in the process of dealing with a significant government
initiative.
Our clients icur significant loss too
often from
the incompetence of public service and their expert consultants.
The Australian world of politics and business, is truly complex.
The interests are multinational and global. The question of who will govern is of vital interest to business, particularly large multinationals in the
finance, banking, agricultural and resurce industies.
I wonder how many of the strategists in the political parties,
and the secretaries and deputies of the departmental bureaucracies are aware
that they can be the targets of strategy? They created the environment in which Australia now operates.
Too many companies have lost money at the hands of
incompetent bureaucrats and politicians. Yet the public servants persist as if they are a separate entity, untouchable, shielded by the simplistic proposition that theys erve the government of the day.
They are now all targets of self interested corporations and individuals.
One only has to look at Telstra to see how the landscape of interaction has changed.
Many in business believe that the payback to government is orchestrated. Some believe that millions are being allocated,
by the Telstra senior management, to bring down the government at this election.
From the tenor of continued and sustained attacks, the bullying and agression, the Board and senior management of Telstra appear to
sending a message that they are after the government, the politicians
and the bureaucrats. Surrender to their demands or pay the price is the mantra of their public affairs.
Add to this the reputation of Kevin Rudd and no public servant is secure.
When he worked with Premier Goss in Queensland. Those who know of his work there say that he was ruthless in his control and
demands. They indicate that it will be a toe the line policy regime, acquiesce to the demands. The incumbent heads of the public
service will be culled. Glimpses of this persona are seen in the manner of response by Mr. Rudd to Mr, Robertson, unions NSW,
and the union leaders in Western Australia and Victoria.
He brooks no interference or criticism.
|
From my own perspective the senior people, at state, territory and federal
level, appear oblivious to the stakes and the forces marshalled against them.
More corporations are taking active roles and it is not only against labor's industrial relations.
The election is one way in which reparations are being claimed.
2007 has heralded a boom to the hoardes of new consultants. The decision by the business community
to enter into the election campaign, with strategies to counter labor's
industrial relations policy has provided work for a raneg of individual consultants.
These new entrants are
retired senior executives and others, who having been made redundant, or found the demands of their employers unreasonable,
have set up their own small business.
I have not see so many gathered in far flung places advising small business, associations and local community groups about how to deal with governments, banks,
public service or any one else.
I sit in a room of fifteen people. They are going
to be there after the election and they will be politically active for they are tired of being ignored. I assume they have stamina.
On this occasion the local community representatives
are bemoaning the failure of policy for small to medium business. I don't care because I am not going to deliver this particular contract.
I am just adding some ideas to the assembly at the request of my client.
The group argues that federal
Minister for Tourism, Resource and Industry, Ian Mcfarlane, has a bias for tourism and an interest in resources and none at all in manufacturing.
This is probably true since he has never ventured too far into the
manufacturing areas of the nation. He may have been to the big name
car companies but they are assembly plants not manufacturers. In one place I visitec their were over 140 employing 100,000 people.
Where are they hiding? The owners of these businesses are frustrated.
In the absence of any interest from Ian Macfarlane and Warren Truss, the Trade Minister,
they have resorted to talking to labor's Kim Carr,
Simon Crean, to
Jenny George, Natasha Stott Despoja and Bob Brown, and to any Victorian State Government
Minister who will give them the time. That must have been a scintillating meeting.
They want the gathered consultants to do something about it. One thinks that getting a meeting with Ministers to tell them their policies are not
all that flash, is the way to go. I rather think that is a waste of time.
The agenda at these meetings are similar. The campaign against labor will not be run centrally by the big associations though they will garner all of the
attention. The campaign is grass roots and in each electorate may be only a few thousand up to $50,000. In this NSW region there are a broad range of businesses worried. The telephone rings and the receptionist tells the
chairman that the journalist is back on the phone again. Men in suits, not normally seen in the strip, entering the local chamber office, regional centre or whatever has attracted attention.
Again the locals want to get a meeting with federal government Ministers. I enquire why?
The bureaucrats are the ones who have the longevity.
There is no export policy one local business representative intones.
Austrade is not well liked, but they have never visited Austrade in Canberra or overseas, it is all about perception. I talk about my visits to Austrade, in the London, Montreal, Washington and Los Angeles, for clients, and how there are export incentives on offer from
the federal government and states. They ask why Victoria, Queensland the Australian government's duplicate locatons and services? Who knows?
In someplaces we have come to work out ways to counter the local trade union, paid community worker.
They masquerade as community workers but their salary is paid by the ACTU. They have been identified and are being watched by the local liberal party branch. Take the seat of Eden Monaro for example.
In Queanbeyan the ACTU has an operative. This man parades as a community networker of some type. He is known to the local sitting liberal Minister Gary Nairan but also to people such as myself who are nowhere near the
electorate.
The local liberal party branch knows who are the ACTU operatives.
There are campaign strategies talked about here in
these small gatherings and the
new consultants, working in their first election campaign for their business client,
are keen to show their capabilities and worth.
They all have different ideas and plans. They are not all that sophisticated. However
neither is labor really sophisticated in its information and intelligence gathering and analysis.
It has no depth of resource in its federal offices, and due to staffing resources is relying upon
interns and volunteers within the leader and shadow ministry offices. They have little or no experience in
overt, or covert, intelligence gathering network and
distillation machine or system. They are unable to discern patterns, or link events, emails, documents or consitent
interventions by external parties, they cannot plough through the vast anounts of disjointed, incoming information. They are ill equipped to
track the "ghosts" or even know who they are.
For them the opponent, the competition and the players, are running around openly and they are discernible.
Where the real resources are being allocated is in the Premiers offices and in the state branches of the party where
incumbent labor governments are allocating, surreptitiously, the vitally needed support.
On all sides of politics, state and federal elected members of parliaments are assisting the campaigns locally. The federal labor has
to rely upon the state labor parties and governments, and the unions, because it has no sophisticated in house capability to match the
Howard government. The opposition (liberal and national) parties at state level are barely capable of engaging the labor party in their
jurisdiction let alone assisting the federal coalition efforts. Howard is facing a formidable, diverse, nationally structured
and cashed up labor machine.
because
|
Secrecy and centralisation is paramount in Mr Rudd's world.
He was a secretive type according to some and to others he was a control freak,
when he worked for Goss in Queensland as head of the bureaucracy.
Perhaps those traits made in a good diplomat in China?
Luckily the lack of sophisticated resources, and lateral thinking, in the Australian labor party,
limits the potential and fails to harness all of the available talent.
This makes the job easier.
I stare out the window at the
view in the countryside, fresh air, not like the city.
The order book for my business and my associates, is full. Over the next twelve
weeks we will visit inner metropolitan, regional and country locations,
servicing our clients. One client just wants to meet people. Another wants to participate in meetings.
Some are promoting their businesses. All want to defeat labor's industrial relations agenda which is seen as archaic.
It is rather all irrelevant, and I have told everyone in every meeting.
Politics is about self interest and unless you can offer the politician a reason to listen it is a waste of time.
They know better because in the presidential style of politics today, the Minsiter thinks they are a CEO and are to be obeyed.
The election turns on about twenty seats. Most of the meetings taking place are not in those seats.
They will however perceive their own realities and the ghosts of the
campaign that no one ever sees will beaver away.
On the other hand there are a few who I continually run into.
We compare our diaries to see where we will be over the coming weeks
and we often choose
the same hotels so that we can
sip a martini after the day has come to a close and talk about the campaigns.
Penrith, in NSW, is a non too welcoming place with the
local motel choices limited, offering poor value for the money charged.
I like to stay in Springwood.
We will trawl the streets and businesses of the federal seat of Lindsay. All the wat back to Parramatta and the international suite hotel.
Eastern Creek and surrounds. Over to Windsor and Richmond and then into Sydney. We'll see how Maxine's doing. I like the southern assignments along the ridges and mountain highways of Robertson, Wollongong and
Kangaroo Valley heading down to the coastal areas of Narooma and Bega.
The seat of Eden Monaro. All the way south and back through Cann River. A side trip
to the wonderful Gypsy Point.
Along the coast through Peter McGauran's electorate and into the Latrobe Valley.
A few weeks form now we will go to Kingscliffe and New England, former
heartland of the National Party, now the domain of independent members of parliament except where John Anderson clings on, but he is retiring.
The independents have grouped together under the tutellage of Peter Andren. His seat of Calare has been redistributed by the Australian Electoral Commission and he will
contest another.
Tracking back down the coast through Nambucca to Newcastle and across the Hunter Valley to Mudgee, Bathurst and Orange.
We wiol call into the local media and see how the locals are responding.
In August its over to Adelaide and then to Perth.
This is the most interesting election for many, many years.
|
John Howard can confine Kevin Rudd by deploying a more sophistiacted net across the nation.
After all, Labor is far less
tactical
though they may believe differently. Generally people, involved in, or watching and commenting, on politics have no idea who are the ghosts, their
motivations,
nor where they are at any point in time. When we have enough information we wil publish the seat predictions and place our bet.
|
|
To go to the electoral result predictions by seat ....
click here
|
HOWARD SHOWS WHY HE IS THE MOST CONSUMMATE POLITICAL LEADER IN THE NATION
THE POLITICAL MINE LAYER
Sitting looking at the Brisbane River,
an idyllic and languid environment, my colleague muses on Peter Beattie's reaction to
John Howard's acquisition of bits of the Northern Territory. He is a barrister.
He opines that the aboriginal plight and the plight of child abuse (white or other) is an issue that is more
robust in the southern states. The new immigrants to Queensland may be
bringing with them southern sentimentalities and the
political landscape is changing but they will change with the temperature and becoming less affronted.
The redneck element of attitude increases, he says, the further north you move.
I tend to believe him having travelled from above Port Douglas down through Cairns and along the coast. In Cairns the gathering of aboriginals in the parks to drink
colours the residents views.
For myself I have had
a diet of aboriginal outrage forced into my face for some thirty years. This has made me somewhat impervious to their whinging and demands for an apology.
Theapology ios simplistic rubbish and labor keeps the childish demand alive. Perhaps they are children rather than mature citizens. Who kinows?
They are in many peoples' minds never happy.
The loudest voices, I am told, tend to emanate from the aboriginals who
inhabit the southern states. I have often observed them, they are
the ones that can be found lounging in the Qantas Club and perhaps the Chairman's Lounge.
They are not the ones lounging in the remote communities and the camps.
Those aborigines are too far away to be heard. Their screams and desperation as they are preyed upon by white parasites and others are lost in the
wide brown land. They whisper on the wind in the receesses of this sunburnt country.
To reinforce
my colleague's point he reminds me that the issue of child abuse did not
register a jot in the state election. I railed agaist Beattie in the web pages of this Mosaic Portal and I wrote to
members of the Cabinet and the media. There was no reply. There hardly vere is.
I am from the south and of little interest unless I vote and even then that seems hardly of interest to the people who have made the labor party a
shadow of is fo0rmer prestige. The situation, for me
and others, who would like a vibrant democracy and government
in every state and territory is made more depressing by an opposition (liberal and national) who
are inept and incompetent. Peter Beattie can say and do what he likes. He is not accountable.
He can paint Howard as an opportunist, but by comparison Peter Beattie has rarely
if ever displayed a real leadership that inspires respect. His one skill is
media manipulation and pandering. Saying I am sorry and I take responsibility.
Who will hold him responsible? The opposition, the bureaucracy (they like the opposition
are not endowed with the
capacity or the will) or the electors? I'm all right Jack.
So how is it that Kevin Rudd reads a different message
in Howard's actions to that of Beattie? He is from Queensland.
My colleague ponders, and firstly says Rudd is well educated and well travelled.
He is a diplomat first and foremost. He is far better read and sophisticated in
thought and sociology than Peter Beattie, Morris Iemma, Steve Bracks and definitely
more of every quality than
Paul Lennon. Alan Carpenter and Claire Martin rate no mention.
My friend wanders off into stories of marriage and family breakdowns as a barometer fo the society in which he lives and works.
Family stuff is a lucrative earner in Queensland. He has represented in child abuse cases and I once flew up to watch one.
He says that Rudd needs votes from everywhere but underpinning Kevin Rudd, unlike Peter Beattie,
is a deeper and real humanity, unlike his labor colleagues. My lawyer friend thinks they are individual interested politicians first and foremost.
I personally think they corrode, and corrupt, democracy. That explains the disengagement.
The polls around Brisbane differ from those going north. I take one last look at the river
and head for the airport. Next call is Kingscliffe, and then Sydney and Canberra where I will try and find out why Jon Stanhope
labels the Howard moves as racist by any description.
Stanhope is irrelevant since he is a territory leader. I wonder if he has ever visited one of the aboriginal settlements. I have visited some around Alice Springs, and on the road between there and Darwin and some in
New South Wales and Victoria but they are not like the remote areas of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
I will move on to Adelaide eventually. I am seeking an
answer to the question - who will be the next Prime Minister? This is important to all of the people but to many business, and annointed, people it is a vital question.
|
The executive government in the Northern Territory, and the senior bureaucrats, dithered for eight weeks,
sittng on the report of the scandal that would ultimately spell the humiliation of the
Chief Minister and her government. Oblivious to the movement behind the scenes and growing antipathy of agitators and concerned citizens they
sat with thumb in bum and mind in neutral with the Chief Minister blithely stating that her incompetent and worthless administration would require another six weeks. The temperature in the tropics must addle the
political brain. At the same time the stakeholders, as the bureaucrats love to envisage went about their traditional ways never expecting to be sidelined. They risk being run over and becoming irrelevant.
It's who's got the money, the power and the gumption that now matters.
We know who that is.
Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mal Brough, has stirred a hornet's nest with his assertions
of paedophilia in remote aboriginal communities. He has a swag of evidence and Claire Martin, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory sitting on
a report for several weeks that will blow the top off her administration has managed to unwittingly light the fuse.
She, her bureaucrats and law enforcers, have allowed the non aboriginal itinerants to carry booze, drugs and money to buy sex, into communities.
She has sat by mouthing platitudes whilst degradation has been peddled on her watch.
The mining companies of the Northern Territory, have allowed their personell free reign to exploit the aboriginal people treating them as sexual objects regardless of age and capacity.
The Martin administration is one abhorrently rude, to those who might enquire about their inactions and their incompetence.
Perhaps they think it is the distance that might deter people like myself, and others, from reaching into their world to expose their
inadequacies. The mining companies will shortly
bear the heat
of a campaign aimed at exposing their executives and humiliating them into action at board level.
Claire Martin is a spin merchant taken from the local ABC and thrust into leadership.
Martin presides over an underperforming bureaucracy that should be retired from service. However, research shows that it is hard to get talent that far north. The apisrant public servant does not want to go to a back water but prefers the
career pathways in the southern regimes.
John Howard has effectively retired the Northern Territory Public Service, and government, for an extended amount of time
from the administration of remote aboriginal communities,
moving decisively to annex them to the will of federal Minister Brough ably supported by the irn will of Tony Abbott. The truckies and the
polluters of the communities and the mining companies should be now looking over their shoulders.
John Howard knows that in the realm of public opinion, and the behind the scenes influencers, he has at his disposal a very competent federal Minister in Mal Brough.
It is not a surprise that people who generally appear to have avacuum between their ears should suddenly come to life
blathering, and blustering, when someone else does something.
|
|
It is the same diatribe from "doctrinal philosophers" such as Andrew Bartlett,
leader of the Democrats.
Moral outrage and criticism from a party leader who has managed with the astute help of colleagues to make himself, and his party,
not only irrelevant but nearly extinct. The Democrat leader has the haughty ego, and thick hide of a failed politician,
to assume that having made a fool of himself, over time, he has the public persona to be credible in a very delicate and important matter.
The Honourable Senator Rachel Siewert, of the Greens party, falls into that same "doctrinal philosophy" set. Decades have passed where
all governments, and bureaucrats, have failed in their duty of care.
Even as the Prime Minister moves at last to set the future course the
hollow critics, who sit in our parliaments, and on the "public troughs" of funded bodies that are supposed to do the job, bleat and bluster.
Their commentary is a annoying barking. Kevin Rudd borders on "doctrinal philosophy" in his lecturing style when interviewed but unlike
them he can read the electoral mood and knows
this is not simply a political gesture before an election. Those who portray it as such on the airwaves
and the web risk being marginalised. Perhaps electorally. When John Howard recalls parliament to consider the legislative changes the opposition parties will all
step into a minefeld along with state leaders,
the controllers on the Aboriginal Land Councils, the Aboreiginal Social Justice Commissioner, the Australian Medical Association,
the Human Rights and Discrimination experts and critics, academics,
social engineers, unions, police, wind bags etc. This is John Howard's minefield carefully laid and he has broad support.
If some of the mines go off when stepped on by people with closed mindsets, and self interests,
watch the polls change dramatically in August 2007. Howard has moved to broaden his agenda. Despite what the Australian media, and political commentators think,
it is "not just about the economy stupid" and it actually never was if I have been reading the Prime Minister
correctly.
The incumbent interests, in the aboriginal affairs sector, should have read the signs and been better informed.
They should have been constantly looking
beyond the square of their world. There are lessons here for amny and not just about aboriginal affairs. The lessons are relevant to those who think they are in charge in their domains.
They should not be merely loking at governments but should be gathering intelligence in a changing world.
The underlying themes, that drive issues and outcomes, are now far more complex and the drivers, stakeholders and strategy implementers, are well beyond the horizon and awareness of
those who think they know their personal work and interest domains.
|
Western Sydney provides a mosaic of opinions and comments. Here labor beleives that its industrial relations strategy goes down well.
There are pockets of disadvantage created from a lack of jobs where people live
and the failure of the residents, in many cases, to
prepare themselves for work through education and training. They want it quick, cheap and now. Welfare can provide the basics of a reasonable lifetsyle. They can borrow the rest.
This is the heartland where labor's cliam that training and skill is a problem holds true, but not for the reasons Rudd, Gillard and Swan would have the
electorate believe. It holds true because the low schooling, skills and training levels are directly the outcomes of people who put other priorities first. Mt Druitt, Blacktown, St Mary's,
Parramatta and Eastern Creek across to Macquarie Fields, to Liverpool and surrounding suburbs. Then we an move across the landscape to Hornsby and Epping and Castle Hill. We are near the
Pacific Highway, the road that snakes through the upper and lower North Shore Sydney.
The suburbs, in any state and territory, of the poorly educated and limited effort, are full of people who quite simply
do not pull their weight and contribute in a personal sense. They want the good life without too much effort and personal cost. There area lot of them. They do not distil or understand
complex issues and have limited comprehension, experience and analytical capability. But what they do havethat is equal is they vote.
The two most threatening conundrums in any democracy, including Australia, are the highly educated and the minimally educated.
It is in the lowest socio-economic and educated areas that the union's message plays out and where the low skilled union memberships create the problems for labor. Low skilled members allow
the thugs of the union movement to maintain control.
For example one can see the difference between the unions
in this sector and unions in banking and technology.
Their control of blue collar membership will
decline as skilled tradespeople move up the siocio-economic scale.
(Saturday 16 June 2007) Kevin Rudd and labor will not win the federal election of 2007
The labor party has, in my worthless opinion, atrocious strategists and planners by comparison to the liberal machine of John Howard. Howard is, in wily talent, equivalent to the main three
lead labor party players, Rudd, Gillard and Swan. In the engine room behind him and out here in the electorate reside a talent that dwarfs the labor party and their sophisticated, and slick, ACTU manual. That's it, knocking on doorsand having barbeques,.giving out DVD's.
The coalition strategists and many ministers provided me with a biography and documents on their policies and their profiles. The Democrats, Family First and the Greens did the same.
Labor did not. I get a standard labor email, once in a while, the same as the e-herald below in this web site. They are not all that
sophisticated and I personally find their
strategists
acking in lateral ability, extraordinarily unaware and uninformed, as Paul Keating branded them.
I enjoy the political election
game.
Julia Gillard said it was "contact sport" and made thus defined the field.
Election night this time in 207 will be very exciting indeed. THough I expect the result will be known by nine o'clock. Congratulations to John Howard.
When Julia Gillard describes Howard as tricky and being polituical she displays her naivety and
propensity for stupid statements. Of course he is all of those things and more. Gillard wants to be the Depauty leader in government and I would rather she
took a moment to put ego and self gratification and desire for power aside and considered the public interest. Not a trait of the modern politician on any side of the spectrum.
The one man band of the Australian labor party's federal campaign strategy is wilting. Yet on this Staurday in June the pundits laud Kevin Rudd. Now let's see what the polls say two days after I make the brave claim that Rudd will not
win under his current plans and strategies.
"OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd today brushed off polls showing the Coalition Government making ground on Labor.
Mr Rudd sidestepped questions about whether he thought last week's negative attacks on Prime Minister John Howard
over his use of Kirribilli House for Liberal Party functions had affected his popularity." (Source: Telegraph Newspaper Sydney, June 18, 2007, 3pm -
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21923384-31037,00.html)
So why can I predict something that the political commentators will not in advance of polls? The answer is both siple and complex. The team on the labor front bench are not inspiring as Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan delivering droning
reiterations of holow rambling responses and shrill affront. It is a mystery to me why Wayne Swan is in the role of shadow treasurer
when there is greater unexplored talent in the party. The one thing that irks most in Australian politics is the career
politician who hangs on and on in the vain hope that their entitlement for long service will include a
position in government.
From a considerable source base of research, and communication, I predict that the
labor party will make some substantial gains, perhaps as many as ten, to twelve, seats
but will not win the 2007 election. They are likely to claim a ministerial
scalp from the liberal party and one obvious target is Gary Nairn in the seat of Eden Monaro in New South Wales.
Another may be Alexander Downer in Mayo South Australia. More extensive questioning and discussion of sources and opinion
will be gathered on these two seats
in the coming weeks.
The National Party vote will grow by between 0.7% and 1.3%.
Kevin Rudd, and the Australian Labor Party, are attempting to rest power from John Howard's Coalition government.
n first blush Mr. Rudd, and his band of trusty candidates, look superior in the polls but the reality is in the
electorates not in mass opinion. Labor must secure the number of seats they now have
plus another sixteen. The sad fact for Mr Rudd is that he actualy has to win
seventeen, or eighteen, seats because he looks like losing one, or two, in
Western Australia.
What will he do to shore up his prospects, in Western Australia, sack the unionist, Mr. McDonald, from the
from the ALP,
who has been filmed being threatening and abusive to employers?
Mr. Rudd sacked Dean Mighell so he has to be as tough in Western Australia.
Julia Gillard has rote learned her lines and talks of how labor will be tough and will have a tough cop on the beat of construction.
That is it. No substance yet again just rote.
The problem for ZMr Rudd
is that according to key labor people in that state and to other observers he cannot be
tough in Western Australia because Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald, in perception, run the state of labor.
He is viewed as a mouse by the cat union leaders there in Western Australia.
It is unlikely that he will act in the short term because he is heading towards a confrontation withe the hard men of the union movement. This is a double edged sword because to wait portrays him as weak against union power.
It is according to some, an arrogant assumption that Kevin Rudd runs the Australian Labor Party.
This is not a party of democracy but an autorcracy run by a few. Rudd definitely does not run the union movement. The danger is that individuals
will place their own
self interest before the objective of winning governmet.
There is a belief in the lecetorate that a rabble element will break out and the labor campaign will be derailed by internecine fighting. The
policy platform is so close to the coalition platforms that for many in the union movement there is little prospect that labor will offer
much of substance to the unions, when in government.
Julia Gillard prevaricates using legal jargon and argumenets to explain Rudd's reticence. Antipathy and a negative reaction to her style
and demeanour is on the rise in the
national electorate.
Sacking Dean Mighell from the labor party was
seen by many in Western Australia and Victoria mainly, as a Rudd grandstand without substance and fortitude. The unions are his weakest link because ultimately they cahllenge the power of the
political leader. The unions hold the cash and all of the cards.
Add to his woes his own foibles in knowledge about things economic. Kevin is an
academic type, with an apparent strength in humanities, sociology, foreign affairs
and languages. He isa theorist in his presentation and rhetoric and when one analyses what he is actually saying it is motherhood statements
dressed up in popular sound bites. When he is up against a "workman" such as Peter Costello, Kevin Rudd flounders.
He is not an economist nor a statistical thinker such as Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, nor is Kevin Rudd avuncular and likeable
like Joe Hockey.
THE LABOR PARTY HAS SOMETHING TO BE REALLY SORRY ABOUT
In the arena of aboriginal affairs we hear very little from Kevin Rudd
because again the labor party in the states and
territories have failed to deliver very basic services whilst presiding over a deteriorating social catastrophe, the abuse and sexual assault of children by
paedophiles. Labor leaders have allowed these creatures of satan to remain in communities until Mal Brough came with a torch to show the Australian people what
it is realy like in these places beyonf our gaze and awareness. This is labor government territory.
Claire Martin, and what commentators now see as her band of useless and incompetent bureaucrats, mirroring
Peter Beattie's unilluminating lot of bureaucrats in Queensland, logoed by him as the "smart state", closed their eyes and their ears and
attacked federal Minister Mal Brough. They attack because they do not want to be held accountable and the gladiatorial nature of Australian
politics is inculcated in the bi-cameral system. They attack because maturity is not a strong suit of the modern politician.
In the week of June 15, 2007, a report titled " Little Children Are Sacred" shows what happens when media specialists and bureaucrat style theorists become leaders of government.
The report details the physical, mental abuse and degradation and it has
forced the "weasels" as one person put it to me, in the Northern Territory bureaucracy and government, to show some concern. It is always about buck passing in the approach between territory, state and federal.
The immaturity of the labor party at state level to think of the public interest first knows no bounds.
"The report outlines allegations of sex trades and juvenile prostitution but does not mention paedophile rings.
Mal Brough disagrees and says you just have to look at the evidence.
"In the last two months, 13 out of [an] approximate adult population of 90
have been charged with child sex offences against children as young as three with the main
offence being penetration of a girl under 13," he said.
The Northern Territory's Chief Minister, Claire Martin, says it will take at least six weeks before
she will respond fully to the report, to allow talks with the Commonwealth to get under way.
Education, alcohol control
Inquiry co-chair Pat Anderson has blamed an abundance of alcohol and a lack of education as the major contributors to child sex abuse.
"Where there is unemployment, poverty, alcoholism, drug taking, overcrowding, unemployment, you can guarantee that those
children are severely at risk and eventually going to be sexually abused or abused in some way, and that's what's happening," she said." (Source:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Friday, June 15, 2007. 6:51pm (AEST), http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1952739.htm)
Claire Martin, labor Chief Minister, states it will take six weeks before she will respond to the report. Form your own opinion on the
alacrity and failures of this labor government and translate that into a national sense of outrage against the alacrity and cant of the
labor party as a whole who like to acknowledge everywhere they go that they are
standing on the land
of some aboriginal community. They pay lip service and
are to be condemned. Six weeks! They wnat to say sorry, well they really have to something to be sorry about now. Their failure as govermments., politcains and people of moral and ethical
challenge. So why doesn't Claire and Kevin and the others say sorry we let you down all of the way not merely when we landed in the big ships in 1777.
Kevin Rudd has, like his labor party colleagues eveywhere, has remained
mute because theory, rhetoric and cant, do not cut it when such shame unfolds. Even as the report is trumpeted in the media it is being managed by Martin's spin team and at 3.15pm days after its handing to the
NT government is is not listed on the web Google search. There is distatse for Martin and this is crossing barriers which are normally state - federal divides.
Kevin Rudd has lost the inititiave on aboriginal affairs. Shortly he will lose it on water and climate change.
Mal Brough may well become one of John Howard's greatest assets
along with Julie Bishop and Joe Hockey. There is depth in the coalition, greatly lacking in the labor party and the voters are becoming more aware of this.
Additionally the coalition is tapping a broader external base of support and campaigning talent than labor's union movement can provide. Rudd has only one prominent business
supporter. The rest are silent.
The whole of the Labor front bench are in this
theoretical space. I cannot name a member of the labor front bench that I find
engaging, and invigorating, in ideas and lateral thinking or approachable.
Writing an email or letter to labor is like akin to dropping it down a well.
There is no response. Labor members appear incensed by trivia (functions at Kiiribbilli and the Lodge)
and blinded by ideological hate and bound up in chains that tighten the sphincter causing them to go red faced with commensurate thrashing and apoplexy.
The lack of a workman like approach to their tasks is quite apparent particularly when Kevin
Rudd is grilled on issues he does not want to talk about like productivity, the cost of capital, the return on capital, the value of human talent and the realities. He says that skills training levels in
Australia are woeful. Julia Gillard trots education as a sin of government without realising that it is the individual who remains uneducated.
Education and training failures are standard blue collar union lines.
Skills training and competency is their shallow mantra year after year.
What Rudd, Gillard, Swan et al, will not admit, despite volumes of research over two decades, is that Australians are lazy when it comes to education and training and that the per capita take up rate is only about 30% to 40% of the working
population if that. There is no life long learning ethos in the nation and no policy. This can be sheeted home to labor.
Labor controls the actuall design and delivery of education and training content
in primary, secondary and vocational education sectors. According to a number of
teachers in the front line udd can pronounce an education revolution till the cows come home
but the revolution is, for them, a revolution against his own party and their
political power base. The top heavy dead hand of bureaucracy in places such as Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales are viewed as concrete barriers to progress.
I perceive that the once claimed territory of labor - health and education - are no more.
Kevin Rudd and his education spokesperson, who is the education spokesperson, are both
outclassed and overwhlemed by the governhment's Julie Bishop. He sprouts an
education
revolution policy but it is founded on the proposition that people wnat to participate and many do not.
So add this to his theory about productivity being low and he is not on the ball.
Finally he persists in honing in on the fluffy debate about whether John Howard can use his home for private liberal party functions. It is a no winner question and is largely irrelevant yet he cannot see this and time after time he looks
as if he can only handle the minimal issues, the ones with simple propositions and details.
Senator Penny Wong, usually erudite and articulate drones away on this piss ant matter whilst children are raped, die and a whole forgotten people suffer.
Who gives a rat's arse about whther the liberals should have apid rent for a party?
The labor party needs to grow up and Kevin Rudd needs to throw of the image of the school master/professor studiously writing at his parliamentary desk like a fool
playing ames, and pay attention and engage in the debate. It is not his parliament to play games in.
He focuses on the liberal party because it is an issue that does do not require complex
facts at the fingertips, similarly on work choices and industrial relations. The era of labor's domination of the
work force
issue is also over but they do not know it yet. In climate change the party rolls out Peter Garrett, another theorist sprouting economic and
technical dreams. He is against the workman like Malcolm Turnbull who is about
to take the Darling River system off Kevin Rudd's underperforming state colleagues. It is probably understandable that given Peter Garrett is an ex rock star he would find
an affinity with hot rocks as an
energy
source.
There is
much not to like
about the Australian government, but at least they have a maturity to put aside the
argy bargey of politicas and deal with people who bring ideas and propose things in a professional manner. One might never get what they are after and I rarely ever do, but
at least I, and my associates, get a hearing. We are given access at middle and very high levels of government. Whenever,
after an extraoridinary expennditure of time, money and effort,
one makes it to the labor government bureaucracy, it is invariably a very unreward8ing experience.
Labor is, in many respects perceeived by quitea number of voters, to be bound in chains of ideology, in hate and mistrust, and in a narrow expertise and experience.
The labor party under today's leaders, both political and inion, is a party of the past and not
the future. Its operational tyactics are undermined by an oafish and thuggish disposition.
This bleeds into the labor party structure. Sharon Burrow the President, and leading
Comrade,
within the
Australian Council of Trade Unions,
is in many ways the
face of labor.
|
A SLOW BURN CORE ELECTORAL ISSUE
Under the current system of preferential voting
we cannot be the winners in our system of democracy. We have allowed it to evolve
beyond examination, accountability and control. Our democracy has become a presidential system. We may elect a representative but they must follow the party direction and that of the
leader and cabinet. The parliaments of Australia are a pyramid of diminishing democracy. This means that the election campaigns are
managed and orcehestrated around two people. The true potential of the parliamentary system to produce
brilliance and interesting forums of campaigning ideas is stifled, dumbed down to mediocrity.
The polls claim that
Kevin Rudd, and the ALP, are moving ahead by a huge margin. The Prime Minister, John Howard, is withholding a number of
initiatives which he will unveil after APEC and in the run up to the election. This will be his last ditched effort. History, recorded in the Mosaic Portal web sits and
elsewhere will not view him with kindly and though it may be unpalatable he should consider the proposition that he has allowed some quite creepy things to happen and some very mercurial and
machiavellian ministers to run portfolios.
Equitable consideration and openness are not traits of any government.
The Australian Prime Ministership, according to much informed opinion,
is steeped in degradation of the nation's democracy. The greater number of people in Australia
are effectively denied participation in their democracy other than a vote.
Australia's public policy
performance at federal, sate and territory levels is not something that citizens find invigorating.
The Howard haters do not acknowledge that there are more labor party
senior politicians who
might wear the mantle of corrdoers of democracy, in 2007. They have made an art from of corroding their respective jurisdictional domains and manipulating for personal interest and that
of tyheir faithful supporters. These are Australian
political leaders such as Premiers Paul Lennon (Labor), Steve Bracks (Labor) and Peter Beattie (Labor). Of bygone eras, in the same league,
it may be argued are Gough Whitlam (Labor), Paul Keating (Labor), Bob Carr (Labor), Joe Bjelke Petersen (National) and Brian Burke (Labor). The modern government
uses its power to curb access to information, neuter the public services, turning them to government servants, acting with fear and favour or at least extreme care.
The internal media units of the respective political leaders appear unethical and even criminal in activity as they manipulate and deceive on behalf of the political employers.
Unelected political advisers behave as surrogate ministers and issue veiled threats or directions to public servants
and the wider Australian community. Commercial transaction documents, such as tenders demand silence from participants who are required to sign onerous deeds of confidentiuality and are
forbidden to talk to media. These tenders more and more contain etraordinary demands for liability, and indemnity, coverage from tenderers such as $A200,000,000 more for common services.
They contain threats and coercive clauses.
There are many definitions of corruption. Unarguably our democracy, and our rights of participation, and the quality of administration and public service has been
diminished by political intervention and selfish objectives. Australia exists under a political managerialism designed to
maintain power in the hands of the political elite within the labor and liberal parties and their appointed "mates" and special persons" to boards and committees.
Service and employment contracts are doled out and unethical and corrupt politicians are promoted through the ranks.
As for the ordinary person's role in governmment and democracy? We are merely required to turn up every few years and put a number in a box.
Then go back to our daily lives without seeking to interfere. To annoy or intefere is to invite disregard, hostility, ridicule and sometimes more than not,
retribution.
Kevin Rudd faces a daunting task to take government, labor needs to win seventeen seats. These seats are spread across the nation and some are marginal and some are not.
Statistically the task would appear to be against success. The unknown is the swininging voters and those who are prepared to move from the party they have supported - e.g liberal, national or independents
to labor, greens or democrats. An examination of marginal seats and movements will be undertaken over the coming months and will be posted here. These assessmenst wil be made according to the
methodologies set out at the base of this site.
|
SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST PAWNS IN A PUERILE GAME OF MEDIOCRITY
Former Prime Minister Paul Keating gave a spray to
the senior leaders and strategists of the federal Austrlian Labor Partry. He described them as ineffectual.
They rallied araound and came out with blistering responses demonstrating the full capacity of their artuculate minds and
capacity to engage and enthrall. They said Paul was very colourful and that Paul was Paul and that he was yesterdya's man.
Scintillating stuff. Kevin Rudd and the team galvanised me and I am ecstatically looking
forward to Rudd's win and formation of our national government with anticipation. What middles of mediocrity we can aspire to under these
intelectual giants. Paul Keating's assertions are on display every day in this campaign.
Labor politician, Tanya Pliebersek, attended the Smart Card Forum at Darling Harbour this week, 6th June 2007.
She was there in her capacity as spokesperson for the Community Services portfolio to give the labor party's view
on smart card chip technology particularly in its application to
government social programmes namely the Access Card. From my perspective the
sole objective of her orwellian and unsubstantiated assertions, was to oppose the government by veiled ridicule.
That was expected bhut what she probably did not realise was that her speech was riddled with
overtones belittling members' of the audience's contribution to productivity improvement in the public service. Her main
target was the federal government's
proposed
Access Card.
She referred to no other applications for technology to indicate she had the knowledge
of application for security, border control,
efficiency and cost savings across a wide range of activities and what lessins the Acces Card could provide to migrate
into a wider set of applications. Single mindedly she was there not to contribute to the knowledge base but to
tear down the work and aaspiratons of thousands of people involved in this vital industry sector.
Firstly she told us that we were in the middle of her political electorate and on the land of some non descript aboriginal tribe. We should no doubt be grateful.
This is an irksome ritual particularly when intoned regularly non aboriginals.
The politicians of all persuasion inthis nation have been unable to ease the plight of the aboriginal people and now resport to
hollow symbolism.
She then told the audience that labor had nothing against smart
cards just the implementation methodology and the
invasion of privacy and risks involved. What does implementation mean? For her it is solely the legislation.
It is not the physical technology and its impact on the public purse which will be profound in terms of benefits. Never mind that the assembled audience's capacity to deliver whatever protection is best in terms of privacy exceeds the politicians ability to frame
pages of legislation. Ms Pliebersek theorises that it is the the conspiracy ridden airheads who will protect the people's rights
rather than the technology practitioners who can build
chips in a card topology along with encrypted
databases that are so daunting to the hacker, and the fraudster, as to be economically unpalatable.
She tried to offer some justification for her derision claiming that the productivity measurements,
and savings,
used to justify the smart card were spurious. She did not believe the external experts, the public servants, the industry or the
government. Instead she knew and that was sufficient for her and her colleagues to trash years of work and effort and to condemn the nation to billions in fraud and waste.
There was no offered basis for her views
and it was unlikely that there might be one tendered, by her speech she demonstrated that she had absolutely no idea of the process to register and
issue cards to 16,500,000 people. She cited a twelve minute enrollment to actual personal card issuance cycle per applicant.
This is a fiction. She had concactinated the registration at one end and the verification of identity in the middle, done elsewhere,
and the final card issuance likely to occur some days later all into one simple minded step.
Not to worry, the audience, unlike the general public to whom she delivers this drivel, is well versed and she was challenged on this.
She gave a dissertation on the faults of the legislation which apparently must contain every solitary detail about smart cards and processes.
Apparently the parliamentarians cannot educate and inform themselves.
One of the most offensive elements of her talk was the
proposition that public servants might be bribed to sell people's data. Ms Pliebersek ignores the fact that
corruption is likely to occur in the political, and party, ranks of the
Australian Labor Party than in the Australian Public Service. One only has to look at the parliamentary makeup of the Bracks labor government in Victoria.
I always marvel at the denigration of the process of government and the public service by aspirant Ministerial candidates.
I try to imagine what it might be like working under her Ministry? Ms Pliebersek's obsession is privacy. Given her uninformed
perceptions of computer technology and security, the database was already at risk and would not
withstand hacking. Ms Pliebersek then had a short discussion with myself and a colleague. She appeared surprised when we
suggested that the supermarkets engaged in data matching to a far greater extent than any of
Australia's governments and that a data matching programme already existed in the federal government installed by those who came before the coalition, namely the labor government.
I got the impression that no matter what one said to her her mind was already made up. It was a closed space.
She was not there to learn, listen or justify, and
promptly turned to the waiting media informing them that when labor got in they would tear up the card. Never mind the billions being frauded against the public purse.
Labor's economic credentials are't that flash and so they can easily dismiss facts and condone fraud in pursuit of ideology.
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, and one of her staff, attended the forum for extensive periods, learning, listening and discussing as did one of federal Minister
Gary Nairn's advisers. These people engaged in debate. By comparison there were no labor aspirants or staffers to be seen which is typical. They might feel uncomfortable since they
appear by word and action to be wary of people in business and anyone who might have a differing opinion. They have little experience and knowledge of it.
The labor party front bench members and their advisers know it all. They are biased and closed minded to alternative opinions and in this they are unfit for high office.
They by comparison to the coalition party members and Ministers, seem unable to mix, preferring the company of the converted and like minded. The party touts education and training for the Australian nation but
this does not include themselves. Ms Pliebersek appeared to have little concept, probably even less care for the demographics of her audience.
It seems to have escaped Ms Pliebersek's thinking that one might actually commence the process of getting things underway whihc will take an extensive amount of time
and during this time the legislation and final decisions as to purging or
keeping data can be made. That might be all too common sensical. It is really debilitating, costly and often very wasteful,
at every level, to be involved in the public sector in Australia. Those who are not politically inclined, and employed,
invariably become pawns in a puerile game of one upmanship and mediocrity.
|
|
To go to the electoral result predictions by seat ....
click here
|
HOT AIR OR WHAT?
The Prime Minister's task force lead by Dr Peter Shergold has produced a plan for a carbon trading scheme.
It is not all that different from Labor's in its sketchiness but consistent with form the Prime Minister is couching the approach through the prism of the economy.
This is in itself not a bad approach if the report was in actual fact comprehensive. It is not. Hastily prepared it is limited in attribution and sourced research.
The report makes no reference to the
built environment. Why should it? Well because 40% of Australia's
gren house emissions are the direct effect of how we build and operate our constructed environment. Developers do it on the cheap and thus the buildings are not efficient and they
use vast amounts of electricity and energy with massive waste and impact on the environment at every level. Missed it did Dr Shergold? Oppos. That is a big hole in the report's ozone layer.
|
CREDIBILITY
The Australian government of John Howard risks being demolished due to its arrogance and isolationist practices.
There are some people who come across as very mean, and uncaring, in their minsiterial management styles.
The Howard ministers, their advisers and senior public servants
have managed and manipulated, isolating and even in some cases ruining those
who confront them.
When was it that dissent became akin to heresy.
The quality of the public service machine has come under the spotlight time and time again.
The mandarins of
the Australian federal public service, from Secretary level down to Assistant
Secretary, are subservient to the government even to the point that they corrupt decision making and withhold information from the parliament.
We can see what happens when a
nation fails to protect its most cherished possesion, its democracy.
We let them get away with it.
The lies about people over board, the gulag camps where our government put refugees,
the wars, torture, the maiming and killing of people, within and without Australia.
Would Kevin Rudd's government be any different than the other governments of the nation?
The answer appears to be no. The senior members of governments, and their chosen government servants, degrade
the hard working dedicated efforts of those below them in the parliaments and the public services.
The nation suffers under a festering rot eating at our polity .
|
ROLL OUT THE BIG FURPHY - THE CLIMATE
In 2003 Peter Costello, the Treasurer in Australia's government, together with Dr. David Kemp
put up a proposition to examine climate change.
The Prime Minister John Howard ensured that their proposition died on the vine.
The claim now by the Prime Minister that he
has any interest in climate change is viewed by many voters as a cyncial exercise, in political survival,
as has been his Prime Ministership in their eyes. John Howard never appeared interested in
debate or alternative views.
The ALP policy around
Climate change
talks of things out to 2050. Isn't that a bit of a stretch of the imagination. What sovereign governments will be in power, what will
the corporate and global world look like, what will be the technology over time? Rudd likes the hot rocks and thinks that geothermal can produce base laod.
This is the influence of the dream and fantasy members of the ALP the labor greenies lead by their hero,
Peter Garrett. On the other side of the equation, in the coalition, we have Malcolm Turnbull praising the
hollow rhetoric of George Bush who wants fifteen nations to agree on a plan which is nebulous. Malcolm says this is a good move.
The Australian government not yet realising that the electorate has moved slightly on from "its about the economy stupid" to a broader expectation are proferring a steady as she goes economic focus which
has spinning mirrors to point us to the caring attention to climate change policy. Industry has indicated that to make a carbon trading scheme work the price signal must be around $A30.00 per tonne or higher.
This would cause the conservative think tank members of government to choke on their weeties.
AMONG THE NATIONAL HOT BUTTON ISSUES
People might like to
educate themselves
about climate change
and other public policy
issues,
including emtive ones such as the move to
nuclear,
coal, gas and
energy.
Then there is
housing affordability.
Using the facilities of the Kevin R Beck Msoaic Portal
you can distil the hype and
disinformation, fantasy and denigration from fact and debate
that will increase as the debate heats up.
Performance pay for Teachers
WHO RUNS THE
SAME OLD LABOR
PARTY?
|
(May 28, 2007) Dean Mighell is a trade unionist in Victoria Australia. Unlike Kevin Rudd Mighell has tirelessly worked to
get his members pay rises. Substantial rises. Examination of Kevin Rudd's public sector career indicates that he may have diminished
peoples' careers during his time as a mandarin public servant in
Queensland. There he was derisively named for his ruthlessness, and more recenty pursuit of his own personal career seems to
have diminished his wife's business prospects. Similarly Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan, among other labor front benchers,
may have made little contribution in their roles to
working peoples' prospects.
Rudd attacked Deam Mighell for doing what he is supposed to do. The label "rough diamond" in relation to
language and hubris may be pertinent for Mighell but he is a tactician. In his world of the electrical trades he meets some of the
mean and unprincipaled people of the construction and building industry in Australia. It is a questionable industry requiring the government to create a
commission to oversight activity and corrupt practices.
Labor acknowledges this when Gillard said they would keep the Commission. Mr. Rudd probably has never sullied his hands dealing, and negotiating,
with these types,
instead he has met, and dealt with, with political criminals and manipulators. He meets with people who manipulate democracy and
truth every day of his working life. Mr Rudd and his colleagues have lectured us while his wife's company is paying $A0.45 cents an hour in lieu of benefits taken away and
some might think this is unprincipalled. He had Dean Mighell expelled from the Australian Labor Party for what he said in a meeting to members of his union.
The rest of Mighell's colleagues in the Australian Council of Trade Unions are mute. They are not people one might wnat as close
friends or colleagues anyway.
They are unlike Dean Mighell closet types who scheme and carry out their dirty strategies and processes behind closed doors whilst presenting a squeaky clean image to the world.
What cant on the part of Rudd and Gillard. Throwing Dean out of the ALP is tantamount is akin to throwing someone out of a brothel.
The blue collar division of the union movement, has never come across as the most enlightened, urbane and sophisticated arm of the
Australian trade union sector. Although Bill Shorten provides an exception. The average davocate and leader is deemed by many to be inarticulate and
less than stellar in the education and elarning stakes.
They are not subtle negotiators. Nor is Senator Bill Heffernan.
One could well see him as a trade union advocate shirt fronting people and engaging in smear and outright
disgusting diatribe. The Prime Minister borders on hypocrisy when one considers what Heffernan did to Justice Kirby in the High Court and how the Prime Minister allowed that
exercise in defamation and destruction of reputation was allowed to continue. Is it any wonder that the people of the nation have a low regard for
just about all of the parliamentary membership and the union movement and the corporater world? The
standards of our governments
and the leaders are viewed as suspect by the electorate.
Are we also to assume that Senator Abetz' support for Gunns Timber in Tasmania and the Premier of that state's actions and
ethics
are not in their own manner also
reprehensible? Is the apparent lack of a moral compass on the part of Premier Bracks, supporting
corrupt politicians and practices
any less reprehensible?
Why are the people whom Bracks protects and promotes not expelled for their activities? They do as
much damage to democracy and parliamentary process in Victoria. Or could it be that the definition of damage to be acted upon
by the labor party hierarchy is "how does this activity/person affect mine/our chances of winning power?" Rudd had Mighell resign from the party in a sham show of his control of unionists.
He may be very reticent to pick on a real ALP or union power broker, such as Kevin Reynolds in Western Australia or one in his home state of Queensland or the powerful NSW unions and ALP divisions there.
The author of the above comment, Kevin Beck, was a contracted union advocate for a Victorian power industry union between the years 1991 - 1994 during the privatisation of the State Electricity Commission, a former ALP Branch Secretary and a Victorian ALP Committee Member,
he has held honorary union positions in his past working career.
|
May 2007 and Kevin Rudd, the labor party federal leader, and his Deputy Ms Julia Gillard have demonstrated the most common characteristic of the
modern day politician is hypocrisy. The ALP has long derided the federal government's work choices legislation
and together with the Australian Council of Trade Unions,
have denigrated employers choosing examples from across the nation.
They have presented these as examples of exploitation.
Then, the wife of Kevin Rudd falls into the spotlight.
Her Australian based businesses are spotlighted for using the legislation. The difference, well she acquired the business from someone else and
the maintenance of those contracts well, that was a honest mistake. Everyone else in the nation is offered up as despicable
and out to defraud the workers of their hard won benefits. Ms Gillard was at pains to claim that she had never pilloried an actual business and that she had referred to quote her on the radio intreviews,
to the "general agreement", the "general agreement", the "general agreement".
She said it over and over and accentuated to ad nauseum her defence. The spin merchants had trained her in elocution.
Then Mr. Rudd says that this "gives pause for thought " before they go out and
simply attack business. The pause for thought would not have emerged if a close labor relationship was not involved. This is yet another reason
why I claim the nation is not served by the major political parties and their candidates in any government sphere in the country.
There is no valid argument why governments should intrude into human rsource management of the weorkforce by employers
other than to legislate for basic fairness. The award system is over prescriptive and an example of
the invasion by third parties who need to make themselves relevant. There is no productive or developmental benefit from the plethora of
industrial relations instruments. The
adversarial nature
of politics and government, and the
poor management
practices of many of the workplace, including the Australian federal and state public services,
works against productivity
and the achievement of individual, and
collective, potential.
Mr Rudd is an aspirant to become Prime Minister, and he has achieved and maintained significant
success ratings in polling since he bacme leader of the labor party. He and the party have maintained a significant lead over the government. The media expected, and so did the government, that the May 2007 budget statement would
level the playing field and would be reflected in the polls. It did not. The observers are perplexed. Bill Clinton's famous phrase - It's the economy stupid - has long been accepted as the ruling mantra.
According to the commentators and those expecting a certain outcome it is economic management that is the arbiter of voting patterns. Is this really the case?
One of the interesting dynamics in Australian society is the insular perspectives that shape peoples' perceptions in their work
and in their perceptions. Simplistically this may be stated as "not doing their homework". There is no doubt that most people have blinkered vision and as
dynamics alter over time they resort to the tried and tested outcomes they know. Thus they are confused.
The election outcome is unlikely to be annihilation as portrayed by the Prime Minister. There is some substance to his claim that the same faces
have been in charge. However I would argue that it is not about the faces it is about the modus operandi. It is about the shifty nature and secretive behaviour and a lack of
attention to detail. It is also about the deterioration of the public service, of management and ethics and some cavalier elements that pervade the
public sector and government. A lack of accountability and responsibility and the ever present, daily attempts by governments and the bureaucracies across the nations to transfer liability and accountability and risk to
others. It is about the sense of entitlement exhibited by politicians and senior bureaucrats and those with whom they associate in corporate and community life.
There is a perception that all governments in Australia are corrupt, ably lead by
Tasmania and Victoria
with NSW, Western Australia, galloping quickly behind. and certain enterprises have helped reinforce this notion,
AWB for example
Thus it is a cumulative effect. There are many multiple dislikes driving every voter not just one or two.
In Australia determination has moved from being "about the economy stupid to perhaps "it's about the type of government, and society, we want, stupid"
The propensity for members of the government to forever say that "that is wrong", "the fact is", "the reality is",
or that "there is nothing wrong" or "we did not know" or "we know best so shut up" has bitten the orator and it is payback time from the voter.
|
EMPLOYMENT POLICY IS NOT ABOUT YOU AND IT NEVER WAS AND NEVER WILL BE
The question I ask is - beyond specifying minimum conditions, why are governments at
state and federal level
pushing themselves into employment directives and working places?
I joined my first union as a student in 1969 and remained loyal for decades paying my fees.
I got my yearly pay increases, and benefits, argued in national wage cases that might have cost
$A600,000 to mount. So did everyone else whether they paid their union dues or not. From time to time I needed the union and noticed that
The service was limited or was qualified. As I rose through the ranks into management the union response, and service, level was commensurately
withdrawn and sometimes nonexistent. They do not relate to management unless it is the public sector where everyone is a manager and the union representative and shop steward is one of them.
Then I got into political and union circles, around the mid seventies and onwards into the nineties, holding formal elected office
and on occasions working for a union and I saw the inside the organisations over a period of many years. I had to get elected, or appointed for employment, and experienced the manner of control and manipulation of those elections.
I saw first hand the manner of operation, and the motivation, and the level of
skill and qualifiactions of organisers in unions (some 30 plus union organisations I have dealt with) particularly those representing unskilled workers. The Australian union movement, and the Australian Labor Party limit and control
participation by the rank and file of their organisations. Both organisations (uniosn and the Australian Labor Party) are ethically, and morally, corrupt, and manipulative, in this respect. They have managed to destroy any respect a person might have had and this may explain their dwindling relevance to
everyone except the unskilled worker.
I do not think the industrial relations debate and policy action by
either the Liberal and National (government) coalition, nor the
Australian Labor party's policy offerings are about fairness and protection for workers.
Nor are they fundamentally about economic prosperity. They are about the ideology
and personal vested interests of particular groups. They are about the owners of capital
and owners of trade union. The employees are relevant only to the extent that you are a necessary resource to both but they may not
value you
to the extent that they would give you the power to decide how your working relationship should be.
This is a broad statement and reflects mainly upon Australian owned, and managed, companies. The United States owned large corporations,
not the franchises like McDonalds and such, are more advanced in their human resources practices. Australian human resource managers are the servants of
the board and the CEO, they are not
the friends of the worker. Similarly behind the scenes the union organisers are going to appreciate their special relationships with management that develop where unions are influential.
As value for money, union fees are well down the list. The union organiser, the human resource people and the corporate managers like their personal
control, influence, special relationships and benefits that arise,
and they are there to manipulate the outcomes whilst engaging in the spin and misrepresentation that is
becoming the hallmark of Australian working life and much in our society including our governments.
The employers, and the division managerial people, and perhaps the local union organiser (if they are present) and most particularly the company
human resources manager and personnel, in those organisations, derive their self esteem from their roles, and they
do not want to
share their power.
Where unions are not present these people definitely do not want to
have to deal with trade union leaders and organisers who can cause them to do things that they normally would not do. The organisers want collective
bargaining because it keeps them in a job, first and foremost and secondly
they would have no personal power or influence without it. The union leaders similarly want collective bargaining for this reason. It protects their world and gives them a future.
The Australian labor Party, full of ex trade union incumbents are party to this understanding. They know how they got to their membership of parliaments. It is a sinecure granted to them at public expense.
These candidates are foisted on the local community.
Without the incestuous club (unions and labor party) the parliamentarians and the union organisers, and leaders,
would be just like anybody else, seeking to carve out a career, and their prestige and image would be as
affected as the
managers of companies who have been forced to grudgingly (with gritted teeth)acknowledge union power and power crazed individuals, in a bygone era.
There are organisers that would never get a similar role in any other organisation.
So if you think you have bargaining power at your place of work, you may be an unusual case, but generally you should get real and wake up. You have none for when it comes
down to their interests versus your interests you will always come off second best for
"operational reasons".
One lesson I have learnt over the years is that the liberal and national governments are more likely to adjust their policies and responses based on
popular opinion, logical argument or pure combative pressures where the Australian Labor Party (ALP) is not. The ALP is made up of people of limited commercial and world experience and have limited awareness of the
complex operation of networks and the things that the coalition knows because it is part of those networks. The ALP operates on the fringes and rarely if ever turns up in
the circles in which decisions are made. The federal LP is under the delusion that with government comes power and control.
So if you are in the business of doing business then it is unlikely that
you will get satisfaction from the ALP or their affiliates. They like slogans - the Smart State for example, the motto of Queensland, is one that
is an obvious oxymoron. Similarly New South Wales proposes a dilemma. Do you want to do business with unions NSW as representatives of the state and federal government?
Why would you then vote in a state government, and federal government, if they are the role models? You have a better chance of getting John Howard and the coalition to change their policies
including the precious employment law.
A MEDIOCRE POORLY MANAGED THEATRE RATHER THAN A PARLIAMENT OF TRUE REPRESENTATIVES AND QUALITY ACTS
Once every three, to four, years the Australian population as a whole gets to
have an input into their various governments. Voting is compulsory. This means that for the rest of the time except during the campaign period the
greater number of the
population can be ignored. Political parties do all of the heavy lifting at election time and
the system is managed and the elections are presidential. Compulsory voting is a method of controlling destiny, minimising risk and
maintaining power. There are only two choices - labor or liberal. They are roughly indistinguishable because they are all focused on one
trigger - the economy. The rhetoric and lies as to who can do a better job. Given that who will govern is determined by a mere few thousand votes across the nation,
delivering the most number of seats by a handful sometimes less than one hundred, the bulk of voters are irrelevant. They know it and
todayb in 207 they do not like that fact. The politicians have treated the people of the nation as nothing but pawns in their
own games. They have stolen the democracy and the government and they are in the eyes of many all a bit flaky.
The liberal and national party in government interact with slightly more people than labor does. The Australian Labor party under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard
is easily mockable because their policies, and conceptual understanding of the nation's mosaic,
are framed in isolation of reality and a vacuum of awareness. They are far more partisan than the coalition with a limited gene pool of
thought and contribution. It is an indisputable fact that they are captive to the union power brokers and do deny it as Rudd does is to treat the electorate as stupid and blind, deaf and dumb.
Australia's federal parliament has a preponderance of people who come
from adversarial backgrounds. They are invariably lawyers, trade unionists and others used to head kicking, living in dog eat dog worlds and they revel in the
imagery of the parliament as a battle ground. Thus the concept of parliament as a mature house of debate and the process of government as a
bargaining place is lost. The practice, amongst other tactical stategies, in the Australian parliament is to use the tactics of spin, misrepresentation,
belittlement, threats and derogatory condescension and
put down.
There is no support and training and very little
mentoring within the parliament for members, particularly independent, and minor party, members.
People are left to fend for themselves. They all too often learn the negatives
of the environment and then translate their experiences, and attitudes,
into the external and
they meet a different reality. It is incongruous that a person is elected to parliament
and then given minimal resources, and assistance, to do their role. The reason is that the members of labor and the liberal party are
are all there to be promoted to the select roles and they are not interested in assisting others to perform. This would
lead me to question why the senior politicians are good leaders and role models to run the country.
The management of the federal parliament by the two
major parties, labor and liberal, is both immature and mean. They are more interested
in maintaining their own control
than reforming the parliament to make it effective.
Question time is a
farce and the behaviour and game playing is ignorant. It clearly shows that the quality of people entering the parliament is not reflective of the
best that our society has to offer.
These people steal the democracy and the government
from the people of Australia. Policy is framed on ideology and political grounds not on
what is best for the nation. The litmus test used by the Prime John Howard and
the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, is
whether the Sydney Telegraph Newspaper Editor accepts the policy and/or Sydney Broadcaster Alan Jones has something to say about it.
The most important institution in the nation is not a role model of best practice.
Whilst best practice is hard to define one knows when something is not best practice.
This web site tracks the federal election, party by party, member by member, electorate by electorate, and provides mechanisms for
individual citizen, and interest group, participation, though such participation may not be well received.
Nevertheless if we do not seek to participate, and do not persist, then we may as well meekly accept was is given to us. A limited democracy owned, manipulated and
managed by a minority.
LET'S BE A RICH COUNTRY AND A CREEPY ONE TOO
MORE CREEPY STUFF FROM THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
The actions of the Howard government and certain Ministers and bureaucrats has trarnished
the government's image in the perceptions of a very large number of voters.
These perceptions range from a loss of reputation, ethical and moral values and Australia's place in the world.
One particular person decsribed some of the government's mInisters as "creepy".
These views, rather than being divided between the traditional party breakdown permeate boundaries.
There is some resonance with the description. What is not clear is how this will translate into votes.
It may be that the Prime Minister has to jettison some of his front bench Ministers if he is to have any hope of
being returned to government in the case of this perception biting. It will bite. However the stubborn resistance to acknowledgement of such uncomfortable relaities demonstrated in the
Prime Minister's demeanour over his time in office probably preclude this happening. Perhaps some of the Ministers may choose to go themselves.
According to some voters stories, particularly those who reside in Canberra, there are "creepy" things going on, behind the scenes, in many of the Australian government Ministerial
portfolios and Departments. Stories, and exposes, are bubbling to the surface in the media, in the courts and in a myriad of other ways. The deaprtments deemed most "creep" and suspect are,
Immigration, Workplace Relations and Foreign Affairs. Some bureaucrats tarnished in these areas have reloacted and are out of the spotlight but still remain likely to feel retribution if labor comes tro power.
Kevin Rudd says that he will leave the Australian Public Service senior structure as it is. This is not beleived.
Preception of the government mean, callous and creepy are causing some
demographics of voter opinion to swing violently. The Australian Capiotal territory is always likely to vote labor so
it is no surprise, however pockets of liberal territory acrosss the nation are disturbed.
Creepy feeelings can over ride the feeling of being comfortable and trusting in voters.
It is no longer "about the economy stupid". Below are but a few the
thousands of examples
which are chronicled in books, thesis papers, media acrhives and across the
Portal web sites.
It is the little things that can change opinion and put a sour taste in the mouth. Yesterday (Friday 18 May, 2007) I was thinking that
there was not too much about the Australian government that some of us could not tolerate if it meant that
we could make money and live comfortably. Richard Alston's mercurial and Machiavellian policies on broadcasting
lead me, and others, to buy set top digital conversion boxes, several years, which now have
multiple signals of the same programmes on five or six different commercial streams and no real digital choice. Waiting, waiting, waiting ....then it was all changed at great
expense to everyone except Richard Alston.
The bad smell of the behaviour of the government, and the creepy acts of its past,
regarding the Iraq war, torture of people, the squalid immigration department and the
creepy exploits
of the Australian government had faded in memory. Abu Graihb, is that spelt right? The rendition, whatever that emans, practices of the USA, flying people all over the world
to avoid legal niceties and to engage in torturing them outside of caring jurisdictons. Iraq is mentioned every day on the news. David Hicks is according to creep people a major risk and this
poor stupid sod requires a private jet to bring him back and
a team of police and dogs in convoy to meet him. This is both creepy and immature and demonstrates that there are some serious questions about
the rationality, capacity and sanity of some people in public office in Australia. There is the Tampa Boat episode, Siev X, people drwoning in the sea while bureaucrats eat dinner, payment of millions of dolars of bribes to Sudam Hussein by people who deny knwoing they did it. The we have our government
putting people in camps in remote islands and a litany
of quite creepy actions. This is an advanced nation. Then why does it have all of these questionable things going on day after day? However time makes it fade until ....
May 17, 2007, when Kevin Andrews, Minister for Dysentery and Teresa Gambaro (Assistant Minister)(Department of Dysentery aka: Immigration, formerly under Philip Ruddock and Amanda Vanstone, requires specail tlents and unqiue political appointments to the portfolio)
reminded us that there are a lot of creepy things about the government.
The most creepy, and decrepit, Ministerial portfolio, and department, within the government is by far immigration. It is interesting that teh same skill set needed to be Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations may be applicable to this portfolio.
Here one can find the cave dwellers who deport Australians, and lock up people with a
mental disability because they are
incompetent and inhuman process servers. The Department has had a cavalcade of Ministers, and senior managers, and yet nothing seems to change. They just remain creepy. The bile that they acn generate seems endless.
The creepy tendencies of the Australian government, emerge from time to time,
to feed the xenophobic and vile bigotry of a great number of Australians
and the government feeds of fear. The Minister and his
Department have produced the
Australian citizenship test.
If you thought you might have a look at the sample test by clicking on the Australian government web site then think again.
"The page you are looking for cannot be found. This website was
recently redesigned to make it easier and faster for you to find the
information you need. This means the bookmarks and addresses you have
used in the past will no longer work." (Extract page:
http://www.citizenship.gov.au/news/General_Qs.htm).
It is not uncommon for a web site that is controversial to be shut down or disappear.
Workplace Relations interestingly has as reputation for the disappearing page and statistics.
There are certain Ministers who remove material and limit access consistently. Forget about freedom of information there is no such right under
Australia's managed government, none of them, state, territory or federal.
A series
of up to 200 questions that
can be asked of those who aspire to become Australians. Never mind that we do not teach history in Australian schools, and many of our universities and non of out Tafe Institutes,
any more but a euphemistic mix of social studies. The average Australian is a dill and
would not be able to meet the 60% pass rate of this test. Look at the twenty sample
questions below
published in the Australian Newspaper.
1. Which colours are represented on the Australian flag?
a. Green and yellow
b. Red, black and yellow
c. Blue, red and white
d. Orange and purple
2. Indigenous people have lived in Australia for ...
a. At least 40,000 years
b. About 8000 years
c. About 800 years
d. Less that 400 years
3. Australia's national flower is the ...
a. Rose
b. Wattle
c. Kangaroo paw
d. Banksia
4. Which is a popular sport in Australia?
a. Ice hockey
b. Water polo
c. Cricket
d. Table tennis
5. Australia's political system is a ...
a. Parliamentary democracy
b. Monarchy
c. Dictatorship
d. Socialist state
6. The Capital of Australia is...
a. Sydney
b. Melbourne
c. Hobart
d. Canberra
7. Which animals are on the Australian Coat of Arms?
a. Wombat and echidna
b. Kangaroo and emu
c. Kangaroo and dingo
d. Lion and unicorn
8. Where did the first European settlers to Australia come from?
a. Spain
b. France
c. England
d. Ireland
9. Who is Australia's head of state?
a. Prime Minister John Howard
b. Queen Elizabeth II
c. Governor General Michael Jeffery
d. Premier Steve Bracks
10. Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia?
a. Sir Edmund Barton
b. Sir Henry Parkes
c. John Curtin
d. Sir Robert Menzies
11. What song is Australia's national anthem?
a. God Save the Queen
b. Star Spangled Banner
c. Advance Australia Fair
d. Waltzing Matilda
12. What do you call the elected head of a state government?
a. Governor
b. Premier
c. Mayor
d. Prime Minister
13. Which federal political party or parties are in power?
a. Australian Labor Party
b. Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens
c. National Party
d. Liberal Party and National Party
14. Which of the following are Australian values?
a. Men and women are equal
b. `A fair go'
c. Mateship
d. All of the above
15. Australia's values are based on the ...
a. Teachings of the Koran
b. The Judaeo-Christian tradition
c. Catholicism
d. Secularism
16. What does Anzac Day commemorate?
a. The Gallipoli landing
b. Armistice Day
c. The Battle of the Somme
d. Victory in the Pacific
17. In what year did the first European settlers arrive?
a. 1801
b. 1770
c. 1788
d. 1505
18. How many states are there in Australia?
a. 5
b. 6
c. 7
d. 8
19. Australian soldiers fought in ...
a. World War I and World War II
b. Korean War
c. Vietnam War
d. All of the above
20. What is Australia's biggest river system?
a. The Murray Darling
b. The Murrumbidgee
c The Yarra
d. The Mississippi
Kevin Andrews was formerly the Minister for
Workplace Relations.
Now there is another creep set of hidden and nasty surprises for the unwary. It is the Workplace Relations Act.
Minister Kevin Andrews is a dedicated, hard working and process type manager of the portfolios he is given.
However process workers can get the government into a pickle. He was moved because he is inept at reading beyond the
walls of his office and it appears that he is not a team player. If he was he would not have unloaded this tripe in the
early stages of the federal election campaign demonstrating just how politically inept
he can be.
This
ill conceived
and mediocre bit of work by Minister
Andrews et al, turns people who have
ethics,
and a moral conscience, off.
The dull and non thinking in our society and those
who talk, and behave, as if they are part of
a frightened
little species probably think this is good.
The people who like these sort of policies are employed in the Australian
commercial media and in the Australian Immigration Department among other places.
locations. The man who should be Minister for Immigration is over looked because he has the audacity to speak his mind and
show his colleagues that some of them are indeed creepy in their thinking and cold in their hearts.
" A Needless Test for Citizenship, speech by Petro Georgiou, Liberal MHR
for Kooyong
Since Australian citizenship was created in 1949,
and our country began its massive immigration program,
successive governments have chosen an inclusive approach to citizenship.
Discrimination against non-English-speaking migrants was ended;
English-language requirements were eased; residency requirements
were reduced and then made equal for all; discriminatory voting
privileges were addressed; dual citizenship was allowed; and all
were required to attend a citizenship ceremony. The belief was that
if we encouraged and embraced migrants who wanted to become Australians,
we would build a better and stronger nation.
The inclusiveness of our approach to citizenship has been sustained
through massive changes in the racial and cultural composition of our migrant intake.
We have sometimes felt anxious about the speed and magnitude of this change.
But Australia has held fast and not compromised its belief in inclusiveness.
And we have been vindicated by history. The society we have produced is not perfect.
It is, however, a society which is arguably the most successful,
unified and harmonious multicultural nation in the world.
Nonetheless, in 2007, the Parliament will be asked to reverse the historic
direction of inclusiveness, and Government and Opposition seem inclined to do so.
Our current system requires applicants to demonstrate a basic knowledge of English
and an understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.
These are assessed at a compulsory interview. What is proposed is that these will be replaced by a more difficult
and complex "formal citizenship test".
New requirements will include English-language comprehension and an
understanding of Australian values, institutions, traditions and symbols.
These would be assessed via a computer-based, 30-question, multiple-choice test.
What is involved even if it is not intended is a fundamental
political and social regression that will erect unreasonable and
unnecessary barriers to citizenship.
We are told that we need a tougher citizenship test because today
Australia faces the unprecedented challenge posed by migrants coming
from cultures far removed from our own, and from the cultures of European migrants.
The facts do not support this assertion.
The magnitude of the change from Europe to Asia in the
1980s created a perception that there was an "Asian immigration crisis".
Some believed that the cultural difference between Asians and Australia's
traditional migrant source cultures posed fundamental problems for Australia.
There were calls to reduce the intake from Asia. Australia held its nerve.
The contribution and commitment of Asian Australians was recognised.
Apart from the shift from European to Asian sources of immigrants,
here have been no other major changes in our migrant intake.
The Middle Eastern component of our total migrant intake has remained
a steady 5 per cent for 30 years. Over that same period, the proportion
of New Zealanders has increased by 6 per cent, and so has the proportion
of migrants from Africa. In the decade after the fall of Saigon,
we took in 100,000 Indo-Chinese, 12 per cent of our migrant intake.
By contrast, the Sudanese comprised 2.1 per cent of our intake over the last decade.
The statistics refute the claim that taking in migrants
from cultures far removed from our own is a new challenge.
Australia met that challenge 30 years ago, when the centre of gravity
of our intake swung from Europe to Asia and stayed there.
Our present citizenship test is said to be too easy. "Many people" are
described as taking out citizenship without commitment, just for the sake
of a passport, and without understanding the pledge they are making.
These are significant charges. The only basis for them is a single,
unsourced assertion that at one citizenship ceremony a number of people
left before the national anthem was sung. It is difficult to imagine a flimsier
basis on which to launch a major reversal of a policy direction that has stood
the test of time for almost 60 years.
If it is true that the present test allows people to take out citizenship
because it is easy just for an Australian passport one would not expect
large numbers of people not to take up the opportunity. In fact,
that is precisely what happens. Almost a million permanent Australian
residents choose not to become citizens, despite the fact that they are
eligible to do so, and that they could readily pass the current test.
It is said that imposing a tougher English-language test is necessary
because it will provide a "real incentive" for migrants to learn English.
I absolutely believe that it is of the utmost importance that people are
encouraged and supported to learn English: it benefits them, their families,
and the community. English as the national language and the promotion of its
acquisition have always been central tenets of Australian multiculturalism.
The community consensus, shared by both migrants and native-born, is thatthe greater
one's ability to take advantage of the opportunities that Australia has to offer.
The concern I have about this aspect of the proposal is that
it assumes without evidence that many migrants are unmotivated or
resistant to learning English and that the threat of denial of citizenship
is an appropriate and effective spur to get them to study harder.
This profoundly misunderstands the migrant experience.
Migrants do recognise the centrality of English in Australian society.
Before using the stick of the denial of citizenship to penalise people,
it is incumbent upon us to establish the nature and extent of limits
on English-language fluency. Do certain immigrants not want to learn, or are
they stymied by the lack of availability of classes? Are they fully occupied
in meeting other demands, such as employment and family responsibilities?
Are there simply limits on how much English some people can learn?
Proponents of the test argue that we should follow Britain,
Canada, the US and the Netherlands countries that are "well ahead" in
introducing a "formal" citizenship test.
But no evidence has been provided that the tests in these countries have
been effective. The British test, which is the preferred model, was
introduced just over one year ago. It is certainly too soon to assess
its long-term impact.
Moreover, why do we feel that we have to
follow other countries? Australia has an unsurpassed record of
multicultural harmony and integration. Why should we abandon our
history and experience and seek to mimic countries with less distinguished
achievements? We long ago got over our cultural cringe. We should not revert
to it in an area where our achievements make Australia worthy of emulation by others.
Can we reassure Australians by imposing a uniform identity on people who
want to become citizens? Many of us have a notion of what an Australian identity is.
The problem is that our concepts are not necessarily the same. The specifics of any
elaborated Australian identity have been endlessly contested.
We need to recognise that definitions of national identity and national
values are not fixed but are constantly in flux. Indeed, they can sometimes
change at breakneck speed.
Toughening the laws on citizenship and excluding migrants who want to commit
to Australia but who cannot jump the higher hurdle of a literacy test may
reassure some people, projecting images of unity and conformity. I do not
believe we should make it harder for people to become citizens in order to
project an illusory reassurance."
JOHN HOWARD BRINGS UP THE BIG GUNS
The budget analysed, by Glibert and Tobin
click here
The budget analysed, by Deloitte
click here
A budget analysis May 2007, click
here
Key highlights of the Australian government 2007
federal budget
|
|
To go to the electoral result predictions by seat ....
click here
|
THE BUDGET REPLY BY KEVIN RUDD
To follow labor's progress in the election, through their own eyes, scroll down
to the E-Herald feed
in this site, your active content must be turned on.
(May, 10, 2007) Kevin Rudd opened his budget reply speech, in the Australian Parliament, with the annoying trait he displays in media interviews and which has come to
denote his style. The posing of questions and metaphors which he uses to paint nebulous pictures of a changing mosaic that rambles.
An oscillation of thoughts which he then goes on to answer. There is a lot of motherhood,
showcasing Kevin Rudd's self perception of his eloquence. He risks
losing the audience's interest. He lost mine after five minutes but I persisted because one has to make informed judgements.
According to Mr. Rudd there is apparently nothing good about any of the nation's policies and any plans for the future. Every opportunity is missed and we must not waste a day more.
Is he serious? According to that we are slipping backwards until we elect him and then he will save us.
There is to be no innovation and action by Australian individuals to be considered of worth. Australia is on hold! Please Prime Minister call the election today lest the nation is irreparably damaged and irretrievable.
Coupled with his own and his deputy's presentation style (speech) and visual look,
these are not flash presentations by an means and they definitely do not inspire.
The use of the slogan is a major element of Kevin Rudd's political campaign - grandiose, meaningless whaffle like this - "labor's education revolution".
Is he so arrogant, and unthinking, that it is necessary to belittle the efforts of those who have created and taught in our systems. He seems to be a well educated product of a system that, according to labor,
has failed.
The use of the slogan is an immature exercise by someone incapable of stringing different words together.
More insidiously it is designed to entrench a simple concept in the limited mind of the recipient. This is a subliminal programming technique.
Say it over and over, ad nauseum. These are the offerings from the media advisers and strategists They really are warts on the election process and on
democracy. These word smiths play a major role in
the denigration of modern political debate and ensure that articulate speech requirements are minimised less the
people become confused by big words, new words and concepts.
Mr Rudd is a puppet to this irksome technique. He would do well to study the Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, who is a powerful orator.
Mr. Rudd could
go on the Big Brothers set, live in the house, and blather on
with airhead statements and be as effective, perhaps more so.
The new plank in his education revolution
is to turn every Australian secondary school into a technical workshop facility. His
policy allocates $A1,5,000,000 per school for workshop facilities with a laboratory, trade shop, hospitality and other.
There is no mention in his speech as to how he might go about imbuing life long learning (whichb has never been in existence in Australia as a policy) in order to
attract people into education and training. There is a continual assumption in labor ranks that if they have more and more training and more
and more education facilities, courses, locations and offerings, that
this leads to participation and productivity. This is naive. Labor's policies are being framed in isolation of reality and the logical inclusion of
alternative opinion, barriers and obstructions including the antipathy Australians have to deep education and learning.
The youth of today has been taught that this is an on demand, truncated and least effort world where everything can be delivered quickly and at least cost and effort on their part.
Labor is so blinkered as to oppose a person's right tp pay for their own university education instead of going into debt to the government through the
Higher Education Scheme (debt deferred) system that they want to grow. Learn now and pay later.
There is no mention as to where the skilled trades teachers might come from.
We do not have enough skilled trades people for industry in Australia and given that they can earn $A100,000 plus per year, why woud they want to teach for $A36,000 - $A50,000?
He is offering several thousand dollars for teachers to go to Summer School. Why does he think they will take up the offer? All of this off the top of the head, thought up by a closed shop of
ill informed labor think tank types. There is no research and much of the policy created by labor is "narrow interest driven" (e.g Industrial Relations policy)or anecdotal
talk fests - "gee that would be a good idea" - emanating from the
minds of a few. This is not a party of collaborative thinking that invites contribution. It is a limited show sitting in the darkness and whispering.
Labor ignores the Australian government initiative on technical colleges, being implemented in concert with the private sector and
local communities. This is because the puerile approach of our political parties is to act independently and to waste taxpayers resources dreaming up new offerings designed to win them office.
This flies in the face of fiscal responsibility for any of them.
The superannuation clearing house moves the role of distributing worker's superannuation payments from employer to bureaucracy. This is another "politically inspired" motivator to try and get industry support whilst wasting taxpayer's money and public service time.
Late payment is a hallmark of the government and what makes Kevin Rudd think he can stem it? He wants to fine the departments by paying interest
on the bill. Is Kevin Rudd the accountant for the
private sector as a whole or the Prime Minister in waiting?
GILLARD WANTS TO PLAY CONTACT POLITICS"
"HEATHER EWART: Things are not off to a great start, with BHP taking the unusual step of
issuing a statement slamming Labor's plans and Julia Gillard was quoted in one newspaper this
morning as saying politics was a contact sport and not a wise place for business to be if it didn't want to get injured on the field.
JOHN HOWARD: When you talk about companies getting injured, that sounds to me like Julia Gillard, who'd be Deputy
Prime Minister in a Labor Government, saying to business, "If you speak out in support of Coalition policies and we win, we'll bash you up".
(Source: Miners rail at Labor's IR policy, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 7.30 Report, Broadcast: 01/05/2007, Reporter: Heather Ewart)
April 2007: Julia Gillard is the right hand of labor leader Kevin Rudd. Together they have demonstrated a capacity for hubris and arrogance. Ms Gillard's statement of the football analogy
demonstrtaes a lack of understanding of just who she is damaging and annoying and the actual operation of politics and government in Australia - the reality versus her theoretical perception.
The first people to feel the affects of her ignorance are her onw constituent coleagues, the trade unionists who enjoy good woring relationships with
the owners of enterprises and managers where they work. Some take that relationship to a personal interest level enjoying access to places others do not go, business luncheons and dinners, clubs, the
corporate travel and other perks. Some are given expense money and on the list of hidden largesse and relationships may go according to the imagination.
A seasoned Minister of government, in the case of the labor party such as Martin Ferguson, Simon Crean, Kim Beazley and John Faulkner among others
know that there is a distinct lead time and gap between aspirational objectives in office and the ability to get those up. Objectives can be thwarted in advertently or with intention by opposition interests and I do not mean political.
In the years 2000 - 2004 the Australian government under John Howard produced via Industry Minister (at the time) Nick Minchin, a blue print for
magnesium development as a plank in the resources strategy. The strategy largely hinged on the predictions for success Australian Magnesium and its relationship with the Ford Motor Company.
It is likely that no one in the Australian or state governments particularly Queensland, the bureaucracy or CSIRO and the wider market
realised that there were powerful interests opposing Queensland magnesium operating offshore inb the wider world. Australian Magnesium collapsed taking with it the
Australian government magnesium vehicle. All of the other clamouring aspirants of the day have failed to materialise.
One aspirant Pacific Magnesium, a listed company, undertook a deep global research and visitation programme across the world and as a result
shifted its investment activities
out of magnesium into other sectors of the industry well before the collapse of the government policy objective. It is not clear why the same signs and
warnings were not detected by others who claimed expertise and insight. There are many other examples in the corporate world that impact into the
political zone. State governments, and federal agencies, across Australia feel them every day but all too often are oblivious. The
Access Card
is another example along with EMV migration.
The broadband debate and the realisation of Kevin Rudd's nebulous
nationwide high speed super Internet network and on and on.
Opposition to a political party, government and corporate objective even though such objective may be legislated can result in the
"unexpected" detection of flaws,
unseen barriers to the implementation and then comes actual obstruction.
Ms Gillard needs to be far more perceptive and think about the powers she thinks she will have and the
vagaries of government and process before she trumpets threats based on those perceptions. What are the answers to
questions
about the labor party industrial relations policy in action?
She should also be circumspect, least she entice the attention of, over the horizon very sophisticated and well resourced
"game players"
as well as the known vested interests of business, politics and community who are wiloing to test her mettle , resolve and abilities of her political
staff and for that matter the people who are employed to advise Kevin Rudd. The Australian government of John Howard knows all to well how the hidden game players can set the
agenda running.
Ms Gillard apparently has no
strategic methodology
by which she plans, operates and re-examines her position and reaction. Are we seeking another Medicare Gold exercise where she fails to read the signs?
From time to time she must learn to eat humble pie and back track quickly and then regain momentum. She faces corporations, and a myriad of forces, that exceed the size and capacity of the Australian government let alone the
federal Department she might have at her disposal if she manages to win government with her colleagues.
Is this a lesson she will take to heart and learn from or does she just see it as a media exercise? The reality is far different and more painful than she is currently experiencing and she may be
:politically injured" if she plays hardball without protection.
Kevin Rudd, labor leader demonstrates personal foibles that diminish stature
Editorial Comment: Kevin R Beck, April 30, 2007.
On the weekend of 28th - 30th April 2007 the
Australian Labor Party
held its annual conference.
This was to be the showcase for the new leader, Kevin Rudd, to demonstrate his capacity to unite the party and to become the Prime Minister of Australia. He waded through the history of the party and then proceeded to denigrate the
Prime Minister John Howard on the basis of his age. Rudd clearly is biased and ageist and seems to imply that if you are in your sixties - seventies then you cannot function
in positions of accountability and responsibility. Rudd told the conference that he was "here to help" signalling the extent of his hubris.
" Rudd attacks Howard at Labor conference, April 27, 2007 - 9:09AM, Source: the Age Newspaper
"Labor Leader Kevin Rudd has opened the ALP national conference with a fierce attack on
Prime Minister John Howard, calling him arrogant and out of touch.
Mr Rudd ridiculed Mr Howard as being stuck in the days of black and white television and said
his climate change scepticism was like believing Elvis Presley was still alive.
Entering the Sydney Convention Centre to a specially-commissioned song, A Change In the Weather,
an embrace from his wife Therese Rein and a standing ovation,
Mr Rudd introduced himself by saying: "My name is Kevin, I'm from Queensland, and I'm here to help."
Thousands of people across the nation must today feel that the pimply faced academic rhetoric trotted out by Kevin Rudd
is insulting. Kevin Rudd is insulting.
Kevin Rudd does not need to have any third party present when he does media interviews and speeches. He poses and answers his own questions and behaves as an
arrogant self opinionated person with a
compunction towards belittlement. There is a tendency to cast a face that tends to
see itself as superior in intellect and capacity. On the basis of Rudd's behaviour he raises extensive questions as to his maturity and ability to govern the nation for everyone.
On the basis of his performance to date he is positioning to govern for himself and a select cabal. (Kevin R Beck, April 2007)
"Editorial: ALP is still fighting the wrong enemy, April 28, 2007, Source: The Australian newspaper
Labor has failed to grasp why John Howard is a winner
ON the eve of Kevin Rudd's challenge to Kim Beazley for the ALP leadership late last year we said that Labor's crisis was
rooted in denial about what drives John Howard's success. We said Labor would continue to struggle so long as it remained
wedded to an ideology about the Howard Government that was disconnected from the reality and the day-to-day experience of voters."
The Australian labor Party is seeking via this election to control government in Australia.
One can determine their capacity for this onerous obligation by examining the
public policy
platforms, policies and the performance of the various labor governments throughout the nation.
Kevin Rudd and Labor's
clean coal initiative
Rudd's hopes for coal 'not viable', Sean Parnell, News Limited, May 03, 2007:
LABOR'S favoured clean-coal technology project was not yet financially viable and investors
would be turned away if Kevin Rudd kept using it in the political debate over climate change.
The warning from federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane yesterday came as the Opposition
Leader and Queensland Premier Peter Beattie called for the commonwealth to fund the ZeroGen project in central Queensland.
Mr Macfarlane said other projects had been backed under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund and there was a good reason ZeroGen had not.
Mr Macfarlane said the ZeroGen team - backed by the state-owned Stanwell corporation, which hopes to build a
zero-emission, or near-zero-emission, coal-fired power station in Queensland by 2011 - withdrew its original funding application.
"They couldn't get the project to stack up - it was too expensive," he said."
Does Kevin Rudd Need To Save Families From Capitalism?
Peter Saunders - Policy
|
|
AUSTRALIA'S ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AND POLITICAL PARTIES |
| Australian Elections and Political Parties |
| Australian Federal Elections |
| Electoral Commission |
| Public Record |
| Australia Political World News Archives |
| Political Journals Listed in the Australian National Library |
| Representation |
The Greens Party may well be the ethical party with the consciousness of public interest. Unfortunately they appear to have little
economic sense and almost no negotiating ability. Because they lack experience and
will not compromise they cannot get bills through parliaments. They are
zealots, oblivious that incremental wins build foundations. They ride on the
wagon of emotive debates of the time e.g. climate change, uranium and environment, without ever knowing how to
create a balance that
might deliver an outcome of worth. For them irrational solutions are the only foundation of the future, a c-change shock wave approach.
Blinkered to any other view, they harp, voicing varying levels of hysteria.
Greens
|
| Nationals |
| Liberals |
|
Labor |
| Democrats |
|
Family First Party |
"The independent MPs in the House of Representatives have launched ICAN - the Independent Candidates Advisory Network to provide advice, support, and
a focal point for people interested in standing as true representatives of the people at future elections.
Peter Andren, Member for Calare, Tony Windsor, Member for
New England and Bob Katter, Member for Kennedy launched
ICAN at Parliament House this morning and introduced former
Telstra Country Wide Manager Mr Gavin Priestley, as the co-ordinator of
ICAN."
The media had a flurry of interest and Bob katter in Queensland managed to turn it into a circus
and some have derided and dismissed it. The real intellectual clout of this new group derives from long standing successful independent,
Peter Andren.
|
|
|
|
Labor First Bloggers
|
LF Bloggers Catalogue
Varied bloggers and independents
|
Here are the document distribution utilities
using technology designed to communicate to, and interact with, politicians, governments, public officials, executives at every level in corporations, associations,
institutions, communities, interest groups and individuals across the web.
If this section is blank turn your active content on.
Article Archives
About governments, corporations, people and events, research and ideas |
Communication Tools and Tutorials
|
|
Who is
Kevin R Beck? |
Search just beyond the horizon of your awareness, and experience, and you will
find Kevin R Beck and his technology and human networks.
Engaging every day, distilling the complexity of human intentions, and reactions, and possible voting behaviours from many sources
using
technology research tools
and methodologies on a scale that is vast. Well beyond what you would expect of a webologist, a blogger, activist or interested citizen and by stander. Kevin R Beck's mosaic
networks of technology and people are inside your world now. |
| I am active in many of the federal electorates and
have already joined the campaign dance unseen. It's
what I do.
|
THE METHODOLOGIES
The material, and commentary, below is assembled from the resources and sources of the Mosaic Portal using all of its
utilities.
Material is also drawn from
conversations, survey and research tools,
opinion
and personal
forums.
The opinions and public commentary of interest groups particularly
politically active
ones are examined. Comparisons are made against a wide range of
discussion groups
and purchased data. material from consumer and interest groups and individuals who provide opinions,
commentary and feedback on issues and trends across Australia. In addition a wide network of
associates, across Australia and internationally, is used to
seek out opinions, anecdotal and reliable sources of information.
Discussion Group Compositions
There is a core, constant number, totalling seventy - thirty five men and thirty five women.
Additional people participate from time to time. They live in Darwin, Brisbane, Port Douglas,
Sydney, regional and rural centres, northern NSW, Bathurst and surrounds, Canberra, regional and rural Victoria, Melbourne and Geelong, Hobart, Perth and Adelaide in both affluent and less affluent suburbs. Their income levels range from zero to $500,000 +.
Their age ranges are from tenns (non voting, tertiary students and young adults (voting), to seventy years of age.
The occupations of the females are:- students at secondary and tertiary institutions, stay at home, media and advertising, small business owners,
accounting, law, management,
administration and sales, public service, agriculture and services, current and former politicians. Three are currently politically active in local branch campaigns.
The occupations of males are:- engineering, management, law, pharmacy, electrical trades, agriculture and services, public service,
small business owners, sales, telecomunications, energy, finance and property, construction and resources, current and former politicians.
One is active in local branch campaigns, state and federal.
In addition, as we travel we ask questions of people in a myriad of electorates
across the nation. We also look at media polls and web based surveys,
political research institutes,
and other organisations that undertake analysis and
utilise other methods of distilling information.
Content is received from an extraordinary number of
diverse references,
many people and
technology resources.
The mosaic portal in part represents the multifaceted
activities, and interests, of the designer and owner Kevin R Beck and the human network with which he interacts. |
The owner of this web site, Kevin R Beck, has never been acknowledged as a sephologist even though the record of accurate predictions
of elections at state and federal level is recorded in the pages of the
Mosaic Portal. The owner of this site, among other things, accurately anticipated and published the predicted defeat of Jeff Kenntt by Steve Bracks,
well before the election was run, the win by Claire Martin in the
Northern Territory, the increase in votes for the national party at the 2004 federal election and the defeat of
labor member Christian Zahra in the federal seat of McMillan. In the Victorian state election of November 2006 he also
predicted the loss of seats, by the Labor Party, in Morwell and Narracan to the coalition party in the
Latrobe Valley region of Victoria.
Privacy Statement, Uses and Motivation
Beyond the horizon of awareness, the
breadth of the Mosaic Portal
Users - all web sites, blogs and forums
|
The directory of the Mosaic Portal
|
OBJECTIVES OF THIS WEB SITE
The owner, Kevin R Beck
of Melbourne
Australia, is an
entrepreneurial service provider
who believes strongly in participative
democracy, government accountability and the
public interest.
He firstly wants to provide
readers with sources of information about Australian election coverage and reporting,
news and events.
The second objective is to bring
diverse opinions and perspectives from people beyond the
horizon of the politicians, their political staff, advisers and the parties.
Beyond the awareness of pollsters, commentators and psephologists.
The 2007 election is the first in Australia to be fought under traditional scenarios
and the new dimensions of technology represented by the tools on display in this site and the
distribution, and interactive, capabilities of the websites attributed in this site, and the
content, and utilities, in all of the referenced, and linked, sites.
These electronics tools enable many more people to participate, quickly, to communicate and distribute opinions and campiagn materials.
The amount of information available to allow more sephologists, and election commentators and watchers, to
predict
outcomes, scenarios and
activities, across a broader interactive spectrum, is extensive when compared to other services.
The owner personally seeks out material, opinions and influences, not known, apparent, ignored or overlooked and provides this information through the
web.
This is another free to use, and informative, web site of
the Kevin R Beck worldwide
Mosaic Portal
web network.
|
|
To go to the electoral result predictions by seat ....
click here
|
Why do I bother with this web site
and with any attempt at interacting with governments, polity and the public service, when participation, and information, is controlled and manipulated?
Why bother spending money, doing research and persisting, including orchestrating, and implementing strategies and actions? Why, accept and try to
carry out assignments when barriers are placed in the way or are designed to maintain control?
Australia's democracy, and parliamentary systems, are corroded and corrupted by an elitist, self interested and indulgent
minority. Representation is limited and controlled. The parliaments of Australia are
neutered, managed and belittled by the labor and liberal/national coalition as if the peoples' houses are their property and right.
We have no Bill of Rights, we have no independent, a-political public service leadership. We have bureaucracies that waste
tens even hundreds of millions of taxpayer and private sector money and cannot deliver services. We have no rights to freedom of speech
other than those implied narrowly by the High Court. Those who speak out, or argue, and object are belittled, roduculed, insulted and subjected to recrimination and retaliation. There is no lauding of the whistleblower
through protective legislation designed to facilitate the [ublic interest. The public interest is defined as the political interest.
Freedom of information is a right not a privilege.
There is change about to sweep Australia. It is growing in intensity and action.
Commercial and other interests
not normally engaged in
grass roots activity are
becoming involved. They are seeking new ways to interact
meaningfully with government, public service
and individual politicians beyond mere lobbying. Where the overtures for this cooperative involvement, and working in new productive ways,
are rejectd by the politician, the advisers
or the public service then tactics to break down the barriers, and compel participation and cooperation, shall be applied. Individuals will no longer be able to hide and avoid accountability.
There is concern at the avidance of accountability and the deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility. The cost of public service ineptitude, incompetence and partisanship. They are concerned at the lack of responsibility
and care. Engaging in tenders, enquiries and initiatives, with Australia's public services, cost thousands of dollars and in some cases tens of millions often goes nowhere or the processes are nonsensical.
The public services, the political party machinery, the politicalm advisers and the Ministers, and the local electoral staff and representatives,
have not yet caught onto the extent of this interaction.
I marvel at the naivety, and lack of awareness, as to the existence of undercurrents
. |
|
|
|
