Another web site within the Mosaic Portal network, created by
Kevin Beck
|
Another web site within the Mosaic Portal network, created by Kevin Beck |
|
Click to go to Kevin Beck Commentary and Articles |
Kevin Rudd Australia |
Julia Gillard Australia |
New South Wales | Victoria | Queensland | Australia Climate Change |
|
IMPORTANT
every portal page uses scripting to update content.
So turn your active content on.
|
 Politics, Governments and Business |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEAR MONGERING, SPIN AND LIES Irrational responses to the perceived threat of the "bikie" gang member had prompted the South Australian government to bring in draconian laws that over ride the presumption of innocence. Politicians, and the benders and shapers of Australian society, react with inane and over the top responses and dramatic claimsa nd assumptions. Most reently bikie gang members beat an opposition member to death in Sydney airport. Australia's Prime Minister, the NSW Premier and the rest of society's guardians ignored the failure of the Australian Federal Police, under the dead hand of Police Commisssioner Mick Keelty, who described the response by police to be "within the accepted response parameters", to instead po9ntificate about the ned to transpose the South Australian laws to NSW and elsewhere. Kevin Rudd gave one of his considered media responses. He looks seriously into the camera and carefully speaks each word for impact. They are characterised by wordy, carefully phrased, and enunciated crock, of dull motherhood pharses, including words such as - zero tolerance and unacceptable. He intoned that I have today asked the Attorney General's to .... he portays a funereal seriousnessness designed to make Australia's most senior bureaucrat politician appear to be doing something whilst not actually doing anything. The Prime Minister is ably supported by an off8ce which is taking on areputation for playing light and easy with the truth. Plausible demial is not even a consideration in their immediate reaction to questioning, They simply deny, true or not. But that is another issue around the accepted lack of ethics by political leaders regarding their staff. The issue tranpoding these laws to other states was already on the agenda and this was just a rehash. Victoria and Queensland state governments are opposed. They seem to have a higher regrad for the value of law and justice than the "hyper reactive, community protection" at all costs Premiers of other states. The Prime Minister might well look, with zero tolerance, at the state of security for the Sydney airport and the less than impressive record of his government, and the previous one, for all aiports. At the same time, with zero tolerance, he might look at the continued record of failure, and seemingly questionable competence of a senior public servant, the federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty who may, through his management of Australia's national police force, pose a real, and present, danger to Australia. ("Making voters fearful", Kevin Beck) |
|
|
|
The state of the Australian political system leaves a lot to be desired. The research, policy and decisokn making of the politocal parties and their bureaucracies is mediocre. The two major parties, labor and liberal, have taken Australia's democracy and marginalised participation, corrodng and corrupting it along the way. The behaviour of a small number of party apparatchiks and political leaders usurp it as their own for their own self interest. The parliaments and the bureaucracies are in decay. Public policy is framed, reactive and spun to whatever political message and intent is required for the avoidance of accountability and the maintenance of power. Governments are captive to Treasury Departments. Thiscreates a society that is often cruel and disgregarding of the less fortunate. The society is divided into two segments. The haves and those who need the safety net. The public services are ignorant and appear to lack heart. They are detached from humanity slavishly following the whim and demands of the power brokers. The parliaments are ineffective and dysfunctional as house of the people. In November 2007 the nation had a federal election. The outcome was an indication of teh malaise of the nation and the inability of voters to judge, with full information and knowledge. Advertising was biased and often misleading. The result was a win by labor on a 0.1% margin or 12,000 votes. The candidates, in the marginal seats, were not enlightening, nor visionary. They were lack lustre and thus the vote was almost evenly divided. There is no faith in govermments. Wec see a rise in activism and demands for reforms evidenced by groups such as Get Up. The liberalk oppositions across Australia squabble and in Victoria tyhe leader Ted Ballieu deludes himself that the party has goals and values that are embraced by the community at large. The same recycled members of the party sit in the parliaments and blather about how they can reinvent tehmeslves and have another go. The spoils of public office are good enough even if they never make the government benches. Similarly the federal liberal party has members in parliament who are openly disliked by many of the nation's voters but who occupy safe voting liberal seats where a number of the voters are as corroded as the elected candidate. The former Prime Minister John Howard foisted these individuals on the nation as Ministers of parliament. They were reprehensible in policy and action terms. The federal liberal party reflects the cancer eating at the heart of the state parties. Labor is no better with corrupt and inept governments in place. In Queensland a young aboriginal girl is constantluy pack raped over a number of years and she was never protected even when in the care of the state government child protection services. The Victorian senior labor parliamentary leadership refuse to create an independent Crime and Misconduct Commission. Political speak is riddled with slogans and media spin terms - families, working families, climate change, economic conservative - politricians have no minds of their own and are shaped by the parasitic media adviser who adds no value to the nation's democracy but feeds hungrily on the public purse. Similarly political advisers usurp the power of Ministers and publicservants meekly jump to their demands. ("Public ofice and voter perception in Australia, Kevin Beck0 |
| Dirty Energy and Health |
 |
| John O'Sullivan was working in the office of federal Minister Kevin Andrews, in 2006, he was appointed from that role to the bench of the Federal Magistrates Court. He had had three years practical experience as a lawyer. The former Attorney general of NSW, Bob Debus, appointed Jacqueline Trad as a state magistrate in 2005. She was a policy adviser in his office. She took out her practicing certificate three months before appointment. In Queensland, Ann Lyons was appointed to the Supreme Court despite never having practiced as a barrister, the only experience appears to be as President of the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal. Mark Richardson went from the Law Society CEO role to a magistrate appointment. He had limited courtroom experience. Nicola Pain had been appointed by Bob Debus, in 2002, as a judge on the NSW Land and Environment Court. Her experience seems to have been in the environmental movement legal arena. She was Acting Director of the Environmental Defender's Office prior to appointment. The nation awaits the announcement, by the Australian government, of the two replacement justices for the High Court of Australia due in 2006 - 2007. There is no implication that the above people are not eminently qualified, but there is a perception. What is the process and where is the separation? ("The Doctrine of Separation", Kevin Beck |
|
Nicholas Stern made climate an economic issue for the Howard government ... click here. |
|
The debate on climate change in Australia largely focuses on greenhouse gases and emissions from carbon dioxide plant. The commercfial television media seem unable to deliver a balanced and in depth debate. Invariably they will look for the controversial hook. The Greens and protagonists, convinced as to their righteous knowledge and awareness will not countenance any alternative opinions and counterviews. Many other attributes, and influences, are either never mentioned by pro-global warming politicians, environmentalists, journalists (print and electronic) and the fear mongerers who spread doom, such as water vapour in the lower atmosphere, particles in the atmosphere (other than carbon), the shape and density of clouds, the state of the oceans, solar radiation and the vegetable storage base impact the temperature of the planet. It suits Australian Labor Party politicians, Anthony Albanese and music celebrity turned politician Peter Garrett, to cloud issues, demigrate doubters and adopt populist perspectives, arguments and theories without allowing an open and deep debate to flourish. To do so would move the labor, greens and flakey presentations, and messages, from largely hysterical, unscientific cant to factually based informative substance. They, and others concentrate on carbon dioxide and fossil fuel burning, which does create pollution and assist diseases. However carbon dioxide only occupies a small part of the gases in the atmosphere overall. It is a sscondary greenhouse gas. Water vapour is the largest component. Greenhouse ases are a small part of the structure of the planet and its atmosphere and land and water masses. Nor will they talk of the average annual surface air temperature of the planet which is circa 14.3 degrees celsius. It should be hotter higher up if greenhouse gases were a culprit. One hundred and fifty years ago the temperature was around 13.6 degrees celsius. The satellite measurement of temperature in the upper atmosphere is somewhat lower. There is evidence that the world is warming but we do not know why. Sea leevls rise as continental ice sheets melt. Volcanoes cause dust and massive changes in the structure of the earth and atmosphere. There is no talk of the earth's orobit around the sun. There is no clear evidence that what we are experiencing in Australia's drought is unusual or never before experienced. Maybe we were not there when it happened last. Most of the journalists writing in the media today were definitely not there and many are semi literate in the science and in many other things. This is a complex system in which we live yet political, media and self interested message creators want to simplify everything. Perhaps the factor that is most relevant, and glossed over is that citizens are not passive observers in this matter. We are active. People, business, community and others change things well beyond the horizon of the politicians and the media and the self opinionated experts and idealistic and ideological participants. The United Nations tried to crate an international convention and typically one of the most ignorant and self opinionated nations on eartrh, the USA, blocked any implementation. Australia followed suit. Was this spoiling? I do not know. Is there rational debate progressing. No. In Australia we are the last to react because firstly our governments do not want to upset partisan interests, the participants in things want to limit access and participation by outsiders and we are to some extent an immature, inexperienced and under educated, nation at many levels of our society and particularly so in business. This means our learning curve is steep. We as a society are now, even minimally, looking at the consequences of our actions and decisions. One thing we must not do is turn this into a morality debate. The faith believers point the finger and acll anyone who diasgrees a moral vandal. This is one reason why the Greens party in Australia has little representation of value in parliaments. It is the party of hysteria, and moral crusades, and should be discounted until the members learn to moderate, negotiate and compromise on sound facts rather than ideological principles as their driver. A new threat arises to rational investment it is called "ethical investing". Are we focusing on determining and mandating moral behaviour of companies? That would be an uphill battle in most, if not all, cases. Companies do not meet the same ethical, or moral principles, we see in society at large. We must pursue this debate adn analysis, conversation and policy framework development, implementation and modification methodically. We must draw on sound scientific principles and research. Until Kevin Rudd demonstrates that the labor party can do this his contribution will be dismissable or only controversially included. Peter Garrett has not demonstrated the capacity for mature and balanced debate yet. His contribution is in the vein of the World Wildlife Fund. One framed with moral overtones and condemnation. If we tried to argue demand side restraint or a mix of technologies including nuclear, "Manipulating the Climate", Kevin Beck) |
|
|
|
Water is Australia's most public, and prominent, policy failure of all of Australia's governments, since federation. Under the Australian Constitution the state governmets are responsible for water. There is no more glaring example (other than every other type of infrastructure) of state government, and public service ineptitude, than the issue of water. For almopst a decade Labor Party governments have failed to think and act in the public interest. The people of every state must now endure the burden of punishment for their incompetence. Punishment! When it is their arrogance and inmcompetence in office! What a cheek these useless, and perhaps worthless to public value, politicians and bureaucrats have Today 29th December 2006, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Peter McGuaran, proposed that the Commonwealath take over the management of water, particularly where major river systems cross the borders. Mr. McGauran accused the states of failing in their constitutional duty. This is not idle politicking and pointing the finger, this is fact. The governments of the past and the current incumbents of many years, the labor party, have been derelict. The issue of water has been evident as a critical priority for the past seven years and all state and territory governments have failed to develop appropriate policies and actions. Industry has even be more reprehensible in their waste. They use drinking water to cool coal fired power stations, to slosh around petrochemical plants to detect petrol leaks, radiator repair companies flush radiators with clean drinking wtare and there many other examples of extreme waste in industry processes. The cotton and rice farms, an industry Australia should not be in, consune gigalitres of the precious resource whilst our river systems suffocate and die. These are not good corporate citizens. Enter any term into Google such as "industry wastes water in Australia", "industry use of drinking water in Australia" and you might expect to find heaps of information. There is very little. Industry lobbysists are effective and there is no national study into how much water industry is using and why they are not using recycled water. ("Water Politics in Australia", Kevin Beck) |
|
There is a concerted, and sustained effort, to
hide the statistics and the examples. The big corporations subtly, or sometimes blatantly,
threaten governments that they will move to a place where the government is more prone to giving them benefits or
less vigilant. Industry threatens with the "crystal ball gaze" about loss of jobs. The cost to industry to retool and reengineer for
better practice is great. Naturally all will argue that a focus on saving water consumption is preferable to investment that is costly. There is some merit.
Australian businessman Mr. Pratt offered to spend millions on developing solutions if his investment was matched.
One study
demonstrated the enormous potential. Among other things Mr. Pratt wanted to pipe water and to cover
the canals. His entreaty fell on deaf ears. It is this polite indifference, and disregard, for
external contribution that deters quality candiadtes from enetring parliament adn saddles the nation with the state and territory with mediocrity.
There are a number of exceptions, but none of them are in leadership positions.
The
Council of Australian Governments' record
demonstrates this point quite adequately in the following extract.
|
|
"An independent assessment in 2001 stated that progress in allocating water
for the environment in an adaptive management framework is less than
satisfactory in a number of jurisdictions.
Most jurisdictions have not been able to provide evidence
of ecological outcomes of delivering water for the environment
for a number of reasons, including: slow and sometimes absent progress in implementation of key reform programs poorly developed tools for demonstrating ecological outcomes long time lags between implementation and measurable outcomes under-funded or non-existent programs for assessing ecological outcomes. Source: Jones, G Whittington, J McKay, J Arthington, A Lawrence, I Cartwright, S and Cullen, P 2001, Independent assessment of jurisdictional reports on the environmental achievements of the COAG Water Reforms, Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra, 16 Nov 2005 "No jurisdiction has provided environmental water allocations for all of its river systems. While most jurisdictions have made some progress (NSW, VIC, WA, QLD, ACT, SA), considerably more needs to be done; for example, the unregulated systems of NSW, more than half the rivers of QLD, the River Murray in all States, significant parts of VIC and SA, and all of TAS and NT. Source: Jones, G Whittington, J McKay, J Arthington, A Lawrence, I Cartwright, S and Cullen, P 2001, Independent assessment of jurisdictional reports on the environmental achievements of the COAG Water Reforms, Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra, 16 Nov 2005, link as above, http://freshwater.canberra.edu.au. |
|
"That's why the days of complacency
about water have got to end. We've got to be on the
front foot. We cannot be solely reliant on surface water resources which are climate
dependent. We have to recognise that we must put in place the water our cities need.
Now, we can afford to do so, and the point that the Prime Minister and I have been
making repeatedly is that urban water is a very profitable business. That's why
these water utilities pay such big dividends to their government owners. There's been
a failure to invest, which has suited state governments and some local governments
because they have pocketed the cash, but now they've got to spend it. There is plenty
of money in the system for water. Money is not the problem.
What's missing has been leadership and determination from the states." (Source: Malcolm Turnbull, Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, 7.30 report, broadcast 26 September 2006)"
Now these governments are panicked. ("Australia, water water everywhere and not a drop to spare", Kevin Beck) |
|
Victoria both
government and the spokesperson of a particular corporate water utility lead the way in stupidity.
Queensland
is as profligerate in its waste, and inept, in policy and action.
Yet we cannot hold governments to account when the very people who elect them fail to participate in their own democracy. The average Australian is a ignoramus when it comes to politics and valuing their democracy. They disengage. When something causes their lives to be impacted they all clamour loudly and stridently. Suddenly they all have opinions, most of them unfounded or gleaned from tabloids, radio shock jocks and shalllow, allarmist current affairs productions put out by Australia's mediocre, commercial television producers and programmers. The average citizen's only participation is (some do not bother) to turn up and vote every so often. The key members of the political parties, particularly the unions, like it that way. They do not want their cosy control and clubby atmosphere altered by spirited participation and debate. The average citizen is impervious. "The average Australian uses around 100,000 tonnes of water in a lifetime – far more than is in keeping with the continent’s natural aridity and episodicity. Creating a society whose water use is attuned to the natural cycles represents a huge challenge to our awareness, ability to share knowledge and our behaviour, akin to any of the great social and attitudinal changes of the past century. Contemporary science is handicapped by its relative inability to engage the wider society in an effective discourse leading to the uptake of new knowledge. Much of what we discover is not widely shared, and suspicion and mistrust of science are growing." Souce: Australian Academy of Science and Engineering ("Citizen participation in Australian democracy", Kevin Beck) |
|
Other than in political circles, debate
is left largely to a few institutions and a handful of
organisations
who claim the issue as their province limiting the community participation
to being "spoken at". This is the style of politics and governance, we are spoken at. We are not invited to
become involved. We can write
submissions
to parliamentaary committees
and enquiries but the governments of Australia
in most cases shelve these in the libraries of the peoples' houses. They
imply in these papers a desire for participation and interaction but it must be on their terms.
Participation in democracy is deliberately made
uninviting and one must persist often with recrimination and even abuse. We have few champions against the
overbearing hypocrisy and mendacity of our modern Australian governments.
Extract: "Auditors-general who avoid topics which fall within their mandate, just because they are contentious, fail the community. They ought to make lawful comment on matters which concern parliament and the public. And in most of Australia’s nine jurisdictions, auditors are the only appointed public officers who are empowered to make such a contribution. If they absent themselves, the topic is left to elected officers, politicians, whose views are often tainted by partisanship and too frequently by hypocrisy." Source: Democratic Audit of Australia – March 2005 POLiTICAL FINANCE & GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING WORKSHOP – 25 February 2006 The Auditor-General’s Role in Politics, Tony Harris, Former New South Wales Auditor-General The state governments, all run by the Labor Party, have simply ignored the Auditors General reports on infrastructure. Instead abuse, and denigratuio, is the style of these governmments. Senior Ministers do not sully their hands. Back benchers, of the type that infest the Victorian labor government use parliamentary privilege within this "coward's castle". Lacking the intellectual fire power to contribute substance in parliament many are consumed with minutae and inane irrelevancies that add no value for the salary and benefits they are paid. Here is an example of the quality of analysis, and contribution, of one of the members of the Victorian parliament. " Extract Victorian parliament August 22, 2006: Liberal Party: Clayton candidate, Mr LEIGHTON (Preston) — I have been reading a political blog written by Kevin R. Beck, who has some loopy ideas. He has made inane and racist comments about the member for Clayton, and much of his criticism of the member for Clayton is repeated word for word in a letter on page 8 of the Monash Journal of Monday, 21 August 2006. This letter has in fact plagiarised Beck’s blog, which is gross dishonesty...." The expression of opinion is not invited. Reform is glacial Potential partnerships between the states and the Commonwealth are fractured with arochial politics, self interest and egotistical "pissing up a wall" antics. The state governments' collective responses to this grave social and economic problem will be dealt with by restrictions, fines "Mandatory Water RestrictionsLevel 3 mandatory water restrictions now apply across Sydney, Illawarra and ... The restrictions apply to all Sydney Water customers including residents, ... www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/WaterRestrictions/" (Google) "Melbourne Water : Water : Water Storages : Water StoragesRestriction stages are triggered when the amount of water in our storages falls ... Melbourne will move to Stage 3 water restrictions from Monday 1 January. ... www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water/water_storages/water_storages.asp" (Google) "Qld Water Commission : Level 4 restrictions start 1 NovemberLevel 4 water restrictions come into effect tomorrow with the Queensland Water Commission asking business, industry and government agencies to do more to ... www.qwc.qld.gov.au/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=41" (Google) ("Denigrating and denying participation in Australia's democracy, the political cartel", Kevin Beck) |
|
"ACTEW - Water Conservation: Information pertaining to water restrictions in the ACT. ... Permanent Water Conservation Measures and Temporary Water Restrictions are mandatory. ...
www.actew.com.au/conservation/default.aspx"(Google)
Drought Response and Water Restrictions - SA WaterClick here to find out if you are covered by water restrictions or permanent water ... Level 3 water restrictions on the way click here for details ... www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Environment/WaterRestrictionsConservationMeasures/" (Google) and of course these will be accompanied by threats. Out of the closet will come the little corporate autocrat. ("Water politics", Kevin Beck) |
|
Friday 29 December 2006, a smirking water utility spokesperson explained with muted glee how
they could restrict the water flow to conusmers by closing the valve that feeds the mains supply to the house.
This is the autocratic style of the middle executive in Australian corporations when they smell power and influence. Gros stupidity in stoking fear and emotional response.
The Victorian government was unavailable for comment.
"Vic water wasters to face shower bans, December 29, 2006 - 5:59AM, Ser under tough new water bans. Stage three restrictions, beginning on New Years Day, will enable water authorities to cut water pressure to wasteful homes, News Limited reports. Under the drastic move, offending householders would not have enough water to shower." (Source Sydney Morning Herald) This would follow the usual fines and warnings which are the state governments' primary weapon in addressing public policy issues. The spin doctors will begin the campaign to tell us that it is the cosnujmer who is primarily to blame. The media will follow the stpry and look for the serila waster and out them to the world. The charge wil lead by the mediocre current affairs programmes of Channel Nine, Seven and Ten across Australia. Poe faced presenters will dramatise and concoct feigned outrage. "New laws that come into force in the new year will allow Melbourne water authorities to punish households that flout water saving rules. Stage three water restrictions will apply in Melbourne from Monday. People who do not comply can be hit with fines of more than $420, and water authorities will also be able to restrict the supply to serial offenders. The head of South East Water, Dennis Cavagna says repeat offenders will have their water reduced to a trickle. "It is a very a harsh measure, I wouldn't like to have my water restricted because it means it's nearly impossible to have a shower, you can have a cup of tea but it's a very restricted flow," he said." (Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, News on Line) Why bother engaging with government, and the policy implementers, when they have directly failed to do the job fro which they are employed? Public service departmental heads have been silent on this issue. Perhaps they have been gagged by their political masters? The decision makers have failed to undertake research and development, build infrastructure and to create solutions decades ago. They are fundamentally inept and invariably turn to thuggish, and punitive, solutions. To actually build infrastucture in Australia would indeed be a novel idea. A wily person might patent the concept of "politician thinking and acting in the public good and interest with attendant drawings". The Minister for Water in Victoria Australia, the Honourable John Thwaites, announced, in April 2007, that water charges would rise between 8% and 20& depending upon where the water was being delivered and the infrastructure value. For decades the government of the state, as with the governemnts of all Australian jurisdictions, have neglected building dams any form of water infrastructure. We are in crisis and these failures of our administration pompously pronounce without, any acceptance of dereliction of duty or accountability. They see an opportunity to gather revenue. We have no system of bringing our politicians to account. Since the major parties control the candidates and electoral processes they ensure their survival at minimum personal cost. They are cannibals in the politicals esne that they will eat their own if their personal survival is threatened. One wonders what they may come up with to overcome the perfect storm enveloping them? ("The long political drink", Kevin Beck) |
|
For Kevin Rudd's dashing entry to the federal labor party parliamentary leadership go to the 2007 federal election site The leader of the Australian Labor party in the federal parliament is Kim Beazley. He seems to be oblivious to the proposition that he has a lame duck front bench, since two of his shadow ministerial members have lost labor pre-selection for the 2007 federal election. Since the party members do not think they are worth their salt why does he think that the people of the nation should have to put up with lower standards and competencies? Kim Beazley cannot, under even the best conditions, deliver a labor win against John Howard except by the liberals making a massive number of blunders. It is indeed a disgrace that Beazley might assume that voters are ignorant and he may assume the office of Prime Minister, based, not on his ability and that of his colleagues, but on the failure of the incumbent government. Kim Beazley is inable to clearly articulate any topic. He dissembles and waffles losing his audeince in a rambling wind bag delivery style. His is a convoluted leadership of inconsistency and empty thetoric. Theories, and words, rather than a blue print by whihc the nation may go forward. The Kim Beazley's policies (which apparently are not the labor party's, are not that flash that they attract huge support in the broad community. The party rarely conveys them. They stick them on a web site in the vein hope that somone may care to look at them. Such arrogance to call them Beazley's policies. Why are they not the collective policies of the labor party members? Why have the other parliamentary members if they cannot think up some to add to the mix? Why not have aa Rudd policy, a Gillard policy? The Beazley approach to government, lies in the "Caesar" model. It is an insult to democracy and representation. This truth will hit Mr. Beazley in 2007 and it will hit the party. The Beazley office starethists, the office staff and the faithful supporters behave as if they are in a fortress under siege. They do not reply to correspondence, do not seek out meetings byond their own cosntituents and do not canvass broad or external opinions. They are besotted with a style of omnipotence eschewing any external interaction that does not suit their view of the world and the future. This is in stark contrast to the consrevative government of John Howrad, where Ministers and their staff seek out broad input even if it is not in keeping with their own politics or beliefs. They appear ready to change their policies, and decisions, if convinced. The dilemma for the labor party is that many parliamentary members, and party officials, want him removed as leader but they do not seem to see their options clearly. The party will do much better when they elect Julia Gillard as the first female leader of the opposition, in 2007, and ask Kim Beazley to retire from federal politics along with a large number of current parliamentary members. His interests and those of his supporters should not be placed above the public interest as they are now. His career interests are not synonymous with the public interest as Mr. Beazley appears to believe and would have the people believe this also. Water, a critical resource, is a focus of public policy in 2006 in Australia. The state governments of Australia have been derelict in the nation over decades. They have failed to maintain and build infrastructure. They have preferred to take the dividends from the utilities into their coffers to be squandered. They will not build dams, will not cover the canals and will not build pipelines. We consume the greater amount of our water in regional areas and we lose about 70% of that in evaporation. The governments are obsessed with surplus, risk averse and anti-capital works investment. Public policy is something akin to political policy. No matter how much advice they receive they ignorantly continue with their own objectives. They will only change course if their control and retention of elected seat in the parliament is threatened. ("Australian Governance", Kevin Beck)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AN OBSESSION WITH ECONOMY The former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, famously said - "its about the economy stupid". Today in Australia the central political message and policy platform is economy. The examination of policy and its worth by the media, political and other interests and business, is through the narrow prism of economy. Kenneth Davidson, says in an editorial in Dissent, Number 23, Autumn Winter 2007, "the utility of economists depends on them serving the interests of the most powerful groups in society." He theorises that they provide soft power to reinforce particular policies. Economists can tell very complex stories and in doing so can make politicians and corporate executives feel good about their behaviour and decisions. In the week of April 26, 2004 economists predicted, expected and theorised that the inflation graph for the quarter would rise to near the threshold that the Reserve Bank of Australia finds acceptable. It did not happen. It fell. Earlier in the year they had predicted rate rises by the central bank. They did not occur. The record performance of, and analysis by, the Australian and Productivity Commission and the Australian Departments of Treasury and Finance are not good. ("Australia power and soxciety", Kevin Beck) |
|
(September 2007) The Australian government created an umbrella department within the social services portfolio. It is called the Department of Human Services (DHS). Among its portfolio of activities it is responsible for the implementation of the government's Access Card. The government's Australian identity card under another name. A single smart card that would replace some 17 - 21 existing government cards and vouchers. The justification is to make payments efficient and transparent, reduce paperwork and increase productivity and efficiency in the public service. It would also make access to eligible, and approved, social security and otherdesc ribes the justification for the Department. The existing departments, Centrelink and Medicare, among others,were not enamoured with its creation. Particularly the senior ranks. If DHS achieves its objectives it will take control of $A100 billion of taxpayers funds making it a super agency. The governments et about trying to convince the people of Australia that the smart card was not an identity card. The Department assisted. This is not true. It is, among other things, an identity card. The Department plans to create a separate and monolithic compuetr system which contains, on line in real time, files of people, pictures and data, linked to external systems in other state and territory jurisdictions. The system stores the image pictuire and data in a format that make it capable of being used in surveillance and other activities. The government could simply upgrade the Medicare card with a chip and make it a transaction card in the same manner as for the Access Card. The Minister, Christopher Ellison, could do this now, under regulation. There is no indication that his performance in this portfolio, as for his last in Justice, will be anything other than mediocre. While he dithers the cost runs into the hundreds of millions. The problem for the government is the identity issue and the data they now hold. The database for the current social and medical welfare system is extremely corrupted and unreliable. The population would havew to be reenrolled to make a new database. There is no need for a photo on the card. The Access Card is such a hot political potato that the original Secretary, Ms Patricia Scott was removed from the role to be replaced by a seasoned senior bureaucrat, Ms Helen Williams AO. The Department under Ms Scott had hired external consultants, for millions of dollars whose knowledge, ability and value is can be really questioned. DHS has cost the Australian taxpayer tens of millions without return and would if allowed to proceed create a new technology system in the hundreds of millions that has questionable value and intenty. In addition DHS has cost the industry tens of millions and in its ignorance has stopped investment in smart chip technology, new machine technologies and other industry sectors. The industry has stood still waiting for a decision on the Acces Card. This also says someting abou the technological capability of the design of the card, its interaction with the computers that operate the databases and the capability fo sucha s ystem into the future. It makes a mockery of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. For these, and other reasons, it should be abolished. Hand in hand with DHS travels the Department of Defence. It has an overarching role to work with the Australian Government Information Office (AGIMO, under Special Minister of State, gary Nairn) to implement standars within the Smart Card Framework. It has a similar group of consultants, of debateable value, who tinker in the smart card technologies. Rather than the federal, state and territory governments working together on a national plan for a consistent identity card for police, defence, public servants and employees who work in sensitive idnustries (transport, airlines, powe statons, water etc)we have a hotch potch approach. We have identity cards being produced on cheap desk printers. Country Energy (a NSW state owned enterprise) has just let a contract for a photographer to travel around NSW to their 23 locations taking pictures to insert into an identity document. This is a seriously questionable security procedure. The Department of Defence instead has decided to have its own stand alaone, desk top ystems at 32 sites across the nation. It is not the brighest way to approach national security but it is, like most agencies and the Australian government istelf, not interested in altrenative or challenging opinions and ideas. The federal bureaucracy has apparently lost a lot of its capability for coherent action across departments, intelligent and cooperative develoments and actions. It has instead become a disjointed entity captive to its own internal machinations and the quality of advice from experts, and contractors, who lack seemingly lack capacity and knowledge. This is to my mind the legacy of the leadership of the Secretary of the Prime Ministrer and Cabinet, Dr. Peter Shergold. ("Managing failure", Kevin Beck) |
|
The Australian government of John Howard has been lauded for its eceonomic management and yet it presides over an archaic set of economic and fiscal policies particularly taxation. Australia is uncompetitive and the taxation framework created by Prime Ministerial aspirant, Peter Costello, is not cutting edge. It is a poorly framed, cobbled together mismatch and hotchpot of undisciplined and ill considered legislative and regulatory mazes. The supporters of the governments economic framework accept mediocrity as the acceptable foundation. There is however a clamouring chorus of credible voices and interests expressing demands for reform. I am in a quandary as to why Peter Costello, an obviously underperforming custodian of Australia's fiscal plicy would be considered for the top job based on his record as Treasurer and federal tax collector? He simply digs in and refuses to budge, instead he has an enquiry, to tel him what any competent Treasurer would already know. The system is broken and is holding back the nation. He is holding back the nation. The implication in the clamouring is that economic performance, and investment in wealth creation, could be higher than it is if a competent person held Treasury. The Australian labor party, in opposition, presents no credible policy or plan to reform the system and take the nation forward. It is a party that offers no value as it trashes about in frantic leadership crisis creation as an alternative to rational debate and policy creation. Malcolm Turnbull a liberal party member, seems to have a clearer vision as to where Australia should be heading and what reforms are needed to Peter Costello's soup kitchen mash. If John Howard was the economic guru suggested, how is it that he is silent and tolerant of this failure? Could it be that political interest over r8ides national interest and he does not want to aggravate Peter Costello's supporters who think that he will assume the mantle? The Business Council of Australia is of the same mind set regarding the urgent need for reform. Questions of consistency and competency The Cole enquiry into the payment of bribes to Suddam Hussein's regime for wheat shipments raises a number of questions, and issues, well beyond the pragmatics of how world trade works.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, continually refers to his government's ability to manage the economy. He uses this is as a principal flagship of his own, and his government's capacity, but what is The Prime Minister has modified, and then cast off, his code of conduct for ministers within his government and it is unlikely given that, that John Howard would counsel Mr. Abbott or even acknowledge such ministerial obligations. Similar incompetence, and lack of under understanding, exist in the federal portfolios of Immigration, and within other portfolios. Foreign Affairs, part 1 Foreign Affairs part 2 .... PM - Australia to launch Wheat Board inquiry at UN behest ... of Foreign Affairs and Trade questioned over its knowledge of the scandal. ... Yesterday in Parliament the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, ... failures in ministerial administration go on and on with incompetence evidenced in the Australian Government, Department of Defence, Senate Inquiry into the effectiveness of Australia's Military Justice System ... Senator Hill addresses the issues of gang rape, suicide and military justice. ... within the Defence portfolio, Employment Relations and the Attorney General's public policy skills. What was the cry of the King of England regarding Sir Thomas Moore? From: S A V E - Australia Inc Don't give up. Get up. Dear Friend, This is a critical moment for Australia. As John Howard takes control of the Senate, its time to get up and tell his Government that we will hold them accountable. Over the last nine years, John Howard's government has taken our country in a direction that many of us find very distressing. Next week John Howard's government will take control of the Senate. For the first time in a generation, a government will have absolute power. We already know that the government is planning radical changes that will fundamentally change our country. We need to show John Howard's government that it can't just do whatever it wants. Together with our friends, we have created a website to help mobilise Australians who care about where this country is going. It's called GetUp.org.au. At this critical moment, John Howard and the Coalition Senators need to know that even though the other parties can't hold them to account - we will. Send the Coalition Senators in your state or territory this video message from ordinary Australians telling them that, from August 9, Australians are starting a movement to hold the Coalition government to account Once you've sent your message please take a minute to let all your friends know about GetUp. Together, we can build a community of people who are going to help build a more progressive Australia. Thanks for being part of this. Jeremy, David and the GetUp team The work of 'GetUp! Action for Australia' is endorsed and supported by S A V E - Australia Inc. Whilst PPPs have been a staple form of funding internationally The public sector agencies who have taken this avenue have been found to be lacking in contract framing, over sighting and accountability. The Australian government's employment services management has been substandard and the reported records of performance have been manipulated in an attempt to cover ineptitude, mismanagement and excessive costs over what a public agency might deliver. However these types of contracting out exercises are not PPP. The true nature of a public private partnership can be seen in legislative directives in countries such as Canada. Engineers Australia have published a view on how to use PPPs effectively. One might be lead to believe that there is a plethora of PPPs in operation. This is not the case. There are few if any success stories. They are probably misnamed also. They are not PPPs they are BOOT (build, own and transfer) contracts and not true partnerships. Those PPPs where proposed predominantly by state governments have been crafted based on poorly constructed contracts with excessive returns to attract industry participation and penalties that subject the public to extensive risk and costs. Governments have misrepresented, or omitted, to tell the full story claiming benefits in isolation of any real in depth evaluative published studies. Governments have framed these PPP contracts as if there is certainty in outcomes. The public sector appears to think it can read the future. If anything it probably models the worst scenario possible and then frames the financing around some sort of averaging, amelioration scenario. It is difficult to determine why agencies, and governments, should be so immature and inept in modern financial principles and disciplines? The Sydney tunnel is predicated on determining (predicting) a number of imponderables as if they are certainties. This is a ridiculous way to approach the development and frameworks. Instead of first creating the environment in terms of taxation and investment regulatory regimes to support innovative funding solutions states and federal governments operate in isolation of each other. The respective state or territory government apply on an individual basis to Treasury for approval to offer taxation incentives and other financing instruments. There is no federal policy, and legislation, to allow superannuation funds to participate by altering the risk legislation that governs their investments. It is feasible to ensure a secure return to the funds as well as a reasonable return to the private sector but it is as if this cooperative development between jurisdictions is beyond the comprehension of Australia's fiscal policy creators. The best the Australian government can offer is a discussion focused on transportation, rather than the broader fiscal framework and regulatory regime. PPs have been made difficult by public administration ineptitude and the self interested greed of those designing the instruments with excessive fees and charges, creating a combined recipe for poor performance, disincentive and failure. ("Managing infrastructure or not", Kevin Beck) |
|
Telstra Corporation versus the Australian government Telstra, Australia's largest corporation, is challenging the credentials, thinking, abilities and the policy innovation and credibility of the Australian government. One might wonder at their talent since they put it about, since taking office in 1996, how happy they were with the previous board and management. Telstra share value has dropped a staggering $14 billion and it has lost $5 billion in poor investments. Much of what we were told by the government, and Telstra, in the past borders on fictional. The Australian government has never been interested in contradictory opinion or reality that conflicts with its perception of how the world is. This new intrigue will be interesting. The Howard government is well known for its responses when confronted, and above all humiliated, by being made to look like incompetent dills. Treasurer Costello and Finance Minister Minchin have been using some very rubbery numbers, regarding Telstra, in their accounts over the past seven years. This is despite almost every member of parliament being told that The situation at Telstra was not as the nation was being told. Which is the bigger media spin machine and the most tactical? Who has the biggest egos? Sol Trujillo CEO, and the Board Members of Telstra, or Ministers, Minchin, Costello, Coonan and of course, Howard? The Australian government is not averse to using unethical practices, tactics, lies and misrepresentations and it appoints the Telstra board members. Decide for yourself or ....join in the fun.... "Confronting the political cartel in Australia", Kevin Beck Examining the Australian government's industrial relations policies and their ... perceived impact ... Myths and Muslims ... Australians' perceptions ... Australia is being taken down the toilet by political and corporate self interest ... do we care? ... The Mosaic Portal in America on DelphiForums  Australia's ally, Indonesia, and the role of the state, questions ... as to possible genocide ... Many Australians cannot afford to buy everything ... they need ... Barriers to Brendan Nelson's Political Career Aspirations (November, 2005) (2005) Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson has pursued an ideological objective to outlaw compulsory student union fees in Australian universities. There is absolutely no public policy value in the Australian government's pursuit of this objective. This is an internal administrative matter for universities not thuggish politicians. This legislation affects a miniscule number of Australians. It is just ignorant, interferring politicians, who have a personal vendetta and gladiatorial perception of their role. Brendan Nelson, and his cohorts, are sad, little, people for having done this and hey denigrate the power of thestate. However he, and they would be oblivious to, or dismissive, of such a proposition. The ignorant, and power driven career politicians in Australia always are. They smirk and beat their chests with peurile victories that do not enhance the nation. These student unions fund a myriad of activities and services to students. Some of the student unions have a chequered history and some, like the University of Melbourne student union executive, have brought the whole lot into disrepute. The Melbourne University union went broke courtesy of the son of a former labor politician and his management of the student union. The student union executive entered into a multimillion ($40,000,000 I think from memory) property development deal. There is merit in the argument that students should choose what services they want to buy. The bleating of the existing Executive bodies across the nation ring with some element of self-interest. Power and position are aphrodisiacs and study can be boring, and unrewarding in terms of ego and status, by comparison. I have been at three universities for many years between 1980 and 2004. I cannot say that the union delivered me value for the hundreds of dollars I paid them. For that matter trade unions were not much better at customer focused services. It must be the "closed shop" mentality they that these organisations breed that makes outsiders suspicious of motive and value. The liberal party has long harboured an ideological obsession that these unions are "labor party" training grounds. It is a manic and puerile obsession hardly worthy of grown adults. However many politicians are still in puberty particularly on this issue. Liberal Senator Ciobo, says that the prospective failure to get the bill through will "put a dent in many liberal members". This is demonstrative of the maturity level in our parliaments where petty and trivial matters consume the vacuous mind. Brendan Nelson offers a sweetener to unievsrity critics, $80,000,000 over three years for the transition. The National Party, in coalition blocking the bill, wanted to know how the facilities will be funded if fees become voluntary. They do not accept the typical shallow proposition that students will buy the services if they really want them. It is a nice theory but it conveniently ignores human nature. This is where the liberal party justifications fail on many of their policies. Thinking in cold, economic and rational logic they seem unable to comprehend that most humans do not follow logic, and particularly, utility thought. The politicians who are consumed with the student union issue attended university when student activism was at its highest. Many of them were political activists and may assume that the student of today is similarly disposed. The liberals do not have the organising skillls and structures that labor possess. Their branches and associations are disjointed and their structure is decentralised and fragmented. This tends to lead them into a rabid response against any advantage the labor party may have through its superior ability. Rather than develop these they abuse their positions of power to legislate against their perceived enemies. In doing so they degrade democracy and demonstrate the paucity of leadership quality amongst their ranks. The Nationals are concerned that sporting facilities and amenities will disappear particularly in regional centres. They propose a simple amendment to the bill guarantee funding through the university. Stubborn resistance by the likes of the Honourable Senators who want an "all or nothing outcome" ensures that extensive time and resources are wasted. It is testament to Minister Brendan Nelson's political, and negotiation, skills that he has been unable to broker a middle position. Enter the Prime Minister John Howard, the master politician. He is full aware that Barnaby Joyce, National Senator, is being isolated by the bent members of his own party and that Senator Fielding (Family First) independent Senator is for sale at a political price. He got into the Senate on a hair margin from memory it was under 2% and it was labor's strategic stupidity, in allocating preferences to him, that put him into parliament. This genius of a strategy cost a labor senator entry into parliament. So labor now finds itself hung on its own petard and dangling in the wind. Fielding gets his fifteen minutes of fame with the Prime Minister. The deal is cut. What could it be? Extra superannuation, perhaps, what else might be the price of his vote? This would be useful given that Fielding is a "oncer" in that he cannot win the next election for his Senate seat. Could it be a deal on RU486 the "morning after pill" which is obsessing the mind of Minister Tony Abbott and the other religious zealots infesting the parliament, who believe they are ordained to save everyone from sin and serve a nebulous deity. Senator Ron Boswell from Queensland, Barnaby's home state is wetting himself at the prospect of telling Barnaby that his gallant stand has been for naught. Glee is written all over Boswell's road map face. In the corridor of parliament house Barnaby is showing the signs of carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Fielding and Joyce, novice guinea pigs, in the snake pit, struggling to avoid the pythons. Minister Brendan Nelson has held endless talks with Joyce and Fielding and having nowhere to go he has to take a punt and put the legislation up. It is not his call, it is the Prime Minister's decision. However Brendan, with leadership aspirations for the top job, will put a spin on how it all comes out. This exercise has made many enemies. The Vce Chancellor of Sydney University has used the word "redneck" to decrsibe policy supporters. Universities, through their networks, and alumnies, in Australia and internationally are influential and powerful. Brendan Nelson, and the Australian government, are ferementingmany enemies for the future. It is not clear if they, or their strategists, comprehend this. The government, and Ministers, are exposed and can be attacked on many diverse fronts simultaneously. They need an efficient, innovative and visionary, bureaucracy. Instead they have shaped it into mediocrity. The Minister is the client and that, in the case of a significant number of the Howard ministry, means that administrations are degraded. The most prominent low grade administrations are under the Ministers of Immigration, Foreign Affairs, Justice and Attorney General, Defence, Customs and Workplace Relations and Employment. The Ministers of these portfolios it could be argued, based on recorded stuff ups, keep their jobs on the political patronage of the Prime Minister, not on ability. These departments cost more, in human life, suffering, stupidity, arrogance and ignorance, and wasted monies, than the value they are purported to bring to the nation. Brendan Nelson should pay more attention to the quality of management, performance and resource se in his multi-billion dollar department. That is likely to require skills, he and his advisers, do not possess. Brendan Nelson is exposed, disadvantaged and at risk, in his political aspirations by many factors not the least being that his Department of Education, Training and Science (DEST) does not operate on best management theory and practice. This is a department where the senior management have a background, and experience, based on public sector management without the attendant financial and systems expertise. DEST is, in a number of significant areas of activity, archaic, and inefficient, in its practices. One senior public servant from another department told me that DEST is considered a soft touch, like "taking candy from a baby." The operation of DEST, highlighted in many of its internal review documents, over recent years, stands in stark contrast to the Australian Public Service Commission's claims for the Australian public service rhetoric. If the Commonwealth Auditor General were to conduct an efficiency audit DEST is likely to fail on many counts. The first is on integrity. People, who should know better, at DEST engage in hypocrisy. The Department ran a two-hour hypothetical in August 2005, where the most senior executives pontificated with with the famous QC, Geoffrey Robertson, about the "code of public service practice and ethics." The Public Service Act 1999 (the PSA 1999), which came into effect on 5 December 1999, sets out the Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct, and the APS Values. Together, the APS Code of Conduct and the APS Values set out a clear statement of the principles and standards of behaviour for all APS employees; across Australia and they purportedly set out the responsibilities and accountabilities to the Australian public and to the Minister and all departmental employees are required to comply with them. Key features of the APS Code of Conduct and Values include the need at all times to: |
| > | ||||||||
|
Apparently the handbook of use of Commonwealth assets, put out by
DEST Information Technology Security, and references therein to the Criminal Code are irrelevancies.
For I have seen pornography being distributed within the National Office email system by senior staff
who treated it as a joke. One wonders how advanced the IT systems are for tracking offensive material, and mirror storing, of the pornography.
I naturally reported its existence to my two supervisors, and to staff working near me. They were disinterested.
One may well gag on the hypocrisy. I have discussed perceived actions of victimisation by senior managers against staff
and examined the hierarchical system, "the pecking order", of authority. I have observed it over a number of weeks.
The State Office Network Review, and subsequent "invitation from management for employees to tell their views" elicited few responses. The Report content, and the feedback failure, provides a window into the human mind of thousands of employees across the organisation. The email (anonymous feedback opportunity) and telephone recording line for opinions on the Review remained empty. The last review of sorts, a few years earlier, was not acted upon as for the ones before it. Perhaps staff thought this one was just a cosmetic exercise. The normal assurances that this was not a job cutting exercise were given even though the Rpeort recommended the closure of eleven DEST regional offices. This will not occur in the electrorates of the government Ministers and liberal and national parties. It may occur in Peter Andren's independent electorate of Calare, it may also occur in labor's nominated electorates. Honesty, openness in communication, and feedback, did not strike me a being amongst DEST's greatest achievements or badges of the modus operandi. As for interactive communication, the philosophy, as I was so aptly reminded, on numerous occasions, is the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. It is indeed used. The communications experts created, and sold, a slogan to management, "Open for Business." "In line with our Open for Business stakeholder charter, we are pleased to welcome you to the DEST corporate website." This was indeed an imaginative creation, removed from reality, given that DEST's structure at the time, and still is, Canberra centric and not devolved. One wonders what precisely was open for business, where? I think it was the "whole of government integrated offices" ijn which DEST found itself to be a bit player. The branches were not open for business, according to the State Office Network Review conducted in March - June 2005. The branches were not given any real business to undertake by the central National Office management. The branches across Australia have existed on a miniscule annual budget with little of any challenging decision making roles even though they are the front line in service delivery across Australia. The classifications of the posts up until September 2005 are testament to this. By comparison the bloated head office with all its decision making, and questionable production, holds the lion's share of funds. It also has a very high executive officer to staff ratio in the National Office. The branches can operate far more effectively in the government's policy interests than the National Office and the fact that this does not occur can be dterimental the Ministers' objectives and efforts. DEST National executive officers (EL1 and above) might like to compare what private enterprise employees on the same, or lesser, salaries are required to do, and get a reality check. One interesting trait is the practice of self reinforcement of "professionalism". It reaches delusional proprtions. Conceptual development of strategy in some divisions is akin to an inexperienced youth's thinking. Simplistic notions dressed up as sophisticated approaches. It might be arguable that they are worth the salaries, they are apid under their job classifications, if there was a demonstration that they knew how to manage. The criteria for positions is often nebullous and the criteria is tranbsferred across the public service so that it becomes self replicating. Denuding the branches of authority, and responsibility, has been a quite deliberate strategy of power control. What is striking is that such approaches, and practices, could operate in 2005. It is as if DES managers lack real world commercial, and management, experiences. These are not deemed necessary if the approaches are (a) serve the politic body and (b) divide the budget up and then just charge costs up without ongoing evaluation and comparison, internal tests and such vital financial management tools. It demonstrates that delivery of quality serice under the best operational management model available has not be an objective of the Department's Executive for many years, if at all. Modern management theory and practice, including innovation, has escaped their purview. There are moves afoot under the Secretary to change this by early 2006 through enacting recommendations from the State Office Network Review. Unfortunately the 2006 Business Plan, and other key documents to guide the organisation, lack substance and commercial accountability and financial reponsibility and measurement focus. The State Office Network Review Report indicated that there was a wealth of knowledge in the network and the National Office decision makers should tap it into it. Human resource deployment and utilisation to effect talent extraction is at the bottom end of the scale, particularly out in the Branch Networks. Decisions are made in the National Office without using sophisticated "intelligence gathering" technqiues. Their views of who are stakeholders can be challenged. They are narrow perceptions of who can, and does, exert influence or initiate action. The senior management, and staff, at National Office of DEST operate in isolation of the knowledge that they can be affected by a myriad of interests. The existenec of this paper demonstrates the ability of external people to reach into organisations. This new dimension, a broadening of the notion of what constitutes a "stakeholder" beyond the traditionally perceived or identified, can have ramifications for Ministers as they grapple with implementation of a broad reform agenda. For example the formation of the Technical Colleges places the Ministers, Department and participants, directly within the arena of state controlled vocational education and training. This new threat and competition to State Education agencies and existing Training and Further Education entities will create tension as these technical institutions come on line. The Minister has had a win on nuclear waste disposal not merely because parliament over rode the the Northern territory government's ban on such facilities, but because this policy, and the development of uranium, is supported by behind the scenes by powerful industry and commercial interests and influence shapers. Apparently in isolation of the knowledge of this reality the Department produced an animated video attempting to justify the policy of the government, and isolate, the resistance from environmental and safety activists. It is not clear who the target audience of this trite exercise is. It is more appropriate to students at school than it is to anyone with a modicum of understanding of the issues and the industry. It is industry, and external sources, that will drive the uranium issue. DEST has undertaken no deep research on where external influences reside and what role they play. The ability of interests (overt and covert) to put spanners in the works is not well understood. This is not limited to DEST. Every public service department serving the government, ministers and public should be more aware and cognisant of, the changing dynamics. Senior public service managers, middle level staff and others, are open to greater scrutiny, political commentary and action, just as their Ministers are. The dynamics of politics is widening. Minister Nelson's stewardship of the portfolio has been marked by controversy. Despite the Prime Minister's reassurance that there would be no $100,000 degrees: "I can guarantee we're not going to have $100,000 university degree courses." John Howard, interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW, Melbourne, 15 October 1999. the cost of higher education has spiralled under this government whilst funding has fallen regardless of how the government may spin the statistics and lie through clenched teeth. If the meanderings of the Prime Minister, and Ministers, as to the impacts of the government's policies are not lies, then they are very poor judges and evaluators and cannot be trusted in any regard. There are over 16 degrees costing in excess of $100,000 and they will double in number by 2007. Brendan is also challenging the status quo and the cosy environments. He thinks that there should be undergraduate teaching universities and separate postgraduate universities engaged in higher learning and education, An elite system of differentiation. With his colleague Minister Gary Hargreaves he has created Technical Colleges further challenging the notion that everyone should do a degree. This reorganisation is refreshing and delineates the quality and commitment. To cakkenge the closed world of academics invites nasty political surprises. He has reveiewed the funding model for research. The proposition of changing who gets to do research taxes the mind of the defenders of the faith in universities across the nation. Dr. Nelson seems to have a love of tests. He is always proposing new ones for children of all ages. He wants national bench marks tests so that parents can compare how good their child is doing against others. There is some debate as to the value of such comparisons and how it affects morale. Perhaps it is the competitive nature of his education and the gladiatorial arena of politics that excites his penchant for testing? In the engine room of DEST academics, under the guidance of advisory committees are challenging literacy and causing a rift in teacher views. DEST is producing extensive, and well researched, papers unlike their colleagues in other areas of DEST. They can be quite a burden to read but if one applies ones self a lot can be learnt and debate and ideas are good. Since education is the province of the state and territory governments he is causing political angst. And so he might. The state education ministries are in many respects vacuous kingdoms intent on maintaining domination of their little patches of influence. The systems of education are variable across the nation. They vary in quality with some being substandard in particular jurisdictions by comparison to others in Australia and internationally. Yet the state Premiers, and Ministers, engage in the same practice of lying and misrepresenting facts and outcomes. A common quality system for bricks and mortar education would be good. Online education is fraught with all sorts of issues that need addressing at satet and federal levels. In 2005 someone seemed to twig that the DEST operational regime was not the best organisational model. So they commissioned outsiders to create new concepts. Now the management are negotiating to devolve decision making out to the states. The outcomes based on history, petty ego and power, are not certain. "Open For Business" is a meaningless phrase. I formed the view on questioning the creators that it was developed by people who have little idea what the business of DEST might actually be in National Office and in the branches across the nation. It certainlt takes little account of "whole of government" policy. DEST is the poor cousin against the political power, influence and resources of DIMIA (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) and DEWR (Department of Workplace Relations) among other participating agencies. What does it mean? Was the Department not open prior to the creation of the slogan, was it shut at some stage or was it open for some other erudite purpose? General opinion in the state branches, and amongst some external observers including contracted consultants is that DEST appears to have few management systems, of discipline and depth, to inform the Executive where the funds allocated are actually delivering value for money. Hostility reigns between the branches and national office. Much time is wasted on office, and interdepartmental politics, and protecting one's hide and yet a different image is presented. The impression is that there is a class system of a hierarchical nature that domiantes. The Business Plan, which is not really a business plan at all in the normal sense, seems to have as its primary goal as "keeping the Minister/s and their staff happy. They are the primary clients. It is a more a political strategy far removed from any real measurement of business performance in terms of dollars and cents. There is no iternal charge system to measure what a division such as communications is offering by comparison to what is on offer at a price elsewhere. There is no testing of value. DEST has discovered Mission statements! They were being drafted for the first time in September 2005. They may even be ready now in December 2005. Staff feedback and consultation was invited. Most modern, and well managed, enterprises have had these for decades. There is debate as to their worth but the Executive likes to get its thoughts out the workers. Perhaps it is the lack of such traditional methodologies that prompted the content, assumptions and findings of the State Office Network Review. DEST objectives dealing with efficiency measures appear inwardly focused and they are not measures of efficiency according to any best practice I have experienced in complex enterprises. Everything is viewed through the prism of a "communications strategy". Management of issues rather than finances, value for money and measurable real performance. They publish this management style on their web site. The plan, and objectives, imply that all objectives can be met if the "target audience is managed and manipulated by communication. Some might call this spin. They possibly view it as "educating the stakeholders". Below is an example of this point. ("Integrity, government and public service, risks and reactions", Kevin Beck) Research Reports on Support for a Communications Campaign Surrounding the Announcement of the Decision for the Location of the National Repository for the Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste". The communications activity in the Department involves hundreds of people all the way to the top and millions of dollars. It is not clear what public purpose it serves and whether its performance measures are sound. One may well argue a case that the communications division, in its current form and modus operandi, is a waste of public money. Disorganisation seems to have been DEST's history for it has been reorganised every four years. It has just developed its first "change management strategy and process" mechanisms (September - October 2005). Imagine an enterprise of 2,200 people with a budget of $20,000,000 having no change management models. The Minister, Dr. Brendan Nelson. vacated the DEST portfolio to become Minister for Defence, on January, 27th, 2006. A new Minister now faces similar chllenges and risks.
New MatildaIndependent opinions on Australian and international issues 
"Reason" within the realm of Australian society, as defined by the power collective, is the market and economy and generally society is driven by the pursuit of wealth some holding an ideological belief in the trickle down effect. There are forces within the political, and corporate, spheres that add to the corrosion, and corruption of our political and corporate systems. |
|
Will the coalition in Iraq be surprised particularly the Australian government, when Iraq falls under the influence of Iran and the competing interests of Syria? Israel has long held that Syria has designs on Iraq. Other Arab nations seek to counter this influence but it is not clear if they can. When any major political party, particularly one in government, proposes to amend Australia's electoral laws every citizen should be immediately suspicious and exercise care and diligence. This is of great concern when it is proposed by a government with a well documented history of abuse of parliamentary power and a demonstrated willingness to use misrepresentation and stealth to cover its goals. The federal Special Minister for State, Senator Abetz, has put forward a number of propositions among them, to close the electroral roles when an election writ is ussed. To deny the vote to prisoners and to extend the minimum amount requird for reporting a political donation from $1,000 to $10,000. The right to vote underpins democracy and it should not be impeded or diminished. Thus the electoral role should not be closed off. Governments legislate for people including those in prison and they should have the right to seek to elect someone who will represent their interests. The Australian federal government is aping the US administration. and the British government yet there are valid arguments to say that this is an archaic and ill informed view. The Australian Liberal and National Parties make it quite clear in this proposal that they only represent a selection of the population. The liberals are mean spirited and they have lead the creation of the class system and now they prpose to have classes of eligible citizens, those who are organised and get on the electroral role (can vote) and those who are not organised (cannot vote) and those who are in another class such as prisoners shall be further classified. What will be the clasifications for prisoners? Are they so reprehensible as a group that no member of the liberal or national party will be prepared to listen to their case? Will a person sentenced erroneoulsy be dissallowed from seeking representation? This is a crock, and another blundering bigoted bull, in a china shop policy from an ethically, and morally, challenged government. democracy is something precious with suffrage for all except those whom the thiefs of democracy choose to exclude. There is no real democracy if the Australian people are limited to voting one a government and its policies once every few yaers. There is no formal mechanism for the people to express their views and their directive on a piece of legislation, or a policy, by referenda or other means. This manipulation is deliberate and serves the interests of the political duopoly and the handfull of people who are the political power collective at state, federal and erritory levels in the nation. ("Australia's Political Cartels", Kevin Beck) |
|
Australian politicians, and many commentators, imply that the only impediment to the achievement of a government's goals is having a majority in parliament. It is possible for voters, and lobbyists, to influence Ministerial and government decision making and policy, as is evident in Minister for Agriculture, Peter McGauran's pursuit of "origin of labelling" of food products on behalf of farmers. Hard lessons for the Minister for Agriculture Peter McGauran is the federal Minister for Agriculture. I have known him personally for twenty three years and have kept in regular contact, observing his electoral representation and rise through the National Party and the Coalition Howard government. He has held portfolios in Science, the Arts and has sat, inter alia, on committees including intelligence oversight. He is probably the most charismatic, and one of the most politically astute politicians on the front bench in the Howard government. He is not an innovator in policy and he keeps his head down. He is, for all intents and purposes, a good coalition supporter. He organises others to fight the battles. People such as Barnaby Joyce. Peter is engaged in a fierce contest at this time (September, 2005) with the ambitious, and somewhat charismatic, Christopher Pyne, Parliamentary Secretary to the less than sensitive Tony Abbott, Minister for Health. The battle is ostensibly over food labelling. It is also the liberals trying to put their junior coalition party (the Nationals) in their place making them subservient to the will, and legislative intent of the liberal party. Food is a complex political issue fraught with emotive language and concepts, "buy Australian", "imports", "free trade", "world trade organisation", "consumer protection", "genetically modified", "family farms" and the "wide brown land". Peter is championing people like the Tasmanian potato farmers, assisted in their cause by my friend Colin Fulton, of Corporate Words, in Melbourne, Australia. They want everything, everywhere, in every retail outlet, labeled with country of origin. The Australian and state governments have always allowed misrepresentation in labeling with "made in Australia" not actually meaning that, with misrepresentation of names such as fruit juice, and things labeled as say raspberry and containing a few percent, perhaps as low as one, of the fruit or some essence. The reasons why governments allow this are complex and have to do with ideology and with foreign relationships in world trade and with big, multinational corporations. Mr. McGauran, for some reason, has decided to push the envelope with the proposition to force manufacturers to change their labels every time a constituent item (regardless of amount) changes in a product (e.g. during seasonal shortages, to make delis and other food places have a myriad of labels in their fridge cabinets, and to label pork. Why single out pork? Why not apply it to beef, chicken and lamb? He will win some of the battle on labeling and in the longer term will become a target of powerful political and commercial interests, who will band together to ensure that not much will change in terms of their control and freedom to misrepresent products, contents and con the consumer. The Tasmanian farmers and their like colleagues around the nation will not emerge the winners against the market dominators and politicians like Messrs. Vaile, Pyne and Abbott, whose primary concen is not the Australian consumers, not the constituent nature of our food content, but but the bigger issues of the politics, and power, of world trade and economy.
Minister McGauran, within a few weeks of taking the reins, was visited by the farmers. They wanted all products everywhere, of any type, in supermarkets, delis, vegetable barrows, small shops, markets, fairs etc. etc. clearly labelled as to where they came from. He wil partly get his way. In the average large supermarket there are probably 152,000 items and labelling will add to consumer costs dramatically. Australian consumers do not care about where the contents come from as their first consideration. They look at price, brand, quality (favourites) and then somewhere down the list is origin. Those with high disposable incomes might alter their ranking and are drawn to brands. However brands are under threat. Those with lower disposable incomes cannot place the niceties of "buy Australian" before putting food in their mouths. So is Mr. McGauran happy, along with the farmers, to pursue a strategy that will take from those who have less discretionary spending and increase their basic food costs? The manufacturers for purely profit reasons want to import cheap goods. Perhaps the Minister for Agriculture was initially blinded by the political objective to serve the electorate, in his first year in the portfolio, and as yet is not aware of the ramifications of drawing international attention, and response, internally and externally, to this issue. This policy if pursued will cost the government in economic terms from a free trade perspective and other relationships. Thus Mr. McGauran's cabinet colleagues, and the opposing Departments of the Australian Public Service, and those who have an interest in his not succeeding, will all work to stop him. Typically the government will allocate a few dollars to researching, over a number of years, what can be done for farmers. This hopefully outs the issue out of sight and out of mind. There will be some minor flirtation with the food labeling laws. Food labeling is a sensitive issue and the federal and state governments will only go so far. If you see a statement "Product of Australia", does that mean that it is wholly manufactured here? No, it does not. Food labeling is a mix of truth, fiction and misrepresentation. It is about percentages and it is dictated, not by Australia's governments, in the interests of Australian consumers but by multinational interests who work through their own governments. They push the boundaries of the Australian and New Zealand Food Standards. The manufacturers use a myriad of ways to get around the rules. State and Territory governments which have the enforcement role are derelict and will not provide the necessary resources (out of the massive goods and services taxes they receive on sales) to police the regulations in the interests of consumers. It seems that there is trend developing in Australian business. It might be due to ignorance of the law and lack of experience and education. It might be due to greed and the propensity for unethical behaviour under the intense pressures and demands to make profits at least cost. Many manufacturers appear to have the attitude that they will do what they want until they get caught. The company can pay a fine for the executives are not subject to prosecution but they should be. These are the hard lessons that Minister McGauran is going to learn in his first term in the portfolio of Agriculture. His leader, Mark Vaile, the Minister for Trade, cannot look after the farmers, or producers and consumers, for he has a major conflict of interest. The whole federal cabinet has a conflict of interest and in many respects has to abandon Australian consumers for political, economic and ideological, expediencies. Farmers know this all too well. Whilst other nations will look after their constituent producers, Australia persists with obeying the World Trade Agreement rules whilst the largest economy, the USA flouts them and takes the resources of the world as their own. The poor nations are tossed a  bone or two now and then by the rich nations of the world.  It is about National and Liberal Party Politics It is not about environment, cheaper fuel or consumer benefit Why are Australian people so dependent on their governments for everything? Petrol prices go up and immediately federal Labor's Wayne Swan squawks in political parroting that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission must be given new powers to coerce the naughty, and secretive, petrol refining companies. There must be a summit so that the media can report it. It would seem that politicians hold us back, particularly federal Labor's senior spokespeople, who are apparently unable to distil complex issues and enunciate a deeper type of thinking, debate and understanding in their contribution to Australia's governance. Have they passed their use by dates and this is all they have left to offer? It is also annoying that a large number of Australians do not have the capacity to think for themselves and discern why this might be happening. They should broaden the mind and travel in Europe and buy petrol there and see what the price is. Perhaps those who argue that ethanol content should be increased, such as members of the National Party, the grain growers, here and internationally, and environmentalists, might inform themselves fully about the science.
|
|
Even as the comments below were being posted onto the web Australia's federal state and territory governments were enacting legislation to create a new dimension in Australian public policy, the restriction of freedom of association and speech. The laws enacted by all governments in Australia are not in the public interest. They have been passed with little debate, resistance, or comment from the greater population who in fear, and a reliance on the paternalism of governments, tacitly accept them. Others who have experienced terrorism and seen it first hand, as in London or New York, have changed, their opposition or apathy, or had their opnions, reinforced. It is a complex and emotive social issue. However like law and order it requires something more than the standard "tough on crime" policy adopted by myopic legislators and political parties. When social issues are at the forefront of political debate, it is Chief Minister, of the Australian Capital Territory, Jon Stanhope, who is far and away the most literate and articulate on the issue and defence of liberty. Today (Wednesday, September 28th, 2005) Australia's government leaders will debate the federal governments proposition for reinforcing Australia's terrorism laws. Central to their objective is to convince the states to legislate to allow people to be detained (for fourteen days without charge) under warrants issued by police, not courts, and for property to be entered and searched without the knowledge of the owner or occupant. The Australian Constitution provides that a ctizen may not be unlawfuly detained without charge for an extended period. It is also planned that anybody who promotes the validity of terrorirms or defendes it may be subject to criminal prosecution for possessing evil thoughts and telling others about them. It is the intention of the federal, state and territory governments of Australia to subvert the rights of the individual and the principles of justice that underpin a civil society. The justification is the most common used by governments around the world when they resort to draconian measures - the public interest. Fear will be created to reinforce the argument to support the governments. The prospect of terrorists being resideent in Australia will be raised by politicians and senior law enforcment personnel who will not think of the consequences. Numbers of possible terrorists will be bandied around and then denial by the Prime Miniter, the Attorney General, the leader of the federal opposition, Premiers, Chief Ministers and Police Commissioners will ensue. The nation's large volume of uneducated and less well travelled citizens, and the challenged thinkers, will be fearful. This is not a public interest debate, it is bald political interest and another example of political leaders beyond their capacities. The political leaders of Australia do not want the media, commentators and citizens, to accuse them of not having done something. They exist within their sphere of political self interest and mediocre responses. They would rather legislate and bluster, cluster like sheep and bleat their case. They are frightened by the briefings from Australia's security, intelligence services and law enforcement officers who see an opportunity for pushing their own agendas. They wil never have an opportunity like this unless Australia sugffers a terrorist attack. Among these intelligence experts are the people who told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that their was nuclear fuel and bits and pieces to make a weapon, ready for export to Iraq, from Africa. They are who have a record of being not quite right on so many occasions and who devote their time to arresting and deporting activists who might (but have not) throw marbles under a police horse, or might tutor people in resistance during demonstrations. The separation of the executive from the parliament and the judiciary has always been the foundation of democracy. Just as innocence without the need for self incrimination is the foundation of law. The federal government proposition is to apply the culture and operation of the federal Department of Immigration, and its successive ministers, Ruddock and Vanstone, to the operation of justice and liberty across Australia. The argument put by the Prime Minister is that he seeks to strike a balance between civil liberities including free speech and ideas, regardless of how repugnant they may be to many Australians and the individual, and competing majority, rights to competing interests of individual privacy and national security. The Australian government is drawn to the United Kingdom and United States experiences and legislative resonses. However rather than protect Australia, and its citizens, this set of proposed laws may very well legitimise and promote many of the qualities that underlie Australian society and about which we do not like to speak of, or admit. Veiled racism, bigotry and racial profiling consistent with the use of fear, insecurity and division as tools of control, and persuasion, of the nation's ignorant population. Ignorance is the greatest danger the nation faces, not terorism. Ignorance pervades every aspect of thought and the acceptance by voters of stupidity and ideology in governance. There is little difference between the federal and state governments on thinking, particularly in law and order. Legislating is something that politicians can do even though they may be ineffectual in every other aspect of their governance and so they embrace it with gusto. Leading the state labor stupidity is the Western Australia Premier, Dr.G.Gallop. Just listening to his justification for draconian measures, bragging that he is leading the way, and looking at him, conjures up images of certain people in history who liked to experiment. Characters in the regimes where denial of rights, and torture, are everyday instruments of totalitarian states. Perhaps Dr. Gallop might consider taking over the federal Immigration portfolio. If the federal government gets its way Australia is to become a virtual detention centre. When the leaders meet, it will be the leader of the smallest principality, a territory under federal government jurisdiction, who will champion our rights. If federal labor wants to shake itself out of lethargy and the doldrums it could no better than recruit Jon Stanhope. If the states, and territories, acquiesce as they surely will, the Australian Constitution and the High Court will again be the last bastion of defence against craven politics and the proposed Howard government laws. |
|
It is the serious decline in standards, ethics and performance, and the resorting to lies, by Australia's governments and the deterioration of the public service. Australia's statutory authorities follow the example of blaming soneone else, that is the imprimatur of the Prime Minister, John Howard. The seats of federal government owned enetities are given through a system of patronage. The Australian Wheat Board (AWB) was a federal government statutory authority trading Australia's wheat. One of its major contracts was within the food for oil prigramme to Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations. AWB freighted its wheat overland in Iraq using a Jordanian company, partly owned by the Iraqi government of Suddam Hussien. Hussein siphoned off billions in the food for oil programme including hundreds of millions paid by AWB using the Jordanian transport company. AWB's response to this is that they did not know. That the transport contract was approved by the United Nations. There was no aforethought by AWB to check that all of its contracts were above board. It simply left that normal business function to the United Nations. John Howard says it is not the government's problem because the government floated AWB on the Australian Stock Exchange in 1999. How convenient for everyone, the AWB Board, their management, the Prime Minister and the responsible federal Ministers. It is always someone else's fault and responsibility. There is a disengagement, and lack of regard, by citizens, and enterprise, for active participation in democracy except in pursuit of narrow partisan interests. The diaries of Mark Latham are an window into the disease. When Mark Latham was appointed leader of the Australian Labor Party I wrote to members of Australia's parliaments querying the basis of such a decision by the party. I described Mark Latham on many occasions as a "thug" who would "make the belevrs weep". I was ignored by Labor but not by conservative members of parliament. The Latham diaries are public proof of my assertion that Australia's democracy is being degraded by a handful of machine politicians across the spectrum of the political landscape. Labor faces the unappetising proposition that a large number of Australians will believe Mark Latham in a number of his claims and assertions. Listening to Labor's federal opposition spokesperson on Homeland Security, Robert McLelland, extol why Labor accepts the Howard government's draconian laws and civil liberties abuse in the name of nebulous national security reinforces this notion. His reasoned response to questions from the media of acquiescent agreement with the government, without realising that he exemplifies the proposition of comfortable facade, that Labor is the opposition to the Coalition. It is not. It is in a power sharing agreement to keep competitor political forces out of the democratic process. McLelland responds weakly about legal rights by saying that if a lawyer has national security clearance they are entitled to know the matters for which their clients are being retained for interrogation, without legal defence, in the absence of judicial warrants for arrest or charge, up to 14 days. Kim Beazley, Labor leader, may as well be the Deputy Prime Minister in the liberal party for all the replication of conservative values he trots out to ingratiate himself with fickle, uninformed voters whose primary concern is their mortgage interest rate. The federal Labor party has failed to win government on numerous occasions. Collectively, they are poor at strategy and are bland and uninteresting. Latham at least was, and is, interesting. Consistent with human nature, they gather together to justify their collective failure because they all want to keep their jobs and positions of influence. To take responsibility for failure would mean that some of them might have to go. The journalists that are supposed to inform, and watch, our political system with independent eyes and ears leave much to be desired in their analysis. They relish the world of power and patronage in which they find themselves. They will not risk losing access and being a part of the inner circle. The duopoly ( Labor and Liberal) are comfortable in their control of the levers of government. In any election outcome at least 30% - 40%, perhaps more of the Australian population will not be represented by their candidate of choice. The minority candidate has to overcome the odds in the primary vote (such as Tony Windsor, Peter Andren and another independent Murphy, have done) to gain a seat in parliament. The labor, liberal and national parties in a three-way coalition have no interest in parliamentary or electoral reforms. It is not to their benefit. Voters, turning has placed the National Party in the box seat and Mark Vaile the leader of the National Party, and Deputy Prime Minister, walks a tight rope. He actually cannot be both and take the National Party to a new paradigm of relevance and power in Australian politics. He is trying to serve two masters and if he persists he will squander the opportunity for the party. Barnaby Joyce sees himself as the "balance of power" in the parliament and this is also nonsense. He put on a nice show over Telstra and down the track he will find that he too was in an invidious position. All his claims of constitutional independence came to nothing. The liberal party, under John Howard, lacks an ethical and moral compass, preferring expediency and self-interest. The liberal ministers of the Howard government epitomise the centralist qualities of individualism and career over collective public interest and good. The Howard Ministers are the Australian mirror image of George Bush. They like he cannot see over the horizon. He failed to realise what Hurricane Katrina would mean for his political creer and the effect of his mother's description of the afflicted of the southern states as people who were underprivileged, but now better off. 
participating in public policy and in government is your democratic right. ("Denying participation", Kevin Beck)
|
|
Telstra and the Comedy (late 2005). John Howard must go for broke on this issue for he has directly created the scenario that is damaging the government every day. His judgement may need questioning. This however is not about to happen for the liberal party sees John Howard as their ticket to retaining office. They discard Peter Costello as the heir apparent. He has missed the boat. The government will get the sale of Telstra legislation through but then Mr. Howard will have to make a lie out of his claim that he will not sell Telstra at any price. He has to. Minister for Finance, Senator Nick Minchin will have to spin a new story. The federal government is being out flanked as usual, not by the labor party, but by others external to parliament. This government must employ the greatest number of inept advisers and consultants of any Australian government at state, territory and federal level. John Howard , his Ministers and his advisers, do not do their homework. They ignore, as irrelevant, people who have contrary opinions. They ignore those who have no "title or status" or who are not considered expert, in favour of listening to those who present what the Prime Minister, and his colleagues, want to hear and believe. According to research, experts get it right no more than those who are not experts. Researcher Philip Tetlock, a psychologist with a Phd from Yale has spent of his time at the Universities of California, Berkely and Ohio asys so. What makes him unqiue in the world of academic research is that he has produced a seminal and intensive study of the world of experts, of all types, and assessed whether they are any better at teir activity than a novice such as me (KEVINRBECK). Philip has published his research in "Expert Political Judgement: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton University Press. His research translates to any society and this case I have compared it to how things work in Australia. The Australian Financial Review published an excellent synopsis (Friday 25 November, 2005, Review 3) of his research in an article written by Paul Monk, who is co-founder of Austhink Consulting and author of "Thunder from the silent zone: rethinking China". Tetlock's work can be applied to the unflinching claims of the Howard government for its Workplace Relations Reforms, justification of war in Iraq, economic policy, investment in R&D and other pet projects and its ideological pursuit of dross. Similarly it can be used to debunk economic forecasts, political analysis and a host of other "crystal ball" style pronouncements that are used to sells ervices, dress up stories and drive home points. The reserach exposes the human tendency to rely on an expert, particularly one with a job that suits and a title to go withit. The histiory of their performance and other traits are never considered nor remembered. He says that "experts are attempting to do with confidence what they demonstrably annot do very well at all. They make lots of money and cudos from dubious forecasts without ultimate accountability. They are well suited to being politicians particularly Ministers in Australia's governments and consultants and advisers in Australia's top tier companies and public sector enterprises. They are partisan, rarely admit error or they will give a dozen explanations as to how they got it wrong. Governments, shareholders and businesses lose billions year after year but continue to draw on their services. Monk quotes Tetlock, "we keep running into ideological impasses rooted in each side insisting on being the only judge of its own beliefs and forecasts". Does that have resonance, or sound familar, in your workplace, communities, in political rhetoric and justification, on television and everywhere? Tetlock found that experts on their home turf made neither better calibrated nor more discriminating forecasts than did dilettante tresspassers. Monk says that telock found that it made virtually no difference whether participants had doctorates, whether they were economists, political scientists, journalists or historians, whether they had policy experience or acces to classified information, or whether they had logged many or few years of experience in their chosen line of work. There was no correlation bewteen ideology and accuracy of judgement or precision of forecasting. The experts tended not to adjust their beliefs when the evidence came in but to rationalise or outright deny their errors. Is that familar too? Seems our politicians have this gene. The dominant danger he concluded was hubris closed mindedness, dismissing dissonant possibilities too quickly. Resistance is fierce particularly from those with grand reputations but humble track records. Tetlock did find that exacting research using scientific and other proven techniques based on solid empirical evidence and statistical analysis and checking, using large volumes of data and input over time did impact on the accuracy and quality. This is the instrinsic objective of the design of the Mosaic Portal. The Australian government is stuffed on getting value for Telstra. They will have to give away a public asset at bargain basement price. Senator Barnaby Joyce, one of the new members of the federal parliament and government coalition in Australia, appears to have quickly grasped what the CEO, Sol Trujillo, is saying about the state of Telstra Australia. However Barnaby had already received his thirty pieces of silver, or so it seemed, until he read the fine print in the draft bill. He was to get "up to thirty pieces" not thirty pieces. The Senator came into parliament espousing high moral and ethical intentions quoting the Australian constitution's requirement that Senators act for their state and not at the direction of the government executive. He galvanised attention and this went all swimmingly until he came to his first real challenge, Telstra. He believed the common rhetoric about Telstra as did his myopic National colleagues even though they had been constantly told that what was being put about regarding Telstra was misleading. Ministers like Peter McGauran, and every member of Australia's parliament ignored communications questioning the belief that Telstra was a fine telecommunications company worth a lot of money. He demanded concessions from the government to vote to sell the remaining government shares in the utility. He wanted new bits and pieces to make the telecomunications in rural Australia the best monmey could buy. He plucked a number out of a hat and he claims credit for forcing the government to allocate $A2 billion dollars to developing telecommunications infrastructure in regional and rural. But the draft bill said up to $2 billion. Spotty slime bits began to publicly emerge, and grow, on the government's story of Telstra and its value. A private briefing given by the new CEO of Telstra Australia, to senior government Ministers and the Prime Minister, informed the largest shareholder (the government) that all was not fabulous at Telstra. A lot of people had purchased Telstra shares based on pronouncements by the government and Telstra during the past few years and there were a lot of claims made by politicians, previous Telstra management and other commentators that the Telstra service was pretty good and that Telstra was worth $60billion. The government's 51% was valued in budget papers and in certain media papers at $A33 billion. Mr. Trujillo begged to differ very dramatically and he has presented a very different picture. This picture coincides with continued predictions, and analysis of Telstra's real situation, posted on one of the Mosaic Portal's web sites, and distributed to parliament in detailed submissions and stated in public hearings and in many other arenas, by myself, that Telstra's networks were not state of the art and were not up to scratch and that Telstra was worth nowhere near $60 billion and that the government's holding was worth maybe as low as $A23 billion. In 2006 it may well be below $A3.00 as low as $A2.30 per share. When Senator Joyce was on ABC's Lateline programme with Labor's Senator Conroy, he was asked if he would still vote for the sale of the government's share holding of 51% now that the Chief Executive, Sol Trujillo, had published the private briefing paper given to the government Ministers. The Prime Minister claims he was legally not allowed to tell the public about the content of the briefing paper. This is typical of his silding out from responsibility. There is always some impediment, it is someone else's fault. Senator Joyce claimed that his efforts were the saving grace of all of this. He said that the $A2 billion he had extracted would provide broadband, focusing on the Internet and mobile coverage. What he does not understand is that the cost of bringing Telstra's base network up to a state where one can add these additional, heavy impost technology applications will be $A2 billion to $A3 billion before one can add his "u-beaut" applications and that the cost of achieving what he thinks he is getting out of the deal is closer to $A5.5billion - $A6 billion, in reality. The reason is as follows. Telephone lines and connections are grouped in clusters within buildings, in shopping centres, in residential areas, suburbs and in communities. These clusters connect some type of service control box which in turn goes off to an exchange. The exchange may be a small box on a wall or a large building in its own right or a hut in a paddock. The controllers and exchanges have wires, cables and a range of computer type slot cards and other equipment that support basic telephony (voice) and high utility services (voice, image, data and text). Also inside these boxes, and exchanges, is an electricity supply, consisting of a power line, batteries, a diesel engine or in remote locations, battery and a solar panel. There are tens of thousands of these, probably 36,000+, installations all over the nation. Telephones, control boxes, exhanges and mobile towers need power. These remote locations are connected across the nation by signalling equipment arriving at a Telstra control network facility in Clayton in Melbourne, where faults and failures are logged and instructions sent out daily to the workforce There is a limited number of personnel servicing a region and these numbers were substantially reduced in 2000 over the numbers working in 1999. Telstra has continued to lose staff, knowledge and technical expertise. This is not good in an organisation where hybrid systems and non standard technologies are common place. The function of maintaining the power backup systems, and equipment, centre is not state of the art. On each desk in the year 1999 were two or three computer terminals each performing a different function, not integrated and each running different types of software, with some programmes being proprietary, that is written for Telstra by staff, single programmers and not telecommunications market wide applications software products. They are unique to Telstra, outdated and dysfunctional. It is likely that much of the Telstra technical systems suhcas the ones at Clayton, and the software, have not been upgraded or replaced on a scale to meet modern telecomunications environments. The equipment across is not standard. The exchanges are not standard, the cards, diesels, batteries and boxes are not standard. Some of this equipment was made as far back as the sixties and fifties and is no longer made. There are limited, or no spare parts. In 2000 Telstra did not actually know where at least 700 + of these control boxes were, because buildings had been renovated, streets and suburbs changed and records lost or not completed. Some of the equipment had not been routinely maintained even though records indicated that it had received regular maintenance. Given that there had been no major failure in the power supply back up systems and equipment, Telstra had not invested in replacement and had rated the likelihood of failure of its exchanges (in terms of power supply equipment) at about 1.3%. This would be a rating applicable to modern equipment and not gear that is fifteen, thirty or perhaps sixty years old. It would also be a risk rating not accounting for a Katrina style hurricane or other nasty natural event (on the rise) in parts of the nation such as far northern and coastal Queensland, Darwin and other Australian coastal regions. The copper cable (by far the most common connection) is also old and the buzz now is fibre optic. Some think that a fibre optic cable can be put out there for $A7billion, but connected to what? The telepower system needs replacing particularly if the load is increased in the system to meet Barnaby's expectation of broadband and flash applications all over . The computer systems need replacing. The workforce to do all of this needs tripling from its current numbers. All of this must take place before broadband or any other fancy application can be added. Analysts focus on the fact that Telstra controls the last mile, a term for the connection point at the user's residence or place of work. The copper cable, that according to pundits, the competitors want access to. It may all be very well to have access but it will not do much for service levels and quality if the cards and power supplies in the control station and excahnges are not up to scratch. Simply put Telstra cannot, nor can anyone else, in the sector deliver broadband everywhere, particularly in regional and remote, using the existing Telstra infrastructure, at the cost and timeframe in Barnaby's fantasy. He is out of the ballpark by $A3 - $4 billion. A clerical error by the former accountant. The National party will eventually walk away from the Telstra sale issue. Arguing that the price of the float is too high and contributon to budget has declined over time. Mr. Howard and his team did not count on the Nationals deciding that they should not be the pawns of the liberal party and members of government when they had an opportunity to demonstrate their electoral credentials. The Nationals will suddenly fluff their feathers and differentiate thesmelves, though it is not clear howthey might do this if all they have doing it is Barnaby Joyce and the rest of the party are liberal clones. Senator Julian McGauran bears watching in all of this. This possibility of independence has enraged many of the liberal party members. They are without an ethical, and a moral, compass and do not understand such complex issues as Constitution and electoral commtment to voters. Represent the people who elected them and the other drongoes who voted for the others! What tripe! Who has heard ofsuhc a preposterous theory? They strut the corridors of parliament house humming. some even singing, the tribe song - "loyalty to the party room, first and foremost and bugger the constituents". In his first term in office John Howard lost seven ministers and senior front bench members because they could not act ethically. Inefficiency, misrepresentation, lack of knowledge, poor planning and administration have become the hallmarks of the Howard government. These characteristics permeate their period of government and major policy initiatives on employment services with Employment National (going broke), Job Network (almost going broke three times), Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, with Children Overboard, Immigration (deporting Australian citizens by error, failing to honour international treaties and codes, participating in b4reaches of human rights), filures in military justice leading to people suiciding or losing their creers. So it was with the government's much vaunted Light Metals Agenda (magnesium), with reserach and development, with national energy policy and market formation, with the environment, with water,with broadcasting and now with telecommunications. It is the same with everything of significance. The Howard government cannot manage a quality public service delivery and they create a culture in the public service of fear, poor performance and servitude to government Minsiterial whims and demands and the direction of unelected advisers and staff of Ministers. The Howard government engages in sycophancy, and nepotism, and misuse of public funds for their own political purposes, in open contempt of due process. Ministers of the Howard government and members of the Austraoian Senate breach their oath of office and duty by serving the government and not the people. Under the Australian Constitution, Senators are required to place state righs before the federal government party agenda. Liberal Senator Brandis, and other members of the Howard government deride, badger and harass National party Senator Barnaby Joyce for following this principle demanding that he support the government before his constituents. They deride critics and people of principle who question their policies, motives and actions. They cannot see over the horizon and anticipate who is going to oppose and frustrate them. They think they have identified all of the players and the networks. John Howard and his Ministers are barely able to meet minimum acceptable performance standards in management let alone demonstrate the rare lateral abilities to strategise with effect. It must be the narrowness of their experience of a competitive world. Supporters of market and capitalist theory would argue that Telstra (Australia's major telecommunications corporation) exists purely to provide shareholder returns, consistent with statements of the Treasurer; Peter Costello exhibited in his remarks about the antics of Telstra executives in confronting the government (September 2005). Supporters of the free market also see concepts such as "corporate social responsibility" as baggage imposed on corporations; excessive (if any) regulation, business ethics, and social responsibility are optional extras. According to Telstra's new team of executives, and their rejuvenated board, it is up to government, not the private sector, to improve the telecommunications services of rural and remote Australia. In the telecommunications debate the antagonists to privatisation have a bob each way claiming that the government is failing to deliver, and consequentially business (Telstra or any other company) should do more. Development of a stronger regulatory imposition is designed to promote a shared responsibility, by the owners of Telstra, the government, and anyone else for the disadvantaged rural dweller. In an effort to fine tune the rules for telecommunications provision, as a political objective not a business or competition objective, the Australian government turns to regulation. This solution moves accountability for the outcome from the Minister, and the government, to the industry. Conversely, and hypocritically, this government argues that industry needs less regulation in industrial relations because it again suits their option for self-interested political expediency. The national interest is a bystander in policy deliberations in Australia's parliaments. It appears that politicians, and others, who would promote and accept this as necessary appeasement for their vote (Barnaby Joyce, the Nationals, et al) do not learn the lessons of experience. Corporation behaviour is highly regulated under Corporations Law, yet despite all the onerous rules and laws controlling business, the incidences of ignoring the rules, bypassing and moral and ethical lapses that have lead to spectacular failure, and prosecutions of the rich and famous, have continued unabated. Given this, the regulatory framework that is to underpin the sale, and ultimate delivery of service by Telstra, is unlikely to do the job that people are expecting. It has been said that Telstra does not comply they should be fined heavily. Do we see the Trade Practices Act deterring behaviour and making executives and company directors acquiescent? Executives at Telstra, like any other major corporation enjoying a relative monopoly, are likely, out of ego and other driving factors, to spend an inordinate amount of money, time and resources trying to get around something that they do not embrace and have any regard for. They will oppose regulation and try and get around it whether the government or anyone else owns Telstra. This goes someway to explain the current antipathy, and strident attacks, being levelled on the government's policies by Messrs. Trujillo and Burgess. The propositions put about by commentators and observers, that they came here without doing their homework or that they are behaving extraordinarily arrogantly or naďvely demonstrate the immaturity of people in government, media and proponents of regulation, anti-privatisation and social justice. On the customer side is the bleating, "we choose to live in the far flung parts and therefore we are entitled to receive the same level of resources and access to technology". This is also dislocated from reality. Populations are departing rural Australia not growing. If procreation was on the rise and immigrants were surging in, in a flood then one may argue the economies of scale and no doubt Telstra might find them interesting as customers. The Law of Diminishing returns is already in full play. Rural dwellers are not the growth customer base. People in glasshouses, such as Mr. Costello ought to look to his own responsibility to the shareholders of government (citizens). Throwing a billion, or two public dollars, at the problem for the purposes of political expediency is not maximising shareholder value. He fails in his own job on a regular basis, as do his colleagues. However, accountability is not a value enshrined in politics and government and they expeditiously point the finger at Mr. Trujillo and the Telstra Board. The Minister for Telecommunications, Ms Helen Coonan, stands on ceremony, which has become the hallmark of modern Australian governments. "You shall not argue back: at this government. She is not in the same street-fightiang league as those she would seek to tame. The telecommunications industry is not a great investment and as I have argued for the past two years, to a non-existent audience, Telstra's sale price will never achieve $25 billion let alone $33 billion. It seems the light bulb of dawning has finally hit home. In the past people have bought Telstra shares for their annual dividends and cunning Mr. Trujillo is saying that these dividends are at risk. Telecommunications is now a dangerous thing to have in one's share portfolio though idiots did once make it a prized possession creating a few billionaires. The government, and the people of Australia, through the efforts of the opposition parties, are left with a dud, by comparison, because they missed the boat. This is not something new, invented by the CEO, it is logical and is based on historical fact, worldwide. Politicians, and others, ranting and the media creating a rain gauge of falling share price is nothing more than spectacle without substance and reality. The government is locked into achieving the best sale price for Telstra shares and that is the Achilles heel of the good Senator's plans and the barrier to achieving a beneficial outcome. Wanting to play petty political games, with big blank posters, in election campaigns, and playing at share trading are sideshows. The politicians (all of them) in the federal parliament during the nineties and up to date created and added to this mess. The government has to look at its own Mission statement to see that its design was always flawed. The privatisation of Australia's electricity industry, also built on regulatory frameworks, has not delivered so why is telecommunications any different? There is however a significant difference. Unlike energy, telephones and gadgets have a finite appeal, application, growth, and utility. Much of the consumer add on is discretionary spending. The logical, and technically efficient thing to do, if competition, access and service is the objective, is to take the infrastructure out and come up with a model for competitive development over time. To do this guts Telstra's value and leaves the existing and prospective shareholder with what? Trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear has always been impossible. Alternatively, the tactic that most investors use when they are bleeding financially, is to sell the lot, take a loss, and move on rather than hope that some miracle may come along and extricate them. The federal government cannot afford to do this openly so they will sell some and stick the other shares into a "Future Fund" to be managed by other people. In this way the government of John Howard will not be accountable for the plunging share value or for misrepresenting the value of the shares in budgets. ("Telecommunications in Australia, Telstra's three amigos will lose", Kevin Beck) |
| Citizen versus the State and Power Collective |
|
It is not about good government, equal representation or public interest
|
|
Some time ago the cabinet of the Howard government was determining welfare benefits for Australian war veterans. Their decison apparently revolved around reducing them substantially by hundreds of millions in the coming budget. However the government's media unit, and Ministers, were as is the practice of this morally debased government, presenting a different public image. A public servant felt that ethics and honesty might be public interest issues as much as illegality. The Howard government Ministries, and public service departments, have a public record of lying, altering data and records, doctoring pictures and misrepresenting fact. Howard avoids being linked to this by endlessly stating that he was no told and he was not aware. These are traits the greater number of public chooses to ignore. Journlists published documents demonstrating the Howard government duplicity on veteran's affairs, leaked by a public servant. That person is now on trial and the journalista are asked in court to name their source or risk going to jail. Australia has no laws protecting journalists. Howard and every other politician in Australia has built hos career onleaking information to the media. Howard when asked about thisin the media extolls the virtues of honesty and integrity of cabinet process and the right to privacy. He is a hypocrite when he says that government has a right to discuss things in public when he has never demonstrated ethics and morality as his primary qualities. He has been opportune in playing the game of "show and tell". He claims that it is his and the Minister's right. He and his senior coleagues are happy to proceed down this very fraught track, demand of others, personal qualities and behaviour they do not exhibit or adhere to. Yes governments, and Ministers, have the right to deliberate in private. What they do not have a right to do is lie, and present a different picture and to be continuously dishonest and disingenous. They do not have the right to rub their hypocrisy. in the form of power and offce, into the face of smarter Australians, because a large number of not so smart Australians are so stupid as to believe the consumer myth and the siren call, lumbering themselves with so much debt that they have to trade their democracy, to stave off the inevitable. Howard is in office, not on his personal integrity, moral leadership and creative abilities. He is pawn owned by the market. He is there on expediency, on the votes of people who have no choice. Whose personal interests are not concerned with having an ethical or honest government. Their interests revolve around mortgages, money, taxes and debt, fearful that some other liars and cheats might cause interest rates to rise. If Howard was a state liberal leader he would never have seen the office of the Premier except as a visitor. If the Herald Sun journalists are jailed, then there will be a rolling blackout on government media and issues, liberal and national politicians, across Australia and an escalation of the coverage of the Howard government's ethics and integrity worldwide. Then the little smart arse that calls the government his, will learn that he, and his cabinet colleagues, are just small politicians, of testable abilities. Let the dance begin.("Threatening the right to enquiry", Kevin Beck) |
|
John Howard's betrayal of his parliamentary oath will damage the
Liberal party and shine a light on Labor also and the National party
will extend its grip on seats over time.The liberal party risks losing Senate seats to the National Party at the next federal election and a range of lower house seats, at state and federal level, on the fringes of the metropolitan and regional centres of Australia. There is no reason why the National party cannot represent inner metropolitan seats also.
Six weeks prior to the 2004 federal election I predicted an increase in the majority of Peter McGauran's federal seat in Gippsland and the rise in power of the Nationals particularly in the Senate. This is verifiable fact posted on the Internet and in communication with members of the National Party, copied to the media.
Today political commentators are describing the National's situation as a blip on the radar sticking to their prediction that the National Party is in decline and will fade away.
Senator Barnaby Joyce is the mechanism by which the Nationals will: (a) Walk away from the sale of Telstra and, (b) Consolidate their legitimacy and future as the party of the ordinary Australian. The Nationals know that to sell Telstra is a fatal blow to the coalition but their liberal colleagues are blinded by their ideological "totems' and "icons" . Senator Barnaby Joyce is the public face of those who believe that John Howard, and others, have betrayed their parliamentary oath to serve according to the intent of the Constitution. The Family First Senator is less a role model because he serves a narrow interest group rather than the essence of the Constitution. Family First has limited value because the family unit is not the majority representation of lifestyle in Australia. It is not John Howard, and the Liberal Party's, government, it is not Bob Carr's nor Steve Bracks' and nor is it owned by Peter Beattie arrogantly states that it is "my government" when he assumed the mantle of Treasurer. One can get a measure of the corrosive cancer which has taken over, by looking at these and many other examples such as Senator Heffernan, Wilson Tuckey and Sophie Panopolous. The parliament, of both liberal and labor members, has stolen the peoples' government and its democracy. John Howard's betrayal of his oath is evident in his statement that members of parliament owe their loyalty to the party room. A mantra adopted also by Labor. According to this they are not bound by any obligation to the electorate they are meant to serve. Everywhere we read that today's adults are far more educated than their parents and less trusting of their politicians. People know that the modern politician has betrayed their oath of service and degraded their democracy. The Democrats betrayed their own legitimacy when they, too embraced the duopoly. The National Party's Barnaby Joyce and independents such as Peter Andren are the exception to the political rule and their model is the future. It is not the National party that is in decline it is the Liberal and Labor party's stranglehold on democracy. It will just take time and active distribution of this argument to bring it about. ("Austarlia's Political Cartel brands in major decline", Kevin Beck) |
|
Fast forward from 1840 to Australia in 2005 where the Prime Minister, John Howard,
says that Australian workers have never had it so good as under the last ten years of his government.
Them what are the
origins of our pessimism?
Under Australia's model of government power is vested in the executive and not in the parliament. In the federal structure there is a lower and upper house with defined procedures and responsibilities within the Constitution creating checks and balances. No such system exists in Queensland since there is no upper house. The government defines policy and direction. Over time, across Australia, the executive, and Ministers, have taken on a managerial role on top of their parliamentary and government policy, regardless of qualification, experience and skill. The public service has become government service. New managerial systems have been imposed with little thought to how change and culture are affected or resistance is mounted. It is a top down system of imposed direction. Despite the claim that the whole of government approach is "outcomes" based, this is not so. It is input and output based model which is completely different. In times gone by the bureaucracy was input focused, as it built its internal assets, power and structure. Part of the power structure was the instilling of culture, through training, into public servants. Mandarins (Secretaries and others) with tenure exercised independence from the government, and executive, of the day guarding this and their power jealously. The public service was professional by deliberate intent, and design, not presentead, and images, as being professional by the glossy brochures and fantasy presented to parliament and public by the head of today's services whether they be state, territory or federal. Codification of management principles, into a mantra titled core business, has been a cosmetic exercise masking the failure to undertake deep research of the role and operation of governments, whilst a transfer of the old hierarchical models of control systems into hamds of political appointments, sycophants of the executive and otehr contractual appointments by the governments of the day in Australia. With this homogenisation process, " marketisation", "whole of government" and "commonality of belief systems" (indistinguishable political parties) has come corrosion of standards, and growth in incompetence, cover up and even illegalities by members of the executive,and public service management, of governments. But does the greater part of the nation care or know? The focus of our government and public serice is no longer on training, service and professionalism for their own staff. The focus in every public service in Australia, as shaped by politicisation, is about serving, and protecting, a narrow political elite. yet they demand that the private sector train their employees whilst setting little example. Palmer (July, 2005) refers to the lack of training in his report on the state of the federal Department of Immigration. The citizens of the nation are required to accept what they get until the next ballot box particularly the ill, disadvantaged and poor. As for the power of the electorate there is regard, during tenure of the government, only for the influential and a mandate is claimed behind these claimed mandates lies a systemic lack of accountability with resources applied to avoidance The electorate, and behaviour, is shaped. Those who serve loyally are rewarded. There are extensive examples across federal, state and territory systems of of bullying, ostracisation, sanction and threats. In major federal agencies staff refer to the managerial process of "being beaten up". The Australian Senate is told by senior public service managers that there is no recriminatory or bullying system in the public service and that staff are free to express their opinions. There apparently is no doctoring of reports, briefs and memorandums and the Australian public service is not politicised. Maybe they perceive this to be the case in their world of work but might it be far from the truth in the engine rooms? Is this view accurate, ill informed, incompetent or utilisation of the new tool of government, spinning the truth through the medium of communication and advertising prpoganda.? A major and destructive conflict of interest has blossomed. There are questions as to the real extent of political power. Adoption of managerial operatinal models do not sit easily in a public service system. Total Quality Management assumes that the focus of effort is delivering value to an end recipient. It does not take into account, measure or negate, politically vested interests, objectives and controlled interference. Glossy brochures, and annual reports, of the department shaped by the Minister to look its best for their political interest not the citizen's interest imply that services delivery is both objective and outcome. We have seen glaring examples in the fedral arena that this is not the case, and in other states and territories. Auditor General, and Ombudsman, reports to parliament indicate that in many cases performance is very poor. These reports may have some embarassment value for those concerned, but are largely ignored since the parliament is not the in charge. The tendency, and growing practice, by bureaucrats to hide things, to protect their political masters, their colleagues, themselves and other powerful interests, can have devastating consequences. The mode of operation and structures of hierarchy, power, and operation, invite such practice. This trend to lie and deny permeates the political process, corporate management and the community. Queensland Health presents a prominent example of the conflict model and the imposition of competing interests. Medical practitioner stakeholders, administrators, accountants, nurses, bureaucrats, politicians and patients all intermingling with different expectations and objectives. This places the organisation in a world of purgatory. Despite the fine words and managerial exercises, the worst of public administration lurks deep inside. A hierarchical structure of formal authority exists, the communications network is hierarchical and formal. There are extensive systems of formal rules. There are also informal structures of authority, informal and personal communications and formal impersonality of operations mingled with intense personal loyalty and personal involvement among officials in the highest ranks of the hierarchy. (Stewart, R.G. Public Policy, 1999). This organisational model is standard, not exception, across Queensland's public enterprises and services. It exists in every other state and territory. The catalyst is a focus on money, and productivity, at every level of politics and management. Productivity in the political world is a measurement of statistical output not quality outcome. Personal, and political, power trying to retain control, poor management and conflicting interests. There can be no constancy of purpose towards improvement in such environments and public sector managers, and others with deep involvement,can apparently live with delays, mistakes, defective systems and procedures and defective workmanship if the primary goal is maintenance, control and protection of self. Thus when a nurse blows the whistle on a doctor, on senior management and the members of the hierarchy the reactions, responses and retaliations are as we openly observe. The person is victimised, threatened and isolated. When hierarchy, and interest, is threatened, in the health system, in the legal system, in utilities and so on, the mechanisms of protection in politics, administration and all the other affected elements trigger. It is not until a journalist enquiring into the matter probes a spotlight on the players that the real world emerges. The politicians invariably express shock along with many others in the hierarchy. It is feigned because they are all willing participants in the theatre. Political corruption in Australia exists hwoever we rarely get to see it. The practice of merging political, public service and other interests into a "whole system" may bring with it a dangerous environment, in which to work and be a participant. This is quite clear to aboriginal people, to the disadvantaged and disabled, to the people who have been maimed or have died in Queensland hospitals, who have died on NSW trains, whose electricity systems fail, whose health care care is diminished and to the people so shockingly treated by federal immigration and the rest of Australia's governments who fail to deliver the goods and be accountable for their actions. ("Managerial politics and vested interest, Australia", Kevin Beck) |
The focus on economy belies, and ignores, the Corrosion of Australia's Character.
The above paper and web site was inspired by Richard Sennett's seminal publication, "The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism", W. W. Norton, 1998. 
Parrot debates about life and issues
|
|
Experts are everywhere. Governments and corporations use them, the media,
public and private entities. They inhabit universities.
They inhabit disciplines particularly economics.
Philip Tetlock,
a psychologist with a Phd from Yale has spent of his time at the
Universities of California, Berkely
and
Ohio.
What makes him unique in the world of academic research is that he has produced a
seminal and intensive study of the
world of
experts,
of all types, and assessed whether they are any better at their activity than a novice.
Philip has published his research in "Expert Political Judgement: How good is it? How can we know? (Princeton University Press).
His research translates to any society and this case I have compared it to how things work in Australia. The Australian Financial Review published an excellent synopsis (Friday 25 November, 2005, Review 3) of his research in an article written by Paul Monk, who is co-founder of Austhink Consulting and author of "Thunder from the silent zone: rethinking China". Tetlock's work can be applied to the unflinching claims of the Howard government for its Workplace Relations Reforms, justification of war in Iraq, economic policy and management approach, investment in Research and Development and other pet projects and its ideological pursuit of form and dogma over substance. Similarly it can be used to debunk economic forecasts, political analysis and a host of other "crystal ball" style pronouncements that are used to sell services, dress up stories and drive home points. Mass media is used to reinforce and drown out. The central message of the government in Australia today is that everything rides on economy and principally monetary policy. The use of fiscal policy to adjust radical problems or to tweak the economy in the public interest is abandoned. This is because it conflicts with free market policy. There are exceptions, driven by political interests. The abandonment of the privatisation of the Snowy Mountains Scheme in Australia's NSW by the Prime Minister is one such example. Politics presents an interesting mosaic of smoke and mirrors. The Treasurer, Peter Costello appears to focus on monetary policy as the primary tool. Policy is framed at influencing monetary policy principally keeping inflation down. Franco Modigliani suggests that on the whole monetarists are characterised by a profound mistrust of government authority. They see governments as tending to be dishonest It is interesting that Australian business associations embrace the government coalition of liberal and national) whilst many clearly follow Modigliani's proposition. The Australian government of John Howard and Peter Costello has rebadged monetary policy with the label of choice policy. Apparently we as consumers of government services now have choice as our primary motivator. We are free of the bondage of political correctness. Only in so far as the government defines what is correct. It is apparently correct, in their view, to marginalise, degrade and corrode our democratic participation in government and our legal foundations. We are not able to challenge authority and executive power as our parliaments have been neutered by the two major political parties and the executive governments of the day. Labor in the states and territories and liberal-national in the federal arena. Our parliaments do not effectively control either the amount of money available to the government or the spending of it. The High Court of Australia (2005) further eroded our parliament when they ruled that the government could spend tens of millions of dollars ($A40,000,000) on advertising the Workchoices on the basis of a single general, unspecific line item ($A1,400,000,000) in one of the departmental allocations which had not been fianlised and presented to the federal parliament. In essence our governments have a set of books they publish and another set that are the reality. They are completely different. The latter one we never see. This is corruption of our democracy and government and we tolerate it. The Media presents the myriad of corrosive elements affecting us as a mood for change in the electorate. Turn on the television, and radio, especially the commercial channels, view or listen to the "airheads" presenting news, current affairs and interviews. Our government embraces the free market. One might well consider how the free market policies, espoused by Milton Friedman, operated in Chile under Pinochet. We may view the incarceration of david Hicks by the US with Australia's tacit agreement, as a window into the soul of the Howard government particularly Philip Ruddock. Australia is in the grip of a skills crisis because our governments (all of them) are reticent to invest in human capital and prefer ideological political battles and gladiatorial feats over sound education policy. Perhaps people are a burden on governments and suicide is a potential reduction of the burden. In education experts drive the policy direction theorising the outcomes. Our governments do not invest in infrastructure because it would impact on government debt. Instead they roll out the new glitzy "public private partnership" model. A concoction of the imagination of bureaucrats. They model the world in simplistic terms and trade our assets for long term burden of another form. Inn the state of Victoria we have seen how the infrastructure has fallen into the hands of three major banks and the state priorities are now ruled outside of government. The work choices policy of the Australian government is a barrier to human potential for it reduces our employment to the lowest common denominator placing the health of the enterprise against the health of the employee and the collective talents of the nation. It seems to pass economists by that high wages actually promote innovation and creativity. All of this has the effect of propping up the power collectives control of capital and Australian governments. The media swoons over the huge amounts of cash flowing through the economy, unleashed by banks in search of ever increasing profits even at the expense of bankrupting the borrowers. Tetlock's research exposes the human tendency to rely on an expert, particularly one with a job that suits and a title to go without. The history of their performance and other traits are never considered nor remembered. He says that "experts are attempting to do with confidence what they demonstrably cannot do very well at all. They make lots of money and kudos from dubious forecasts without ultimate accountability. They are well suited to being politicians particularly Ministers in Australia's governments and consultants and advisers in Australia's top tier companies and public sector enterprises. They are partisan, rarely admit error or they will give a dozen explanations as to how they got it wrong. One can look at AWB Pty Ltd and the internal culture of its management and their distorted perception of the world of trade and anticipated consequence, never seeing a scandal that should have embroiled the Australian government in AWB's payment of bribes to Suddam Hussein. Fast forward to April 2007 and a group of experts raiders read the economic climate and move to take over Qantas Airways. They are the famed investment raiders. Their spokesperson is a well known Australian businessman. They believe, with Qantas management, that they can gain over 90% of the shares and privatise the company. They fail to read a world beyond them, the investors who hold Qantas as an icon. They believe greed and self interest based on economics and price will deliver them the airline. They are wrong. Their analysis was wrong. They have spent millions on their misconception. Governments, shareholders and businesses lose billions year after year but continue to draw on the services of economists and theorists who get it wrong. These are the big names of the business world. We know them. Governments and bureaucrats and business constantly employ them. This is despite their woeful records. These are vapour ware companies. Monk quotes Tetlock, "we keep running into ideological impasses rooted in each side insisting on being the only judge of its own beliefs and forecasts". Does that have resonance, or sound familiar, in your workplace, communities, in political rhetoric and justification, on television and everywhere? Tetlock found that experts on their home turf made neither better-calibrated nor more discriminating forecasts than did dilettante trespassers. Monk says that Tetlock found that it made virtually no difference whether participants had doctorates, whether they were economists, political scientists, journalists or historians, whether they had policy experience or access to classified information, or whether they had logged many or few years of experience in their chosen line of work. There was no correlation between ideology and accuracy of judgement or precision of forecasting. The experts tended not to adjust their beliefs when the evidence came in but to rationalise or outright deny their errors. Is that familiar too? Seems our politicians have this gene. The dominant danger he concluded was hubris closed mindedness, dismissing dissonant possibilities too quickly. Resistance is fierce particularly from those with grand reputations but humble track records. Tetlock did find that exacting research using scientific and other proven techniques based on solid empirical evidence and statistical analysis and checking, using large volumes of data and input over time did impact on the accuracy and quality. ("The truth about experts", Kevin Beck) 
|
 
 |
|
|
|
Uranium is going to be processed and beneficiated in Australia. There is a big public relations campaign in the USA now, for uranium and energy, what a coincidence! 
|
Web site for politicians, government servants, corporate managers, boards and anyone else who needs to know about
|
|
(April 2007) The leaders of Australia's governments at territory, state and federal levels have all adopted a presidential style of government with power centred on the party leader (Chief Minister, Premier and Prime Minister) and a small cabal of members of government operating within the cabinets. These ignorant and self interested people have effectively corroded and in some cases destroyed the principles that have underpinned Australia's quality of government and public service. The peoples' democracy has become the personal fiefdom of a few who have openly shacklerd Australia's legal system to their will and objectives through legislation. The executive of Australia's governments have effectively undermined and corrupted the separation of powers. They are ably assisted by political advisers and sycophantic public servants. The political adviser is a cancer in Australian democracy. Unelected they cajole, threaten and interfere with the administration of the parliament and the public service. They are not worthy of respect and lack both ethical and moral capacity for office making them splendidly skiled for serving the modern Minister of the Crown in our parliaments. The High Court of Australia is in danger of being a pawn of the executive unless it is vigilant. The Australian Constitution is silent on the role of a Prime Minister yet Robert Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard have all added to the erosion of the quality of our government. Hawke began by removing tenure for public servants and the introduction of contracts, they have their jobs at the whim of the Minister. The whim of ignorance and petulance in many cases. We once had a great "public service" until it was converted to "government service" and then to "political service for a few". The Australian Public Service Board of Commissioners was abolished and the power to manage the Australian public service was placed in the hands of the chosen person of the political elite. This is a criminal act against the interests of good government dfor it effectively ensures that the public service is cowed to the will of the politician. The Prime Minister John Howard presidentially reminds us that governments make decisions. That is indeed true. Sadly in the case of the Howard government many, if not all, disregard due process and are made on whim and stupidity. Take for example the Prime Minister's whimsical decision regarding purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter, a plane that happens to be manufactured in Texas, the President's (USA) home state, a decision made just after visiting George Bush, whilst analysis was stil being undertaken. The Prime Minister did not wait for the analysis he simply made the call. " The Federal Government says it remains committed to spending $16 billion on new fighter jets, despite revelations that the planes have serious design flaws. The Government is planning to buy 100 Joint Strike Fighters to replace the fleet of F-111s and F/A-18s." (Source: ABC News On Line, Australia, Saturday, June 24, 2006.) Then when the Prime Minister realised his error he approved a power to the Minister for Defence for an interim purchase. So Brendan Nelson decided to purchase a Super Hornet. A study of Australia's defence strategy and published documents demonstrate that no such interim purchase is needed. Ego, and self belief, is all too often supreme. " THE American head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project warns Australia's new Super Hornet jets will be vulnerable to enemy attack within 10 years. Tom Burbage, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin's JSF program, says he was surprised by the Government's decision to buy 24 of the Hornets. The Australian Government announced last month that it would spend $6 billion to buy the advanced Boeing Super Hornet fighter-bombers as a stopgap so the RAAF can maintain regional air superiority until the JSF is ready for operations." (Source: Australian Newspaper, Nick Butterly, March 22, 2007)". The Australian Public Service has strained relations with Ministers and with government policy. Too much of the policy is poorly researched and rushed out. " The Australia Defence Association (ADA) think tank says the only way to solve problems in the Defence Department is to appoint more ministers to the portfolio. The association's comments came after a Government report highlighted serious concerns about the relationship between Defence Minister Brendan Nelson and the department." A Government report has found serious problems in the relationship between the Defence Minister and his department. It has found there is confusion about the Minister's role and says a lack of quality advice to the Minister is causing problems. (Source: ABC News on Line, Australia, Friday, April 6, 2007.) "The Secretary of the Treasury, Dr Ken Henry, has criticised the Federal Government's policy-making process in the run-up to the election, and has revealed that the Treasury Department was not consulted about one of the biggest policy announcements of recent years, the Prime Minister's $10 billion water plan." (Source: ABC Australia, The World Today, Wednesday, 4 April , 2007, Reporter: Hayden Cooper.) Policy pops out of the mouths of Australia's elected leaders with little regard for deep reserach and analysis, if there is any at all, and without consideration of the effects beyond the imediate election cycle. Policy decisions have clear, and traceable, links to patronage, corruption, croneyism and nepotism. The checks and balances are eroded, ignored and even removed. As we approach the federal election having just seen how a corrupt and moribund government (NSW) can be relected there appears little hope that Kevin Rudd and the revitalised federal labor party will do anything to restore due process and the independence of the public service. The current arrangements, corrosion and corruption, suit the political incumbents very nicely. There is a lot I do not like about the governments of Australia, at state, territory and federal levels. Largely it is the manner in which they go about things. Take for example the spin that the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, put on justifying their poor judgement in continually supporting an illegal activity. They have claimed for years that the military commissions in the USA holding Australian citizen David Hicks in Gauntanano Bay were both appropriate and legal. On June 30, 20076 they have been shown to be inept and dangerous in office, for the US Supreme Court has ruled that the US President George Bush has exceeded his power. The court ruled that the military commissions break both US and international law. The Australian government has on numerous occasions held its views and opinions to be above international law. John Howard is a lawyer. The Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, the highest law officer in Australia has been similarly exposed. His legal assessment and judgement is now in question. Australia's politicians seem unable to behave with civility, and respect, for individuals, for citizens, for the high office they are given. They do not show respect for the institutions, nor for each other and those who are not of the same beliefs or persuasions. The churlish, and often childlike antics and ignorance, are irksome. I seem to be angry every day about my governments, too often overlooking, or dismissing, the good that they do, focusing on the negative. Rather than communicate and educate the public in dealing with them they, and the senior public servants, often behave wit arrogant indifference or dismissal. The lack of ethics and disengagement has permeated the public service to the highest levels. It is as if they inhabit some different world where they are accountable only to a small group, not for performance in the normal sense but for adhering to asset of rules that we the general public are not party to. The autocratic, often pompous and dismissive arrogance with which they approach every major issue. Unable to articulate complex issues to a bored and semi-literate public they instead denigrate their critics To achieve their goals Australia's leaders and senior politicians, ministers and the parliamentary party members lie and manipulate their way. Persuasion is not a tool they embrace preferring to legislate to make people do their will. Australian citizens have no avenue for debate or appeal, no system of guaranteed referenda to challenge the executive's will. The governments of the nation at federal state, territory and local government levels, no longer deliver value for money to the people they are supposed to serve. Public interest has been superceded by political interest, public service by political service. The good they do is lost or sullied by acts of malfeasance and corruption. The executive and the parliamentary members appear to want to limit people participation, holding onto power at all cost. The quality of public administration is declining in line with the ability of the politicians who serve as Ministers of governments and the loss of talent, history and experience, from the public service. This service is now the "political service". Their function is to cover for inept, corrupt and incompetent Ministers. A significant example of this is the labor state government of Victoria lead by Premier Steve Bracks. Mr. Bracks appears to have lost his moral compass. He openly supports corrupt politicians who manipulate their electorates to ensure their maintenance of power. Mr. Bracks describes Mr. Seitx, exposed for such corruption as a "good local members" and actively works to keep Seitz in parliament. This is beacuse Bracks rates his own self interest (Setz supports him to retain the leadership) before the welfare of the state's democracy and governance. The media has exposed Seitz and others for their actions and Bracks has simply dismissed these serious allegations and the policy failures. The two major political parties (labor and liberal) appear to have jettisoned their values for the more pragmatic adoption of winning at all costs even if it risks the soul of the nation's governments. Labor's last hay day was under Bob Hawke, the concensus Prime Minister and leader of the people. They liberals laud the economic management credentials of Peter Costello and prefer that no one mention the abysmal economic credentials of John Howard when he was Treasurer. That is the extent of the two parties' capacity for memory. Today these two parties have no philosophy. They borrow what they need from moment to moment. The most blatant in abandoning its roots is the Australian Liberal Party. They exist day by day on the hope that John Howard will be immortal and nothing else. They have lost their philosophical tradition. The party that has long supported private enterprise expediently jettisons this ideology and the Prime Minister with cavalier irresponsibility blocks the privatisation of the Snowy River Scheme (June 2006) he supported only a few days earlier, because he discerns that powerful interests threaten the finely balanced control John Howard has in the parliament. He controls both houses. John Howard has been compared by some to Robert Menzies. This comparison could be further from truth. Robert Menzies created the philosophy of the party. A philosophy that is suspicious of government power. He knew as did his party members, that absolute power corrupts. They knew that governments are not all knowing, yet listen to John Howard and any of his Ministers and they lace their speeches and responses with infallibility - "the reality is" is a favourite of the Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews. The Minister for Foerign Affairs, Alexander Downer parrots this phrase. They, and their colleagues too often, like to respond with "that is wrong" as if their word is final and not to be challenged. Robert Menzies and his party had respect for the institutions of the nation. John Howard and Ministers and others openly deride and ridicule the judges on the benches of Australia's courts. Succesive Attorney Generals, appointed by John Howard, have failed to unite and support their judges preferring to try and make them conform. It is not enough to use the method of picking the suitable judge, the Australian government blurs the boundary between executive, legislature and judiciary. John Howard talks of the rule of law whilst undermining its foundations. Hypocrisy and double speak runs rife in politics. There was a reticent in former liberal governments to do whatever was necessary to stay in power. John Howard and the modern day liberals have no such qualms. Peter Reith, former Minister for Defence, left parliament under a cloud, exposed in the "children overboard affair". The government had doctored pictures to support their claims that asylum seekers coming on boats were throwing their children into the water to get Australian naval vessels to pick them up. It was a lie after lie, day after day, deliberate to ensure electoral victory. There are many instances during John Howard's ten years in office of lies, misrepresentation and corruption of legitimacy. Sir Robert Menzies accepted that there were alternative points of view. He did not pay lip service and respected his enemies. John Howard, and his band of followers, by comparison, are liberals in name only, without substance and philosophy. The Prime Minister has replaced the tradition and philosophical belief with pragmatism and personal hubris. The liberals have literally turned Howard into a political deity. The saviour who wins elections. The more sophisticated and true liberals are silenced. Every now we see them emerge in the shape of Petro Georgiou, member for Kooyong, Victoria. Georgiou uses liberal philosophy to frame his politics. Whilst the state's are corrupted by mediocrity and greed, the Howard government is afflicted with hubris and a vacuum of philosophy, ever worsening memories, openly disdainful disrespect and poor administrative capacity and abilities The evidence for me, is overwhelming. The government of John Howard has by design and inadvertently, denigrated, and corroded, Australia's democracy and the nation. They know no better. Their style of government is one of opportunism, using fear and insecurity as primary tools. Dealings with Australia's government, their advisers and government servants, is one sided. They surrounded themselves with people who have created a construct designed to protect their political, and personal interests whilst actively avoiding responsibility and accountability. I have formed this view after ten years of constant interaction with Australia's governments and public servants across Australia. Over the ten years of his office as Prime Minister, John Howard has shaped Australia as a society that has as its primary goal to be rich and comfortable. "Middle Australia" is a political construct. Kim Beazley in his myopic leadership of the Australian Labor Party babbles about doing it for "middle Australia". In June 2006 the media reported that Australia's unemployment level was below 5%. This is a load of crock. The figures for unemployment are a political creation using a formula designed to mislead and create false impressions. Researchers know it is closer to 10%. In June 2006 there are one point seven five million people on welfare payments. The welfare recipients are rising, yet the government claims unemployment is falling? In 1996 there were one point six nine million on the welfare list. Anyone not looking for work is not counted in the statistics of the unemployed. Anyone who works an hour a week is not counted. Thus under employed are ignored. In the job creation claimed by the Australian government the bulk of jobs have gone to better educated professionals and not to basically skilled. The liberal government's Job Network is an under performer by comparison to the the Working Nation programme under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating when labor was in government. This is another fact distorted until it is lost in the myth of government spin. This is not conjecture for there is a body of evidence to support the proposition that under John Howard's government and the hand of Tony Abbott and Kevin Andews human assets are devalued. People at the bottom of the employment ladder have had their opportunity to get a job cut by seventeen thousand jobs (source the Weekend Australian, June 10 - 11, 2006: George Megalogenis) and there s a distinct unwillingness on the part of government to invest in the less well off. In the words of John Howard echoed by Minister Kevin Andrews, it is better to have a job, any job, at any pay rate under any conditions. In the 2006 budget the majority of cash redistributed to the nation went to "middle Australia". The reason is that here are the votes. In the nation, who wins government, is decided literally by a few thousand votes in a few marginal seats. Thus for some people in safe seats there is no reason to vote, however the liberal and labor parties both know that if voting was not compulsory they would be in a "crap shoot". Under the former labor and liberal governments, before John Howard, the greater percentage of funds in welfare went to pensioners. Now the greater share goes to well off families with the greater number of kids. Single, divorced and alone, the disabled and the poor simply miss out. Their votes are worthless to the parties so they get less. Pensioners are going backwards along with the poor in a nation rolling in wealth under a government crowing about its economic prowess. Politicians have thick skins. They need it for if they did not and they looked into peoples' eyes they would be shamed. The government has made much of its industrial reforms claiming that its legislation would deliver productivity and opportunity. They distorted and manufactured their own version of truth and reality. The OECD released a study in June 2006 that shows that Mr. Howard, Mr. Andrews and the claims of senior executives in the various business associations across Australia are unsubstantiated. There is no substantive proof, or evidence, that much of what is used to justify the Howard government's Work Choices legislation is true. The sad thing is that in the face of this these people still persist with their claims. They occupy the most senior political and corporate positions in the nation and they have no moral cringe at misrepresentation or failing to research their topic before they offer their statements up as inviolate laws of nature. These people demonstrate that on balance they should not hold positions of trust or representation. If John Howard is truly an icon of political contribution to Australia's democracy then we obviously have little substance in our political class, or the measurements by which we judge these things are ones that have little to do with public interest, integrity and honesty. The practice of the Prime Minister is to be technically truthful or to avoid being told. He is all too often absent from the role of ultimate responsibility. This is not a quality of leadership to be admired. John Howard, has created and nurtured, a mindless, even moronic, jingoism with nationalist overtones. We have become in his image, a narrow minded, mean and tricky lot. One might ultimately tire of the singular piece of cant that comes from John Howard, "look what I have done with the economy?" Is this the justification for everything including torture, destroying peoples' lives in the name of protecting Australia, lying and covering up as the case in children overboard, Iraq, the Australian Wheat Board scandal, etc. etc? We see the ultimate arrogance of politics on display through the managed processes of parliament and accountability. John Howard's venal Ministers too often see no reason to answer questions, provide information or even participate in democracy. They demonstrate their incompetence in testimony before the Cole Royal Commission. A Royal Commission operating under a carefully crafted terms of reference. The smarmy, and puerile, behaviour and "garbage in, garbage, out" rhetoric of Foreign Minister Alexander Downer demeans the government and our senior political class. He offers condescending justifications, fobbing off his failure to carry out his legal responsibilities and to administer his portfolio with diligence and care. Downer and his senior departmental officers have been derelict in their duties, over successive years, whilst taking their public pay packets. They, like Minister Ruddock and the Immigration Department, are the face of the decline in ethical behaviour. across Australia's federal government and public service. These are the role models that many corporations emulate. The employment of spin doctors, media managers and public relations companies to manipulate Australia's democracy has resulted in a failure of the principles of accountability and it has corrupted the system. People have a right to know and debate what informs the decisions of governments and why they make decisions. However the decrepit situations we see today, in the way our governments and corporations behave is a result of the quality of the individuals who are in positions of power and influence and the people they employ. These corruptors of our democracy are ably assisted by elements of the commercial media and infotainment commentators passing as journalists. They like the politicians, senior political advisers, senior public servants denigrate and corrode the nation. They treat the public like fools. There is growing anger and disenchantment as well as bigotry and intolerance. We are abusing each other on a daily basis. The governments of Australia are presenting their political interests and objectives, shrouded in economic policy jargon, as if they are synonymous, with public and national interests. The governments of Australia are presenting their political interests and objectives, shrouded in economic policy jargon, as if they are synonymous, with public and national interests. |
|
United States, Canada and Australia |
Australian public opinion polls, in February 2006, show that John Howard is held in low regard, by the Australian people, in every category of what a political leader should be. There is one exception, economic management. The sad situation, for the nation, is that a majority of Australians regard wealth, and economy, as the sole bench mark. I think John Howard is proud that "economic management" is his badge. I entertain a broader view of what a leader should be. In June 2006 Howard and a group of Ministers decided to use their Constitutional power to overturn the Australian Capital Territory's proposed recognition of civil unions between gay couples. Our parliaments are full of wowser politicians who create a fiction of what society is like. One liberal Senator, Gary Humphries, acted with integrity and crossed the floor to vote against his party. He showed a conscience and rare disposition to oppose the mediocrity in which many in our society are wrapped. According to these people the community does not want gays to marry or be recognised in law for their relationship. They see them as some form of deviation whilst accepting the word and behaviour of men who walk around in frocks, claiming women are lesser beings in God's church and wearing rings to be kissed. This is normal, gays are not? The proposition that Mr, Howard even understands the concept of "government for all" seems remote. I am not surprised that John Howard, described as bland and average by all Australian media and political commentators, would embrace narrow conservative bigotry. He rides on the backs of others to the pinnacle. Astute politically? I don't think so. He simply persists and often takes a punt relying upon the tools of manipulating peoples' emotions and psyche. He offers no vision and does not ask us to challenge our notions and attitudes. He reinforces those that suit his purpose. He is lucky and in being all that he is, which is limited, he appeals to the majority. Is he a user? Yes, I think so. A user of his colleagues' talents, and of the nations' abilities and efforts. Mr. Howard and senior liberals exploit greed, racism, bigotry, fear and insecurity. Mr. Howard taps them all. The economy is good because others made it so. If the Australian media was doing its job it would be more discerning of this proposition.It would accurately report the truth. However it cannot, because John Howard and his hired help have an iron fist on access, information and patronage. The Australian federal parliamentary press gallery are not going to risk their privileges by confronting John Howard or for that matter any other powerful politician unless they have iron clad evidence of scandal or impropriety. Challenging on policy would require investigative and reflective skills they may not possess. For that matter, any other powerful politician, and government leader, in the Australian political duopoly. The political spin doctors, and their political masters, own Australia's parliament ray press galleries They manage them like sheep, on a daily basis, into the crutching pens. Access is the privilege and it is also the currency of daily media, across the nation.. Let me put it to you that John Howard is not the maestro of the Australian economy. The Treasurer, Peter Costello and Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, and other competent liberal members like them, are. The cabinet cabal of many others are as lack lustre and mediocre as John Howard but there is a system of "smoke and mirrors" and managed politics in Australia. The Australian political system, and media myopia (read inadequacy of investigative journalism, similar to the United States) is such that the leader of the party is credited with all success. This must be galling to the good performers. This is not dissimilar to the Australian Labor Party. The Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, is credited with success, emanating out of his support troops, whilst he himself is appearing to be not up to the task. The Australian Wheat Board scandal, is yet, among many, a living example of the corrosive effect of John Howard's's legacy to the nation reflected in the Australian opinion polls. "Australia is a meaner place" under John Howard" John Howard's legacy as Prime Minister with the avid and unquestioning support of by Philip Ruddock and Alexander Downer, is putrid. It has developed a festering ignorance in Australia's gut. The Prime Minister once argued that we should reduce Asian immigration. It was in the mid eighties. He embraced a different theory of economics, social management and nation shaping every second week. Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, Rogernomics in New Zealand and Reaganism fed his intellect. Today he warmly embraces the theories of George Bush. It is interesting that Howard should find a relationship with politicians of such radical views given his conservatism, and reticence, to antagonise public opinion that affects his standing in office. When Howard came to office, as Prime Minister, he surrounded himself with zealots of one form or another. Politicians who took their election as a mandate to inflict upon Australian society there warped and harsh perspectives of life. Many of them were lacking in ethical principles and in his first days of government he lost many a senior politician to these instincts. However ethics is the currency of electoral success. economic management and spin is. As Howard, and his ministers, shaped the nation's psyche, the Prime Minister opened a door to an inner darkness. Howard's proposition that it was okay to speak one's mind spawned Pauline Hanson and One Nation. The liberal nature of the liberal party had changed. Ever the wily, and manipulative, politician he wooed these right wing, narrow minded bigots. Prime Minister Howard says that political correctness is not acceptable and we should speak our mind and let the bile run out. The hypocrisy of John Howard, and his government members, is that they do not like biting criticism and bile launched their way, they are vindictive and mean. Howard's laws on sedition, rushed through parliament in December 2005, are broad and draconian enough to frighten critics, media and political opponents. Mr. Howard, in pursuit of economic rationalism and ideology, has attacked the weaker members of Australian society, the disabled, single parents, the mentally ill. They must work for their living and support. Much of Howard's legislation has no public policy value. It is legislation created out of ideology and a desire to crush opponents and dissent. It is legislation to direct and discipline. Meanwhile behind the scenes media and communications machines work to lie, manipulate and hide the truth of maladministration and failures. Failures that cost billions of dollars, engender suffering, torture and cause madness and human suffering. The most shocking demonising of the nation is in the area of immigration. Prime Minister Howard appointed Philip Ruddock as Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Aboriginal Affairs. This man has added very little of worth, if anything, to government and the quality of public office in Australia. It is more a clinical and surgical approach to governance than a human one. Mr. Ruddock seems to lack the ability to empathise or feel the results of his cold blooded logic and hard heartedness. In many ways his is a vile demonstration of politics and power. It is Ruddock who has sickened many liberal party members to their core and caused them to challenge Howard's authority. Mr. Ruddock presides over a policy and a department that locks up children behind barb wire. He interns people on remote islands and in deserts. He deports the infirm, and the mentally ill, to their home country even though they may have lived here for the greater part of their lives. He judges people on character traits and makes decisions about their motivations and their future. Not one here, or there, but hundreds and thousands of them. Mr. Ruddock displays some vile character traits of a politician and it is unfortunate, for those who care about our government and the nation, that he ever came to such powerful public office. When he has left public office Australia will be better for it. Prime Minister John Howard and Minister Philip Ruddock are at the forefront taking Australia down a road that a socially advanced democracy would never tread. On the weekend of December 10 and 11th, 2005, a group numbering about 1,000 people gathered at Cronulla beach in Sydney's south. They had carved "100% Aussie pride" into the sand and were singing Waltzing Matilda. They had used modern text technology to call disaffected youth to confront the "lebs and wogs" who came from their suburbs to cause trouble. The mob mentality is bred in people who lives are vacuous and whose contribution to society is negligible. They gain status, and a goal in life, a feeling of belonging. They think that this behaviour shows that they are committed and patriotic. To call them idiots is to insult the handicapped. They cannot fill their days with anything but festering ignorance and dumb pursuits. Their horizons are the next day, the next rave and for many the next drink. Fighting is their badge of honour. They are crusaders and knights, in their video game powered brains. By all means let's look at the pictures and the surveillance and let's identify and arrest and charge them. That is the most prominent solution of the guardians of justice, law and order. Jailing people scares others doesn't it? Crime is diminished isn't it? Make them a hero for that is another badge of status. They can engage in meetings and agree a suspension of rioting and thuggery. They are made important people by such processes and their approach of violent behavior and bigotry is reinforced. Shoot them on sight and they are not so keen to be at the forefront of anti-social behaviour anymore. That is why in China and Burma one does not see too many riots. Perhaps we could adopt some of the practices of authoritarian regimes to complement John Howard's human relations policies. Helicopters flew overhead; police in riot garb patrolled the streets. The liquor flowed freely and then the riot and affray began. The Premier spoke tough about law and order, the Police Commissioner was ashamed of what these Australians had done. It was described as un-Australian. A nebulous word which has little meaning once politicians, like the Prime Minister and other leaders sprout it. The Prime Minister said that he did not accept that what was happening was about racism. Of course he would not because then we might start to investigate the relationship between Howard's small minded policies and social friction and fracturing. He might find that small minded people vote for him and that there may be distasteful group amongst them. People like Pauline Hanson's "One Nation", people who think Howard was right in 1988 when he said we should curb Asian immigration. Thinking people with ethical and moral values in Australian society on balance probably do not vote for the likes of John Howard. His voters are those consumed by greed or imprisoned by debt. They are the narrow minded bigots and those frightened by their own shadows. They have probably never visited "the middle east or the lands of the cultures they fear and denigrate". There are some home truths that Australia's governments, politicians, corporate leaders, institutions and the community at large need to confront and think about. And so it came to pass that a child was born unto Mary and Joseph, in a manger, and he was of "middle eastern appearance". The liberal leader of the NSW State Opposition said that the violence was all because the labor party, actually Iemma, had not appointed enough police. This is the maturity and extent of his capability to propose real solutions. The calibre of politicians, and leaders, who would claim to have the ability to manage, and lead, the nation is quite limited. Depth and the ability to galvanise are not their strengths. It is difficult to quantify what strengths they have that serve the national interests other than textbook economics. None of the decision makers, the experts, the media and the law and order zealots, will reach the sensibilities of the young and the bigoted. That will be left for someone else beyond the horizon of the limited vision, and awareness of the power collective. Perhaps it will be the teachers, the mothers and the religious leaders? The government and authoritarian response will be to meet violence and force with law and order legal violence and force. The NSW state labor and liberal parties, acting in bipartisan cooperation, will talk tough and legislate new powers to the police. These will erode civil rights but will be justified on the grounds that the greater number of citizens want the louts and the thugs off the streets. Impound their transport, their mobile phones, search them for weapons and stuff without warrant. So be it. The cost will be economic. The police will deter tourists and others from entering these precincts. Business will suffer, perhaps catastrophically while the politicians pursue their "looking good and acting tough" theatrics. The labor leader, Morris Iemma, and liberal leader, Peter Debnam, are not up to the task of complex social problem solving and lateral thinking. They lack depth of foundation, experience and substance to deal with people in a different socio-economic spectrum to them. The federal Minister, Fran Bailey, has a greater depth of real achievement but is shackled by the need to follow the government line. She must say that such events will have little, if any, any impact on tourism as if Australia is not connected to an electronic world. John Howard will adroitly avoid saying anything of substance, or reality, that is likely to scare the chooks. The media will say he is a consumate communicator. John will reassure and say that it is really all right. Howard will tell us that we are all basically good hearted. "Yes sure Prime Minister and pigs fly in your world." In John Howard's world, everyone should be alert but not alarmed. Everyone should be comfortable in the knowledge that Australia really after all is an accepting nation. According to the changing history record we accept immigrants and we certainly do not accuse them of throwing their children into the sea. We do not now have a government that doctors the pictures to make it look like immigrants throw their children into the sea. We are told that we are accepting of people of middle eastern appearance and people coming on boats. We had nothing to do with the drowning of hundreds on coming to Australia on the Siev X. There really were weapons of mass destruction though they will never be found. According to the government we are not a nation that deports its own citizens, that abandons its citizens to other government's whims and allows them to be locked up and tortured. Ask a government member and they will say we are not a nation that interns women and children, in razor wired prisons, under the gaze of mercenary guards who mentally torture them. We are not a nation that elects roaches into parliament to govern, corrode and corrupt. There will be questions asked overseas and the answers will be political bull dust. There is not a credible politician in Australia's two major parties who has an answer, and leadership calibre, for this unexpected turn out. Given that the political leaders are ineffectual why do the citizens on mass not meet these thugs, with the support of police and in concert with their politicians, confront them? If governments can be vigilante in their policy and actions why should the citizens not emulate their leaders? Another option might be to humiliate the fools who would engage in violence and thuggery, individually and collectively. To hold up their ignorance and stupidity to ridicule, to have the nation laugh at them. Make advertisements from the footage of the riots and their thuggery and then make fun of them, on and on and on, relentlessly and unmercifully. Then make fun of their parents and their friends. Declare them the unintelligent detritus of society that they are but use smaller single syllable words. Australia is in the grip of immoral government. The liberal party of today (2006) is no longer the "liberal party" as we once knew it. The labor party is no longer the "labor party" that we once knew. Today these parties are the province of self interested career politicians who occupy office without accountability or responsibility. They are kept there by factional political machines and the public cannot vote labor, and liberal out of office. It is a two party preferential voting system. Australia's governments are just a merry go round. The same faces and the same tired ideas and ideologies. It is passé, and boring, but unfortunately it has become dangerous too. Add to this another layer, the sycophants, the senior managers in the public services who delude themselves that a politician, by being elected and then made a Minister, represents all of the Australian public and are somehow serving the public by proxy. The public service see its role as "looking after their Minister/s". It is absolute garbage that the Prime Minister and Ministers represent all Australians just as it is garbage that any Premier, or Chief Minister and Ministers, represents all the voters in a state or territory.. Then there are quite a number of corporate and high profile characters who abuse their office and positions. The power collective is robbing the nation blind and laughing all the way to the bank. Even though some go by way of jail and the courts. The parliaments of Australia do not function with the interests of the people, and the nation, as the foremost concern. Public policy has been replaced with political interest policy. Australia's laws, regulatory frameworks, checks and balances and ethical codes of practice are flouted, and jettisoned, by decision makers in political and corporate life. Authoritarianism is the trend in government and the broader Australian community through human resources employment, management and practice. A disease is rampant throughout Australia. The disease is expediency, achieving the objective regardless of the mechanics used. This expediency includes misrepresentation and the practice of lying. The voters of Australia accept that politicians lie. This is not a crime against democracy. Take for example the debate on Workplace Relations. The Minister has stated on numerous occasions along with the Prime Minister, and every other parrot who has an interest, that the employer and employee should be able to negotiate their employment conditions above a small number of minimum legislated conditions. However it is illegal, and subject to penalty, for an employer and employee to negotiate the inclusion of a process for hearing and dealing with claims of unfair dismissal. Is this allowing employer and employer to negotiate. No. There are many more sections of the act which dictate what can be negotiated. They simply lied, in the lead up, to presenting the legislation. This lack of ethical behaviour in pursuit of objective, is displayed everyday by people, in every walk of life, who misuse, and abuse, positions of trust. It is exhibited through the inconsistency of treatment of people. The Australian Security and Investments Commission (ASIC), and the Director of Public Prosecutions, brought civil prosecuted Steve Vizard for using his positions of trust for personal gain under civil proceedings. His ventures amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars whilst he was a member of the Board of Telstra Australia. On the other hand ASIC and the DPP, pursued a jewish gentleman, via criminal proceedings and he was jailed and ultimately committed suicide. His crime buying a few Qantas shares for a mere handful of dollars ($1,200) based on a rumour he had heard from someone who had an association with Qantas. He had not misused any position of trust. Thus we have "classes of citizens". The Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, was effusive about Steve Vizard's plight, when he pleaded guilty to insider share trading, when he was a member of the board of Australia's largest company, Telstra. The Premier of Victoria hoped that it would be a mere blip on the radar and opined that Steve Vizard might return to board positions on behalf of the Victorian government. Steve Bracks is a modern Labor politician, sometimes seemingly short on ethics or perhaps a questionable perception of ethics, public interest and morality. When reaction to his ignorance was strong he recanted. In Queensland the labor government of Peter Beattie places documents such as records of the health and hospital performance onto trolleys and pushes them through the cabinet room simulating cabinet deliberations to make them exempt from, and integrity, of his government. There is no ministerial accountability, and responsibility, and the Premier allows incompetent people to retain their positions within his government. Piety, and justification in politics, is nauseating. Australia is in the grip of a serious decline in standards, administration, morality and performance by its governments and public services. There is disengagement, and lack of regard, by citizens, and enterprise, for active participation in democracy and endeavour The power structures of government, corporate and community are very well defined and embedded in Australia. Looking at the systems of government, policy and action in governments are the province of a select few of the political oligopoly (labor and liberal) with an archaic electoral system maintained to effect control for that group. The members of the governments' executives simply rotate between these two parties. It is a career, not a representative, model of government. Power and control amongst dwindling party members is handled by officials who decide who will stand for election within the two parties. After serving their time they will be rewarded with a safe political seat. The minor parties and independents play at the edges. The two main parties are almost indistinguishable in terms of economic and social policy. Parliaments (federal, state and territories)are in need of reform. They have become the play thing, and domains, of a privileged few who degrade democracy, governance and their places of work and endeavour. They degrade Australia. The primary driver for quite a significant number in office (public and private), is personal interest, not public interest or good. All decisions are measured by expediency to serve the political objective and need. The modern Australian liberal, and labor, parties have betrayed their roots and departed from the fundamental guiding principles. Former liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Frazer, a life member of the party has considered resigning from the party of "fear". A party whose policies are based on religion and race, reactionary and lacking in leadership departing from the liberal tradition. There are, he says, substantial grounds for resignation in the party and the members should begin the hard task of turning the party around. Margo Kingston says in her diary, "He wonders whether Australians understand that the anti-terrorism laws passed in this country actually apply to them. 'If they're returning from another country, are taken in for questioning and are deemed obstructive, they have the potential of five years in jail. They don't have to be guilty of an offence. We have entered a new world where people cease to be people 'not because they are known to be something but because they are suspected to be something" Frazer says. He points out that normal reporting of such cases can also lead to imprisonment. "It's the sort of law Stalin passed, and it's an Australian law." John Howard it is argued by critics, is the most corrosive, and divisive, Prime Minister in Australia's political history. "To Donald Horne (Looking for Leadership: Australia in the Howard Years, Penguin Viking, 2001) Howard's failure is not just that he gets the past wrong, seeing it through a pinchingly narrow set of preoccupations and experiences, but that he is unable to convey to Australians any sense of their shared future, as his notoriously empty Federation speech showed. Horne judges leaders by their words: 'A minimum to be expected from a political leader is the ability to make a few memorable remarks that seem to sum up what the leader and the party stand for, and the kind of meaning we might find in existence.' Quite a minimum! And the only two leaders he sees as meeting it since the Second World War are Chifley and Menzies. Leaders should talk to the people, explain to them why certain things are happening, help them to understand change, sympathise with their predicament and appeal to their better natures, to their hopes and generosity not just their fears and mean mindedness, give them expansive views of themselves and their societies, and tell them the truth. In a small, not very powerful country like Australia, this may mean telling them about their government's limited ability to control the effects of the world economy, something no recent leader has been able to do." (15 October 2001, Liberals Lead by Looking Backwards, Judith Brett, La Trobe University) Former labor minister John Button has described the labor party as "bereft of ideas". There are an abundance of poor ethical values and behaviour amongst Australia's most senior politicians and party officials. Access to members of government can be purchased through the political party headquarters. In Queensland poor administration is fatal. Labor Premier Beattie has desperately tried to avoid political disaster as the corrosion engulfs his government. "Queensland's Primary Industries Minister, Gordon Nuttall, has stood aside while the Crime and Misconduct Commission investigates allegations he lied. (ABC Archives, 26/08/2005). The labor Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks (2005) was initially supportive of high profile businessman, and socialite, Steve Vizard who abused his directorial position on Australia's largest corporation, using information he obtained through board meetings for personal benefit and enrichment. He received a slap on the wrist through a civil penalty fine. Others by comparison have gone to jail. The regulatory authorities are inconsistent and pay due regard to the whisperings, in their ears, by the minders of their political masters. Appointments to government owned enterprises invariably go to people who are friendly to the major political parties in government at the time. Appointments and consultancies, contracts and access goes to those who make large political donations. The federal Treasurer Peter Costello, and the Prime Minister John Howard, both display a lack of awareness, understanding, or just a blatant disregard for, ethical values. They are defending the appointment by cabinet, on the recommendation of the Treasurer, of a person to the Reserve Bank Board. It is not simply about whether these two politicians have any ethical values. It is a question as to the competency of the Treasurer, his staff and departmental advisers. Middle ranking public servants undergo full police and Australian Security Intelligence Agency checks. Why is this not the case for public board appointments particularly sensitive ones such as the Reserve Bank of Australia? Perhaps what is more of an eye opener is that there is no formalised, or legislated, procedure for appointments. Names are plucked out of the air and there is a chat amongst members of the government as to suitability. There may be a phone call or two to determine if there are any "political" concerns, In this case the fact that there was an extensive amount of material, over a time frame of fourteen years, as to propositions, claims and investigations, regarding tax manipulation or fraud, in the public domain and in the courts makes a mockery of the Treasurer's defence of not knowing. We can speculate why there are no formal systems. There is no curb on patronage and croneyism. However a deeper malaise is apparent. It is one of gross, and costly, incompetence. Under Australia's governments the quality of public service administration has fallen dramatically. There are far more examples in the Commonwealth arena than in the states and territories. It is an unprofessional approach to administration corrupted by politicisation which demands, and directs by threat, that the public service serve the respective government, the Minister/s and thus by default, political party, interest. The name should be changed to "government servants". The Prime Minister, John Howard, has created a climate that fosters degradation of the public service and administration. This inefficiency of administration and decision making has dire, and costly, consequences yet accountability on the part of the Minister, the Secretary, or executive, of the public service agency is avoided. Australian Customs puts in a new computer system and along the way are warned that the software will not run properly on their existing hardware. However they have miscalculated in their costs and are too proud, or nervous, to tell the Minister? The Minister is not competent in the portfolio anyway and this creates a dilemma. As a result Australia's ports come to a standstill. Cargo, in and out, in the busty pre-Christmas trading period sits on boats and in containers. The Minister is not going to pay the bill. A large amount of time in the communications section of Customs, is devoted to working out a plausible story to protect everyone's backside. Meanwhile enterprise can suck the incompetence or in political parlance "kiss my arse" for I am the "Minister". The Australian government's digital information technology policy blows out by billions and fails, outsourcing does not deliver the stated benefits, the National electricity Market does not materialise as the federal government exopected and claimed it would. The Australian Immigration Department is found to have broken so many laws it is laughable and dangerous to not onlt refugees but to Australians and legal immigrants. Government R&D policy for light metals magnesium development fails costing billions. They have miscalculated the value of Telstra, by billions, and the public has been conned to buy shares on the "fortune telling" of the now departed Minister for Telecommunications, Richard Alston. The digital broadcasting plan developed by then federal Minister Richard Alston has to be withdrwan, along with the media ownership and other failures of his administration. On and on it goes. The Australian Taxation, Crime Commission and federal police are investigating (2005) a $300,000,000 taxation fraud, money laundering and other potential criminal activities by high profile Australians. The board members, and senior managers, of James Hardie Corporation, in misrepresentation, lies and contempt of the NSW Supreme Court, to avoid their legal obligations and accountability for making products that kill people. Sweeping law changes, including the appointment of a special James Hardie prosecutor, were being urged in the wake of recommendations that a commission of inquiry find the company lied to courts, the government, the stock exchange and asbestos diseases sufferers. The recommendations on findings were tabled in the NSW parliament by Jackson Inquiry counsel assisting, John Sheahan, SC. He says in the report that the evidence supports adverse findings against company lawyer, Peter Shafron, managing director, Peter Macdonald, chairman, Alan McGregor, and chief financial officer, Phillip Morley. Sheahan submits the commission could find Macdonald may be liable to prosecution for misleading the stock exchange. The sensational submissions came as it was revealed the trust set up by Australia's largest asbestos producer was likely to fall more than $2 billion short of meeting entitlements of sufferers of asbestos-related lung diseases. Hardie had told the court and the state government it would leave sufficient funds in Australia to meet forseeable claims. Months later after moving its headquarters to the Netherlands, it cancelled the relevant arrangement. The corruption in Australian industry is wider than most would believe or expect. The Chief Executive, and others, within Australia's largest packaging company resigned when it was exposed that they were engaged in price fixing. Reginald David Mowat, 34, was working for Radio Ballarat where he continually lost his temper with workmates, Ballarat Magistrates' Court was told. Mr Mowat, of Ballarat, pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to care for the health and safety of others in the workplace and wilfully placing at risk other people in the workplace. The news comes as WorkCover NSW has called for a bigger fine to be imposed on directors of a company prosecuted over a bullying incident earlier this year. The NSW Chief Industrial Magistrate handed down a $1,000 fine to directors of a Lidcombe joinery firm after an asthmatic 16-year-old labourer had his mouth filled alternately with sawdust and glue and was left on a trolley resting near a four metre drop for half an hour, WorkCover has now appealed to the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW, saying that the penalty imposed on the directors is too lenient. Of Australia's 200 biggest companies, directors in 123 are reportedly breaking the law. Who are they and what is Australia's Treasurer, Peter Costello and the Australian Securities Commission doing about this scandal? Many of the decision makers in Australia's governments, industry, associations and institutions appear to have lost their moral compass. The fact that they can govern, and behave in this fashion is an indictment of maturity. It is a window into the value that Australian's harbour, or tolerate, for their democracy, quality of government and society. Wealth, economy and interest rates are the determinants of primary values. Decision makers and governments are secretive, untrustworthy, unaccountable and arrogant. The damage they are doing to Australia is deep and extensive. The behaviour of governments, particularly the federal government, and their supporters, is divisive and ignorant. They use media and public relations firms to lie and shape image and opinion, government policy and action. So the strategy to counter these "spin merchants" was developed. It is based on the use of human and machine networs. Using the same tools of technology, amd methodologies, as they do. However the stratgey, incorporating the technology of the Mosaic Portal is focused on achieving and impact, and influence. on the individual, the group and the collective within the differing communities of unethical practitioners, on a scale unprecedented in Australia.
|
....Isn't it wonderful Peter, we are the family unit. I stay home, make babies, look after them till they are ready to fly the nest.
We get tax breaks and lots of family support. We just received another baby bonus and we can now go on that world trip with our 1.3 children and put the dog and cat in a five star motel.
What about a dinner at one of the best restaurants to celebrate this cheque?
Predicting future events, and outcomes, in Australia
![](_blank">
<img src="http://kevinrbeckmosaicportal.com/strategybanner.gif" alt"features past and present"></a></center>
<br>
<br>
<center><a href="http://kevinrbeckmosaicportal.com/humanresources.htm" target="_blank">
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#CCFFFF">Evaluating Australia){kind=link}