THROUGH COMMENTARY, CRITIQUES, EXAMINATION AND ARTICLES ON AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES, AND THE QUALITY OF POLITICS, GOVERNMENTS AND CORPORATE DECISIONS THAT IMPACT PUBLIC POLICY, PROCESSES, BEHAVIOUR AND OUTCOMES 2006 - 2008 THE MOSAIC PORTAL NETWORK OF INTERLINKING AND DEDICATED SITES OF RELATED TOPICS DESIGNED AND CREATED 
By Kevin Beck |
|
|
A deep extended index of subjects and subtopics
|
 |
|
It is IMPORTANT that you realise that every portal page is jampacked with content that automatically updates, and uses scripting. So turn your active content on or you won't see all of the sites' extensive content. The commentary, analysis and articles, unless otherwise stated, are articles and commentary authored by Kevin. R Beck to foster awareness, debate and conversations, promote participation and change in process, in the public interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 "The world keeps getting more complicated and we keep having to explain it to you in simpler terms, so we can get our little oversimplified explanations on the evening news. Eventually, instead of even trying to explain it, we just give up and sling mud at each other." (Primary Colours, USA, 1996). So who is to blame for this situation? People who cannot be bothered to educate themselves? The political and media advisers, who give politicians trite, and uninspiring, speeches and material, thinking that the average person cannot understand complex issues? Whoever writes the Prime Minister's speeches needs to take lessons in literacy and articulation. Is it the journalists who are incapable of writing eloquently and succinctly with the art of language? The television, radio producers and the press editors who demand the thirty second voice grab, and produce the news by rote? Perhaps it is the editor who wants articles that are either eight hundred or fifteen hundred words to fill the space and the limited comprehension of readers? Perhaps it is all of them in unison dumbing down the nation. |
Kevin Rudd, the leader of the labor party in the federal parliament has released the party's education policy. It is as years gone by a rehash of traditional narrow labor thinking, induced by trade unions and inex[perienced party apparatchiks, refelecting a refusal to acknowledge some fundamentals in Australian society. The basic fundamental is that Australia has no life long learning policy or culture. The bureaucracy, under labor in the eighties and nineties did not develop one and the National Training Authority now merged by the Howard government into the Department of Education, Science and Training was engaged in a desktop research on the proposition in the fading years of the nineties into the new millenium. The trade union movement has stifled deep education with a focus on shallow vocational skills competency. Rudd echoes this theme when he says that we must train workers. Workers are a minority in Australia. The majority of Australians are not workers. Their talent is not harnessed and utilised. The labor party's Working Nation was an example of a focus on narrow competency based education. It had the unfortunate effect of shaping the perception of the unemployed and members of the community at large, particularly employers, that education is a cut down easily acquired set of skills. Universities looking for funding started introducing pathways between Tafe and Highe Education which further reduced quality and challenge. The Australian education training curriculums, under these policy initiatives, whilst covering some very important elements in technical study are in general unchallenging and in some respects rubbish. Some elements of this training can stil be found in the Howard government's privatised Job Network. Teachers, and professionals, weep under the shackles and narrow views of politicians who shape policy and the dead hand of Australian education bureaucracies. The majority of Australians have not pursued, and will not, deep education and formal learning over their lives, for this is a major chore. A great number have barely passed year ten at high school. Workers naturally acquire the skills to do the job and to keep their employment so Mr. Rudd's intervention into this arena is disingenuous and short sighted. Mr. Rudd's reference to education for workers reinforces the narrowness of Australia's policy focus. Labor's endless reiteration of its minimal thinking in rehashed education policy is irksome. As is the proposition that labor is the party of education, this is quite simply tripe. The greater number of Australians may have an interest for their children but overall we are not a high value education nation. State governments underfund education at primary and seconday school levels and the federal government pays lip service to funding higher education. The philosophy is one of user pays. Even when the labor party introduced free education at university under the Whitlam government there was no attendant stategy to inculcate life long learning. The policies of Australia's governments, and political parties, have resulted in a dumbing down of the nation's learning environment. PUBLIC POLICY, THE CITIZEN AND LIMITATIONS ON PARTICIPATION IN AUSTRALIA'S GOVERNMENTS Over thirty years the career politicians, and the entrenched power brokers of the Ausralian Labor Party (ALP), the Australian Liberal Party (LP) and the National Party (NP)have limited the participation of the broader community. This has occurred through a mix of factors. The limitation placed on branch members of the politioal parties, with the ALP being the most crushing of individual aspiration both in terms of political and wealth pursuit. The ALP, and the anachronistic trade union leadership, have taken the domian of participation nto their own. The second mechanism which has limited the growth of democracy is the "managerial" and "presidential style" of the leadership of all parties. People are waiting their turn to be parachuted into parliament regardless of capability. The incumbents are insuring their survival at the expense of public interest. A few new memebrs get admitted and some of them are talented. However the gene pool is quite limited. The slight of hand cabinet reshuffle is a charade. The leadership remains the same unless their is a spill as in the recent case of the departure of Kim Beazley from the leadership of the Australian Labor Party and his Deputy. He was literally shoe horned out of the office despite a clear history of unsuitable performance by himself, his chosen front bench associates and his key chief of staff and advisers There is no evidence that Kevin Rudd, and his Deputy, Julia Gillard will change the fundamental corrupt practices thriving within the Australian Labor Party. It is a requirement of all parties, not merely labor, that party members, and politicians, obey the fiefdom and no debate or introduction of new policies shall tke place beyond the party room and definitely not in Australia's parliaments which are stage managed. I call these "managers" the thieves of Australia's democracy. Within the many Ministerial power fiefdoms across the nation, reside the chiefs of staff, senior political and the media advisers. The most senior politician's staffers have the audacity, and the control, to direct elected members of parliament who are on the outer circle of the power collective. This direction of elected members is to my mind brazen criminal activity. It is illegal to constrain an elected member of an Australian parliament from their duty of care and representation yet internal constraint remains exempt from prosecution. The Minister not only wants to be the political head person but also the managerial, directing the public service botb directly and through their senior (unelected) staff. There is no performance interview or measure as to their capabilities in these roles. They can cause, as they have over the years, billions of dollars of waste, loss and damage. Some, not many, turn out to be very good in the role. The senior public servants, mouthng the mantra, we serve the government of the day are not permitted to openly debate and argue. It is a closed managed system. The leaders of the parties do not accept that much of the manner in which they go about things might be construed as criminal, low value and questionable. They are dismissive, with the contemptuous claim of a mandate, supported by powerful public commentators and media spin masters. Our democracy is diminished and the unelected official carries out their threats and demands with impunity and protection. Many good and caring politicians worry at the disengagement of the public, their disdain and disinterest. Though they may not study the system as deeply as I do, they still know that something "smells in the state of Australoia' in relation to governments. The parties are full of bency warmers and people under patronage because of the numbers they can deliver. I address this incestuous system, with examples in the Victorian state parliament, in the archived site. The response, too often, to criticism is to attack the critic under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. It is about silencing the individual. Participation and debate is to be on the term set by the owners of democracy. If one does not like these terms, then according to the incumbents, they can be voted out. The gerrymander of the electoral system and the two party preferred basis all but makes this impossible. One only has to look at how much effort goes into getting the unelected relected or into a government paid job as reward for waiting a rteurn. The trait of retaliation against the individual critic that goes beyond words to actual actions. If one challenges the status quo, or argues opinions suhc as here in this web site, in the domain of the privileged few, then retaliation of differing extent will be the response. This may mean loss of employment, limitation of opportunity, locked out of receiving some form of assistance other individuals or corporations may get, loss of access or simple rude ignorance. It is not just Victoria which practices the full gambit of petty, damaging practices and retaliation. It is a constant norm, not an exception, across all states and territories of the nation. Croneyism, nepotism and an inbred political schema government and public service, permeates Australia at the upper echelons of the structures. I suppose one must expect to be on the receiving end and I am counselled not to take risks in challenging the system. The incumbents beg to differ with my opinions. The media in Australia is captive to the system and the mangerialism as the examination of policy and action through investigation and debate is curtailed. We have no extensive investigative journalism, as we once had. There is little commercial gain to be had, or interest in, reporting and dissecting legislation unless it is contentious. In this case it is likely to an opinion piece of 800 or 1,500 words. The Australian Financial review has a high brow section in the Friday edition. Essays and analysis have all but disappeared and critique moves off the paper, and the screens, and onto the Internet. The next destructuve force is the "economic idol". The President of the United States, Bill Clinton, said it is "about the economy stupid". Every Australian party leader agrees,. So ffrom the eighties through to the current decade the social has played second fiddle to the economic because, its a truism of indisputable facts, that from the success of the private sector grows a successful and comfortable nation. never mind that small government theory limits the greatest asset we own, democracy. The theory is that everyone benefits if the economy is strong. This is a theory. Australia's governments refused to spend and ran surpluses, they were rewarded with the "ubiquitious" credit rating by self appointed global rating agencies. An interesting smoke and mirrors trick, since governments can raise funds more easily and cheaply than private enterprise. Thus one had to have another theory to offset this problematic counter. One hoary theory is that private enterprise does it better. This is a problem also since the Sydney Tunnel company went broke in late 2006, companies participating in transport privatisation in Victoria pulled out as did power station acquisition enterprises, Enron and the like lost billions and Telstra managed to halve its share price and so on. Then the theory of public private participation (PPP) was added. Apparently in the mind of the politicians, and public servants, this was about passing risk off to the private sector. Critics of the economic theory are really taken to task. As a result we have had no real infratsructure investment in Australia since the eighties. We have clogged ports, insufficient power assets, no water treatment plants and dams, uncovered canals that waste billions of litres of precious drinking water, or medical and health system, still one of the best in the world is allowed to run down and people are dying. We now see our governments scrambling to address their negligence, set out below, in great detail. Australia's corporate executives, represented by managed Associations mirror the parliaments and take little interest in anything beyond the "economic idol". They will not exert influence publicly by questioning the inadequacies of government unless it is in their direct commercial interest. They will not rock the collective boats that they are in. The effects, of theory and stage managed politics and the parliamentary activity that derives from these "managerial systems", are a lack of new ideas and innovative thinking. Vested interests, particularly those of limited talent and intellectual firepower, rely upon the process to maintain control. Ideas must be managed and innovative thinking can involve change and challenge of the status quo. In place of creativity and innovation we get populism. Action designed to appease interests, shallow and simple concepts focused on "managed themes" - "family values", "famili friendly policies", "middle Australia" and such. Glib sixty second sound bites that can be digested by a media that is focused on the minutae. The focus on economy - interest rates and the mortgage, coupled with spin management and fear bondage works to ensure retention of power and office in the hands of a minority. Mediocre ideas, theories, policies and themes are continually rehashed and reinforced. Lingering doubts that beset the populace are smooothed and the voters are reassured that all is well and it was just a "glitch", a "readjustment" something that is required. Reasons, and excuses, are manufactured for failure of government and bureaucracy. The evaluation of past decisions is limited, Auditors General of the states, who are the public wtachdog, are ridiculed and ignored. The rights of the citizen, through Freedom of Infomamtion, and the courts, are limited. Freedom of Information in Australia costs the applicant, on the grounds that this is necessary to limit spurious and wasteful witch hunts, by political parties. Why not limit the politicians but allow the citizen to access information freely? The government cannot trust the citizen because they may be a front for the other political party, alternatively they are not capable and competent in distilling these very complex decisions and supporting materials, if the latter exists at all. Too much knowledge can be harmful and unhealthy. To whom? Obviously the politician. Business executives see the role model of our governments and adopt the same technqiues. Perhaps it was the other way round. Governments adopted corporate techniques. It is immaterial for they both manage issues, spin the truth, withhold information, maintain the system that vests control unto themselves. Institutional checks and balances are eroded. In their place we have "industry self regulation" and quasi-fictional safeguards - Upper House ofn Parliaments, the Senate, Australian Securities and Investment Commission, Fair Trading and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Public policy is the casualty of the managed system. Further limitations are placed on our democratic participation and knowledge, by agreement of the major political parties, either by removal of upper houses of parliaments or creating a staged managed presentation such as "Estimates". In "Estimates" hearings the members of parliaments may query sepnding budgets. They are supposed to be querying foward budgets. In the Northern Territory debate and questioning is managed by using this limitation. A farcical dance occurs whereby enquiring Senators manipulate the meaning of "Estimates" under a false veil of expebditure questioning. Thus the former Senator Harradine could waste hours in these carnival committees asking if any or all agencies engaged in "cloning" or some form of gene splicing. Other Senators pursue their pet issues. The public benefit is minimal. It is part of the gladiatorial, egotistical sport of the closeted members of Australia's most important political chamber. Ministers direct public servats not to appear, not to answer and to be puppets of the ruling political party and its handful of manipulative princes of parliaments. The Senate of Australia wastes millions on staged enquiries and Estimates hearings. The participants will not get serious because if they come to be in government, on the carousel, the other side may play tit for tat. This is a charade played out, around the nation, by stage actors, paid by the people of Austtralia. Politicians play a series of inhouse games, and activities, to which we are not privy. They point to the hours they toil but there is no investigation of the quality, or value, of their output. The leaders of Australia's governments demand accountability of every one else in the community whilst assiduously avoiding any themselves. The casualties are democracy and within that holy grail, public policy. The debate on climate change in Australia largely focuses on greenhouse gases and emissions from carbon dioxide plant. It is an immature debate full of mistruths and misrepresentations. The environmentalists glibly ignore the fundamentals of generation of electricity claiming that wind, solar and renewables are capable of creating a lifestyle for a modern nation and economy. They argue as if the nation should become a group of self sustaining little villages. People can become islands of energy unto themselves. We can dismiss the Australian commercial media's contribution to balanced, and valid debate, because they ignorantly use images of cooling towers from coal fired plant when they wax lyrical about the issue. Invariably they will look for the controversial hook. Many other things, never mentioned by the politicians, environmentalists, journalists (print and electronic) and the fear mongerers who spread doom. Things 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 does not suit Anthony Albanese and celebrity labor politician Peter Garrett, to have these puzzling elements included in the debate. This would move control of the issue from their grasp, fuelled and managed, by largely hysterical, unscientific cant to factually based, informative substance. Nor do they talk of the average annual surface air temperature of the planet which is circa 14.3 degrees celsius. One hundred and fifty years ago it 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 levels 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 to the sound bite. The KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle. Unfortunatley a great number of the Australian voting population are not well informed, not inquisitive and get their information and opinions from narrow perceptions and assumptions, tabloid shallow publications and radio talk back hosts and opinion writers who must meet daily deadlines. Voters are too busy with their lives to take the time to inestigate, learn and inform themselves preferring the cosy reinforcement of their contained and comfortable world. Ponder how many different people you might associate with nd categorise them. is there a constant? What happens when someone challenges your views and beliefs? Are you comfotable with them? Do you seek them out again? Do you become angry or aggressive? Do you go into your shell? Do you actively seek out new opinion influences and new people to interact with? If you are a journalist, a commentator, a politician or in any other career do you associate with like interests most of the time? What are the labels that you are familiar with - "left wing", "right wing", "conservative"? To the contrary, most Australians do not seek out alternative views and associations. In the majority they do not value inquisitorial pursuits, research, deep education and life long learning. How can they, or why would they, when governments enact narrow interest policies such as a focus on vocational eduation? When public policy has reserach on a low value scale and ignorant politicians deiride and ridicule for political expediency? The majority of myopic employers deem education to be a personal exercise in one's own time and the individual toils under excessive working hours. Australia is dumbing down its learning to simplistic competencies for work, and self indulgent gadgets, all work to mitigate against the "learning nation". It is as if climate change and associated elements snuck up on the bulk of Australian people. It is like this with most complex matters of society. Perhaps the factor that is most relevant to the climate debate is that we (the individual) are not passive observers in this matter. We are active contributors. 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 create 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, Peter Garrett et al, would be unable to move beyond the morality tones of the argument to pure science. What are his credentials that make him suitable for the roel of opposition spokesperson on the environment in the federal parliament? Extract from the Australian parliament web site: Mr Peter Garrett MP, Member for Kingsford Smith (NSW) Parliamentary service Elected to the House of Representatives for Kingsford Smith, New South Wales, 2004. Committee service, House of Representatives Standing: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs from 2.12.04; Communications, Information Technology and the Arts from 7.12.04. Parliamentary Party Positions, Member, Opposition Shadow Ministry from 24.06.05, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts from 24.06.05 to 10.12.06, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage, and the Arts from 10.12.06, Qualifications and occupation before entering federal Parliament BA (ANU), LLB (NSW). Lead singer, ‘Midnight Oil’ 1977-2002. President, Australian Conservation Foundation 1989-93 and 1998-2004. Board member, Greenpeace International 1993-94. Publications Political Blues, Sydney: Hodder and Stoughton, 1987. Honours : Appointed Member of the Order of Australia, January 2003. It is only fair to balance the presentation. From the web site: CAMPBELL, the Hon. Ian Gordon, Senator for Western Australia, Liberal Party of Australia Parliamentary service Chosen by the Parliament of Western Australia on 16.5.1990 under section 15 of the Constitution to represent that State in the Senate, vice the Hon. FM Chaney (resigned) (term ended 30.6.1993). Elected 1993 (term began 1.7.93), 1998 and 2004. Ministerial appointments Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and to the Minister for Sport, Territories and Local Government from 11.3.96 to 11.11.96. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the Senate from 11.3.96 to 11.11.96. Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer from 11.11.96 to 21.10.98 and from 26.11.01 to 7.10.03. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts from 21.10.98 to 26.11.01. Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads from 7.10.03 to 18.7.04. Minister for the Environment and Heritage from 18.7.04. Committee service Senate Standing: Scrutiny of Bills from 8.5.96 to 29.10.96; Selection of Bills from 14.10.96 to 15.11.04; Procedure from 30.11.00 to 1.7.02 and from 25.3.03 to 15.11.04. Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing: Environment, Recreation and the Arts from 11.9.90 to 18.8.93; Finance and Public Administration from 17.9.90 to 10.10.94; Finance and Public Administration: References Committee from 10.10.94 to 29.4.96; Employment, Education and Training: Legislation Committee from 8.5.96 to 30.6.96. Senate Select: Land Fund Bill from 30.11.94 (Chair from 30.11.94) to 9.2.95; Certain Land Fund Matters from 19.9.95 (Chair from 19.9.95) to 30.11.95. Senate Estimates: E from 21.2.91 to 5.3.92 and from 8.2.94 to 10.10.94; A from 5.3.92 to 6.5.93. Joint Statutory: Corporations and Securities from 6.3.91 to 4.5.94; Native Title from 25.3.94 to 29.3.95; Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund from 29.3.95 to 29.1.96. Conferences, delegations and visits Member, Coalition Parliamentary Delegation to Taiwan, July 1992. Exchange Program, France, September-October 1992. Attended Commission on Sustainable Development, New York, April-May 1996; New York, April 2005. Official visits to USA, April 2002 and April 2003; Marshall Islands, June 2003; New Zealand, November 2004. Attended United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Buenos Aires, December 2004. Attended Ministerial Roundtable on Climate Change, UK, March 2005. Attended International Whaling Commission, Korea, June 2005. Parliamentary party positions Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition from 17.1.94 to 26.5.94. Member, Opposition Shadow Ministry from 26.5.94 to 11.3.96. Shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Youth Affairs from 26.5.94 to 11.3.96. Manager, Government Business in the Senate from 6.11.96 to 17.11.04. Party positions State President, Young Liberal Movement (WA) 1982-83. Delegate, Federal Council 1982-86. Member, Joint Standing Committee on Liberal Party Federal Policy 1983-86. Chair, Joint Policy Committee, Liberal Party (WA) 1983-86. President, Liberal Party Stirling Division 1989-90. Qualifications and occupation before entering federal Parliament Commercial and industrial property consultant. Company director. Well neither has scientific or environmental related formal qualifications. So how does that leave Australia? Well at least Peter Garrett is a better option for labor and the nation. He has headed up environmental organisations of substance. He is preferable to the past spokesperson for labor, at the fedral level, who was Anthony Albanese. He simply would not listen to any counter point and was uncommunicative beyond his comfort zone. Like his labor colleagure Kim Carr his experience is as a party appratchik with little real external experience. Forget the contribution of labor members from the sate governments. Their performance on water demonstrates how talented they are. Kim Carr, a bombastic and combative type, who is another new front bencher with the Rudd and Gillard team, does not offer any greater solace that Labor will actually engage the Australian people in open, and considered, debate. We have seen that advisers are carefully chosen to suit occasion. So given the above, and the quality and substance of debate I am at best a sceptical environmentalist. Being an external critic, not a part of the fold, my opinions are dismissed and my thoughts are irrelevant to politicians particularly labor party politicians who at the best of times are not prone to fullsome interaction. They exhibit the traits of self interest, hubris and closed mind sets, believing they have the solutions this time. It is wondrous how your government, your employer and the experts, all claim to suddenly have acquired inspiration and learning. They are reformed and enlivened and now know that hey can deliver. Is this something you see everyday in failed enterprises, in reorganisations and in political election campaigns particularky from the those with longevity in senior roles. Despite their age and continuous grasping behaviour they are They are quite immature and myopic as to any outside influence and the worthiness or breadth of alternative contributions and sources. The starting point for debate on climate change in Australia has not been facts and ideas it has been alarmist interpretation and moralistic finger pointing. Climate change produces extreme events or does it? There is veidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased the world surface temperature. However the actual sensitivity to carbon dioxide has changed little. The data we are given is skewed. These temperature increases may well be due to increased levels of water vapour in the atmosphere. Are statisticians double counting perhaps? What are the impacts of medium to high emmissions? The representation of the drought by Australian politicians, media and interested parties, is an example of how far we can deviate from fact and the diversity of views. In their shrill pronouncements we are lead to believe that it may never rain agian in Austraolia. What we need now is a calming and rational leadership in business, government and academia. We are a far way from getting that unless we appoint someone of the calibre of Sir William Deane, to arbitrate and guide us in our deliberations. That is unlikely in this politically charged climate since people of superior calibre and abilities are shunned or put into straight jacket enquiries and advisory roles. Talent is not accessed on any scale in Australia and it gravitates overseas. Mediocrity is the order of the day and in circles, and cabals, of mediocrity we can find our politicians and other decision makers comfortably ensconced. WATER Australia's most public, and prominent, policy failure 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 radiatirs 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. There is a concerted, and sustained effort, to hide the staitistics 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. 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 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 POLTICAL FINANCE & GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING WORKSHOP – 25 February 2006 The Auditor-General’s Role in Politics, Tony Harris, Former New South Wales Auditor-General Abuse is the style of the back benchers of the Victorian labor government. They use parliamentary privilege often referred to as "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) "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. The invasion of Iraq by the coalition forces, the performance failures of public servants, officials and advisers in Australia, in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America, falsehoods perpetrated by politicians within Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, has cast a light on the degradation of the these democracies by career politicians, their advisers and permanent public servants. The similarities between the three countries' lack of moral compass, ethics, integrity and morals is an exercise that will absorb the minds of sociologists for decades to come. Along with the degradation wrought by politicians we can observe similar declines in corporate ethics and morality particularly in those enterprises closely aligned with the administration of these countries. "Recent surveys reported in The Age and the Australian Financial Review show that trust in the integrity of business leaders has been dramatically eroded over the past few years. The age-old respect for leaders in business or public life has been tainted; their reputations have nosedived. In the wake of recent corporate and organisational scandals in Australia and around the world, politicians and lawmakers are demanding more stringent reporting and control mechanisms in an attempt to restore corporate reputation." (Source: Peter Verhezen, 28 November 2006, onlineopinion.com.au, first published in The Age newspaper in Melbourne, Australia, on November 16, 2006.) The decline in ethical behaviour, and in trust, is evident at federal state, territory, regional and local government levels across the Australian nation. Institutions that once were the guardians of standards - the public services, educational institutions particularly universities, the media, particularly the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the judiciary. These institutions, among others, have been eroded and attacked by zealots who have long dined on the perceived infiltration, and domination, of these institutions by left wing elements. Segments of the nation are characterised as the enemy. There is now something called middle Australia and the battler. Policies are created for families not for every individual. People who are not in the mainstream of their perspectives are side lined. The opinion writers, thye conservatives of the libela and national parties and their suppoprters live in world of certainty. They are convinced their beleifs and actions are right and justified. Though they will never allow deep evaluation or analysis. Prominent "opinion" columnists in the two major tabloids, the Herald Sun in Melbourne and the Telegraph in Sydney, no longer present investigative pieces of depth, maturity and substance. Perhaps it is the shortness of time they are given to file their story, some hidden constraint or agenda, perhaps the lack of resources provided by the publisher - owner, that requires them to present fluff pieces, rants, shallow, simplistic, opinion pieces, deriding, berating and inflaming. These are one sided and the content rarely presents counter views or attributed sources that one might investigate. Eight hundred, to fiteen hundred, words written for the time poor, semi-literate or limited education, reader. This assault on history, and belief, has been characterised as the Culture Wars or the History Wars. In 2007 we expect to see a greater interplay between society, religion and politics in Australia. Unlike America, Australia has been largely a secular nation. Now the religious elemenst of the Australian Labor Party have a voice through Kevin Rudd. The religious right, epitomised in the debating style and voting patterns of the federal Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, have long had a voice. Federal politicians of such persuasion have religious discussion forums in bipartisan gatherings. Persoally I find the religious undertones and overtones in modern day political rhetoric irksome and even offensive. Again my personal view is that a person who has "faith" in the existence of a higher being, nebulous creator of the universe etc., to be of unsound mind, lacking in logical analysis and clarity of thought. However this is not to say that they do not make a significant contribution to the nation. I just think they are a bit potty. There are quite a lot of these people. At least our Prime Minister does not overtly claim that he takes guidance from God. The proposition that a man can represent, or commune with God, is similarly over reaching and somewhat suspect. For "faith" to guide public policy and action in parliaments tends to frighten me. At the forefront of the challenge to past social constructs and the catalyst of conservatism in Australia, is the Prime Minister John Howard, using his public office as the launch pad. The Australian government supported by think tanks and commentators has made an art form of preseting simplistic solutions to the people of Australia. A subliminal messaging utilised by Australia and US administrations - "trust us, you can be comfortable when we are in government, we are what you need to allay your fears. The economy is what is important." Australia is now comfortable with its place at the crossroads between East and West, Prime Minister John Howard said on Friday, describing his country as "an outcrop of Western civilisation" in the Asia-Pacific. In an interview to mark his 10 years in power on March 2, 2006, Howard defended his decision to gear his foreign policy more towards traditional links to the United States, Britain and Europe, while maintaining strong relationships with Asia." (Source:TV NZ One News) This is not a phenomenon limited to Australia. Culture Wars are underway in the United States of America. They permeate the United Kingdom They are resident in Europe. It is not just about the war in Iraq or the War on Terrorism. It is also about the decline in ethics and morality in every government of the nation. Public office, and thus democracy, is being corrupted in the pursuit of retaining power and implementing ideological policy with limited debate and concensus. The people who brought us the horrendous calamity of Iraq do not exhibit contrite, or humble qualities, admitting their grievous sins, incompetence or faults. Perhaps some might say reprehensible behaviour. It is a sad development that citizens of these nations may feel they are powerless to do something about this situation. Worse still that they cannot be bothered. 
The degradation of Australia's democracy by the nation's parliamentary members
 
July 2, 2007 and Ted baillieu leader of the conservative opposition in the Victorian parliament wants the Auditor General to investigate the government spending campaign referred below. This is another misguided focus by the liberal leader who should know better. The public already know that government's use public funds to misrepresent the intention. They know that Mr. Bracks is using public funds to try and ameliorate his lack of action on water. His government's performance in transport, water, health and education is extraordinarily inept and cumbersome. The federal govermment has demonstrated this in its focus on education and most recently on disability. Rather than have the Auditor General engage in a wasteful exercise, he has better things to look at, Mr Ballieu ought to concentrate on the government's lack of a moral compass. Why did the federal government have to fund disability? Why are cerebral palsy sufferers condemned to live their lives with the aged and infirm? Why are people targeted by corrupt and tuthless bag men of the government who occupt seats in parliament by sinecure? The Bracks' government is both secretive and cowardly in its modus operandi. Take for example the announcement of a desalination plant at Wonthaggi. The government did not tell anyone particularly the people that would be affected. They announce it and then the Minister says they are now consulting. On what? The bureaucrats have moved in. They bare the brunt. There is no participatory governance under Steve Bracks. The only people he, and his cabinet members, consult with are "like types", those who are the converted. The people of the Victorian state should snigger and openly laugh at the government. Laugh even though it is a sad state of affairs. For why should we consider outrage, that falls on deaf ears, over the open alternative of derision? Until Ted Ballieu, and his team, learn to bite the government hard, and target the government weakness (hubris, arrogance and the lack of ethical behaviour and the moral compass), again and again, the opposition is just a seat warmer adding no value. Point out day after day the charaltans and the crooks who sit in the parliament, every day, every day until the next election. There are so many. June 29, 2007. The Victorian Government has been saturating the television with a $A1,000,000 campiagn starring the Premier Steve Bracks. It is a self promotional advertisement which demonstrates the capacity of the Premier to spin a story whilst hiding teh paucity of his moral base and ethical standards. He tells the viewe that he has been dealing with the "water" issue or lack therefof for some years now. Bracks tries to spin his government's dismal performance generally, by using a wad of taxpayers money. This must be another secretive methodology, and process, of the Victorian Labor government. Secrecy is one of their tools of maintaining control and power. The record clearly shows that Steve Bracks and the labor party and the governments before him, did little to drought proof the state. What they do do instead is to lie and dissemble and manipulate facts creating an ongoing mosaic of fiction. "Both sides have highlighted water, the Liberals promising a new dam and desalination plant and Labor spruiking an ambitious plan to recycle water for use by industry. While there are some questions over whether the Liberal plan can be delivered, there is a more legitimate question as to why Labor has not done more in water planning sooner. Mr Baillieu has faced pressure over possible conflicts of interest and his refusal to put his investments into a blind trust. More interesting is the lack of pressure on government accountability and corruption and the rise of the Greens. The Greens expect to take the balance of power in the upper house and possibly a lower house seat as a consequence of preference deals between the Greens and the Liberals designed to frustrate Labor. Meanwhile, the Baillieu campaign has failed to capitalise on longstanding concerns about the transparency of government decision-making and accountability and the Government's point-blank refusal to establish a corruption commission, such as exists in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia." (Source: The Australian Newspaper, Editorial: Labor's bid to sneak home in Victoria, November 24, 2006 - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20810813-7583,00.html) If you spend enough money saying something over and over then fiction becomes fact in the minds of the public and democracy takes another step backwards. 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 delight in thuggish solutions. |
|
The 2006 Moasic Portal public policy web site has an extensive coverage of the Sydney Tunnel and the tremendously effective planning and implementation of a public partnership (PPP) between the state and private interests in funding the tunnel. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has developed a policy on investment in public infrastructure (extract): "In summary, ACCI’s policy argues that: • infrastructure needs should be primarily addressed by the private sector, because it is generally more efficient at developing and operating infrastructure. The Government should assist private investment through facilitative tax and regulatory systems; • government investment should only be used when there is clear and demonstrated market failure and after a thorough cost benefit analysis has been undertaken. Where government involvement in infrastructure is required, governments should make full use of partnerships with the private sector to reduce costs; " (Source: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: Revised Infrastructure Policy, published January 2006) "Sydney's troubled Cross City Tunnel has been placed into receivership, with debts of about $560 million. A syndicate of 16 domestic and international banks, which is owed the money, has appointed insolvency firm KordaMentha as receiver and manager of the tunnel. The tunnel's operator had originally projected that 90,000 vehicles would use the road daily but it has fallen well short of that, with only about 30,000 making the journey each day." (Source Australian Broadcasting Corporation, News On Line 27 December 2006) |
|
"What a waste: Tuck Thompson and Chris Griffith, Courier Mail Brisbane, December 19, 2006 11:00pm MILLIONS of litres of drinking water are being sprayed on city roadworks because Brisbane City Council is unable to effectively tap its plentiful supply of recycled water. The city has so much recycled water it dumps 60 million litres a day into Moreton Bay but water carters contracted to the council claim it is too hard to access and sometimes too salty too use. The Courier-Mail on Monday found one water carter legally using drinking water for dust suppression on roadworks because he said the council's recycled water was so salty it couldn't be used. The council contractor filled up an 11,000-litre water tanker at least four times on Monday from a metered hydrant in McDowall – enough to supply a household for six months." The Queensland government continues to set the benchmark for ineptitude in its implemenation of public policy. The Attorney General, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, have managed to bring the state's already questionable legal system into further conjecture. The DPP's decision not to prosecute a Queensland policeman, named in a corner's report as contributing to the death of an aboriginal person in custody showed a serious lack of political and social judgement. The DPP when questioned dug in and did not request and independent review of her decision as she has done in the past from out of state. Queensland has a long history of getting external reviews of controversial decisions. The Premier and Attorney General appointed a local retired judge who it came to light had a conflict of interest. My experience in dealing with state public service agencies, and ministries, is that they do little research. This appears to be the case in matters of political decisions as it is in business dealings. Not once but year after year across many portfolios. This is an insult to those who put in the effort to prepare themselves. Now the retired judge has resigned the commission and the Premier is awaiting a nominee from out of state. The question arises would it have all been different if the person who is now dead were not an aboriginal? No doubt the Premier, Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions would be affronted and annoyed at such an inference. Talent in g9overnment in Australia is a very rare commodity whilst stupidity abounds. The home of questionable activities, Queensland 06-379 Former director of Queensland power company found guilty Wednesday 1 November 2006 'Mr James Kwok, former director and chief executive officer of Envirostar Energy Limited (Envirostar), has been found guilty of two charges following an investigation by ASIC. Mr Kwok, of Hope Island in Queensland, was found guilty of dishonestly using his position as a director under the Corporations Act after a two week trial in the Sydney District Court. enterprises that have taken millions of dollars of investment from unwiiting people. WHAT ARE THE TRAITS OF GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN? "Ironically, scepticism and mis-trust is so high that when companies do do something good, like partner with and support a charity, many consumers feel that this is just PR spin. 79% say they don’t hear much about big corporations doing good works and yet 82% of consumers believe that companies only give to charity to look good. So how do companies overcome that dilemma?" Source: Cavill + Co Do the majority of Australia's corporate leaders think they are good citizens? Then how is it that they are silent on the matter of the degradation of our democracy, the abrogation of fundamental legal rights to face one's accuser and other foundations? David Hicks stands as an indictment of the mealy mouthed, obsequious support of flawed policy and corrupt governance by Australia's most powerful citizens. Boards, and Chief Executives, actively assist the governments of the nation to carry out their anti-social and on some occasions reprehensible policies and acts by limiting their public criticism and interaction because it might hurt their commercial business and oportunity. They are very quick to make public statements about taxation, finance, employmenta dn industrial relations among others. Now they are chirping about climate change. Social policies are not viewed as their domain. Pity they are so myopic and ill considered. There is far more to be a good citizen than investing in spin, imagery and window dressing. Some are scared, and threatened, by thuggish advisers and blustering politicians and party hacks. Others like the access and being in the "club". The unions are similarly silent on David Hicks' plight because now the game is not about workers' rights and conditions it is about politics and the advancement of union leaders' personal interests particularly securing an easy seat to enetr parliament. Our government systems are a resource to be utilised by the power collective to maintain their positions. Where are the ethical and quality leaders hiding? Do we have any corporate leaders of real character who are not corrupted by business practice and demands in Australia? Should they remain silent? When they do speak up as in the case of Mr. Pratt, they are ignored by governments and the quick story dies in the media. Why would any responsible corporate executive bother with an ignorant government leader or Minister? perhaps they think that interacting with the Secretaries of the public services may also be a waste of time? No, but they invariably will. |
|
AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COUNTRIES ON AUSTRALIA'S PUBLIC POLICY AND GOVERNMENT In the interim, as this site grows, for daily impacts news coverage click here The Centre of Policy Studies and the IMPACT Project Extract: "Trade and the national interest, Mark Beeson, University of Queensland For a government to claim that it is pursuing ‘the national interest’ might seem unremarkable. To write a policy document outlining how such a thing might be achieved is more unusual. To produce two documents dedicated to the same goal with nearly identical titles begins to look like a collective failure of the imagination at best, or monomania at worst, and tells us as much about their authors as it does about their preferred policy prescriptions. The government in question is, of course, Australia’s, and the documents are In the National Interest (1997) and the more recent Advancing the National Interest (2003). Both papers reveal much about the Howard government, its understanding of contemporary economic and geopolitical realities, and its view of Australia’s place in an increasingly interconnected international political economy. They also mark a significant and potentially misguided change of direction from the path pursued by the Howard government’s Labor predecessors." Source: Trade and the Public Interests Beeson, M. & Capling, A. 2002, ‘Australia in the world economy: Globalisation, international institutions, and economic governance’, in Bell, S. (ed.), The Institutional Dynamics of Australian Economic Governance, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 285–303. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2003, Advancing the National Interest Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Garnaut, R. 2002, ‘An Australia-United States free trade agreement’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 123–141. Lewis, S. 2003, ‘Farmers will lose out under US free trade agreement’, The Weekend Australian, 1–2 March, p 2. Looking for Theory in Australian Foreign Policy , Rawdon Dalrymple The Howard Government and the United Nations , Samuel Makinda The 2003 Defence Statement: The Failure to Marry Politics and Policy , Derek Woolner States, Markets, and Power Digest, 1 Dec 2003, Mark Beeson |