Former foreign minister Alexander Downer's lunches seem to be important lately. He blamed Julia Gillard's parliamentary performance and then claimed Kevin Rudd has failed to improve parliamentary debate as he had promised.
Actually I think Downer just proved Rudd right - if they have deterred Downer from attending question time then Parliament is already improving.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Priority
How should we prioritise government spending?
The state government here in Western Australia seems to have no real pattern to how it allocates major spending on either infrastructure or services.
That's not so say money is misspent, only that there is no rationale provided for some projects are they relate to others.
Naturally, the political party/s that hold government get to decide the main policy on how and where money will be used, but nationally, Australians seem to place a strange priority on how, when and where our taxes are spent.
We will applaud a decision to build a $1 Billion sports stadium - yet only the week before the media and public may have been crying their dismay at an under spent service area.
Working in the area that I do, I often see unmet demand for services. This is a problem for the individuals directly involved but it is also a problem more broadly because not providing the services required directly impacts on productivity and engagement with the community.
At the same time, the government is funding projects, that some would see as essential, but others would see as further down the line in terms of priority.
Sports stadiums for example. How do you weigh the benefits of a new sports stadium against providing accommodation and personal care support for a sportsman who is now a tetraplegic?
More to the point - how about ensuring that all West Australians with a disability can actually go to the football first (if they want to) before we build another sports stadium.
For many West Australians the stadium comes a long way down their list of priorities - they'd like to be able to be helped into bed at a time of their choosing, rather than wait for 5 hours while a lone carer travels between homes getting people into their beds.
They'd like a hot meal every day - instead on one or two days a week.
They'd love to be able to go out once in a while, but their pressure sores haven't been dressed, they have infections as a result and the priority is to have these cleaned and dressed.
I know capital spending is different to recurrent service funding but we are, after all, talking about ONE BILLION DOLLARS. We seem to forget just how much money that really is - ONE THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS.
3.5% of that amount would provide enough money to meet the needs of people with disabilities. The interest on $1 Billion alone would cover what is needed twice over. And yet, the stadium will get built while West Australians, who, through no fault of their own, suffer in pain - often alone and they'll still not have the opportunity to get to see any event staged at the $1 Billion 'success' for the government.
I'm sure it will be accessible - it may even have a terrific viewing area for wheelchair users that is not shoved off to some dark corner of the ground - but what use are the ramps and the lifts, the special parking and the toilets if the people who would love to use those facilities are not even having their basic daily needs met?
I'd love to see governments come to elections with a 'Strategic Spending Plan' that shows how they will spend government money and why - and prioritises spending because I think that is the best indicator of the true influences on that government.
If they are going to build a massive infrastructure plant that benefits only one group or organisation and this is at the top of the list, then you can clearly see the level of influence that group or organisation has - it may not be fair, but at least it is transparent.
I can however, imagine the horror of any government being asked up front where they saw that money was most needed - imagine how many voters you could put offside in just one list!
The state government here in Western Australia seems to have no real pattern to how it allocates major spending on either infrastructure or services.
That's not so say money is misspent, only that there is no rationale provided for some projects are they relate to others.
Naturally, the political party/s that hold government get to decide the main policy on how and where money will be used, but nationally, Australians seem to place a strange priority on how, when and where our taxes are spent.
We will applaud a decision to build a $1 Billion sports stadium - yet only the week before the media and public may have been crying their dismay at an under spent service area.
Working in the area that I do, I often see unmet demand for services. This is a problem for the individuals directly involved but it is also a problem more broadly because not providing the services required directly impacts on productivity and engagement with the community.
At the same time, the government is funding projects, that some would see as essential, but others would see as further down the line in terms of priority.
Sports stadiums for example. How do you weigh the benefits of a new sports stadium against providing accommodation and personal care support for a sportsman who is now a tetraplegic?
More to the point - how about ensuring that all West Australians with a disability can actually go to the football first (if they want to) before we build another sports stadium.
For many West Australians the stadium comes a long way down their list of priorities - they'd like to be able to be helped into bed at a time of their choosing, rather than wait for 5 hours while a lone carer travels between homes getting people into their beds.
They'd like a hot meal every day - instead on one or two days a week.
They'd love to be able to go out once in a while, but their pressure sores haven't been dressed, they have infections as a result and the priority is to have these cleaned and dressed.
I know capital spending is different to recurrent service funding but we are, after all, talking about ONE BILLION DOLLARS. We seem to forget just how much money that really is - ONE THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS.
3.5% of that amount would provide enough money to meet the needs of people with disabilities. The interest on $1 Billion alone would cover what is needed twice over. And yet, the stadium will get built while West Australians, who, through no fault of their own, suffer in pain - often alone and they'll still not have the opportunity to get to see any event staged at the $1 Billion 'success' for the government.
I'm sure it will be accessible - it may even have a terrific viewing area for wheelchair users that is not shoved off to some dark corner of the ground - but what use are the ramps and the lifts, the special parking and the toilets if the people who would love to use those facilities are not even having their basic daily needs met?
I'd love to see governments come to elections with a 'Strategic Spending Plan' that shows how they will spend government money and why - and prioritises spending because I think that is the best indicator of the true influences on that government.
If they are going to build a massive infrastructure plant that benefits only one group or organisation and this is at the top of the list, then you can clearly see the level of influence that group or organisation has - it may not be fair, but at least it is transparent.
I can however, imagine the horror of any government being asked up front where they saw that money was most needed - imagine how many voters you could put offside in just one list!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Apologies
I'm not the PM, so I don't have to be quite so circumspect in my words. The following is where I got to on my version of an apology - It could probably go much further than this but it is about where I would start.
To the first Australians, the custodians of this wide brown land, I express on behalf of parliament our sorrow.
Between a mix of good intentioned and ill intentioned actions, successive Australian governments have caused harm and grief to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The result of these actions has been the perpetuation of injustices against you, our fellow Australians, our sisters and our brothers.
Recent governments have recognised these wrongs, and some have acted, but still we have failed. The result is that you do not live as long as your fellow Australians. You suffer from crime and unemployment at levels that would never be tolerated if they were experienced by all Australians.
We are sorry that this situation has been allowed to continue.
We are sorry that we came, uninvited, and took away your land.
We are sorry that we gave you work, but took away your pay.
We are sorry that we gave you money, but took away your work.
We are sorry that we took away your children and gave you despair, for well intentioned as our motives may have been, the grief from those days has remained and continues.
We are sorry for all the right things, done the wrong way and for all the wrong things done in the name of the government.
We are sorry for dragging our heels when you asked for help and for placing bureaucracy in the way of compassion.
We are sorry for acting compassionately without consulting you on how best to turn that compassion into useful actions.
We are sorry that even today you die sooner than your fellow Australians, and that 'benign neglect' has been our most positive policy response to this.
We are sorry that because of this neglect you are more likely to be victims and perpetrators of crime, your women assaulted and raped, your children abused and your young men jailed.
We have known this has been happening for years and we have not done enough.
It may be that we can never do enough to restore what has been lost, but perhaps, together we can build something new – an Australia that is owned by all of us, that works for all of us and for whom each one of us is willing to take responsibility.
We can be the best of all nations – but we cannot be the best of all nations unless our first people take their place in the continued renewal of our nation.
For this we all are responsible and for having prevented you from participating in our national life we are indeed very sorry. This has harmed us all and you most of all.
We are sorry that this apology has taken 200 years to make.
To the first Australians, the custodians of this wide brown land, I express on behalf of parliament our sorrow.
Between a mix of good intentioned and ill intentioned actions, successive Australian governments have caused harm and grief to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The result of these actions has been the perpetuation of injustices against you, our fellow Australians, our sisters and our brothers.
Recent governments have recognised these wrongs, and some have acted, but still we have failed. The result is that you do not live as long as your fellow Australians. You suffer from crime and unemployment at levels that would never be tolerated if they were experienced by all Australians.
We are sorry that this situation has been allowed to continue.
We are sorry that we came, uninvited, and took away your land.
We are sorry that we gave you work, but took away your pay.
We are sorry that we gave you money, but took away your work.
We are sorry that we took away your children and gave you despair, for well intentioned as our motives may have been, the grief from those days has remained and continues.
We are sorry for all the right things, done the wrong way and for all the wrong things done in the name of the government.
We are sorry for dragging our heels when you asked for help and for placing bureaucracy in the way of compassion.
We are sorry for acting compassionately without consulting you on how best to turn that compassion into useful actions.
We are sorry that even today you die sooner than your fellow Australians, and that 'benign neglect' has been our most positive policy response to this.
We are sorry that because of this neglect you are more likely to be victims and perpetrators of crime, your women assaulted and raped, your children abused and your young men jailed.
We have known this has been happening for years and we have not done enough.
It may be that we can never do enough to restore what has been lost, but perhaps, together we can build something new – an Australia that is owned by all of us, that works for all of us and for whom each one of us is willing to take responsibility.
We can be the best of all nations – but we cannot be the best of all nations unless our first people take their place in the continued renewal of our nation.
For this we all are responsible and for having prevented you from participating in our national life we are indeed very sorry. This has harmed us all and you most of all.
We are sorry that this apology has taken 200 years to make.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Orstrayian Test
Of all the ludicrous attempts at defining a national identity, former PM John Howard's authorship of some of the questions in the citizenship test would have to rank fairly high.
I however, think the man has been misjudged. I think he was a visionary - he saw from the start that the nation must inevitably accept wave after wave of immigration if it was to survive and he saw the need for a unifying force to bind the new Australians together.
The Cult of the Don.
Yup, that man, who was by repute an "arsehole" - a nasty little stock trader from South Australia was to become the new idol of a national religion that was, at its core, the epitome of John Howard's "Vision for Australia".
Howard wasn't writing questions to keep people out - he must have been coldly aware that five of the biggest groups seeking to land on our shores already knew very well who Don Bradman was - he just wanted to make sure they understood how high the Don must be placed in the national esteem.
After all it is not as if the English, South Africans, New Zealanders, Indians and Pakistanis have never seen a game of cricket - its just that their idea of who is a cricket hero needs a little adjustment before they'll really fit in to Australian society.
Sadly for Howard, although he may have been able to bowl a googlie in the last term, the electorate were all too aware that Howard, like Don Bradman had a limited game, played it then sat back and traded on the success that was as narrow in its scope as it was emphatic in effect.
Frankly the sooner the Bradman question, and some of the other pathetic attempts to deter African and European migrants and dealt with, the happier I'll be.
I however, think the man has been misjudged. I think he was a visionary - he saw from the start that the nation must inevitably accept wave after wave of immigration if it was to survive and he saw the need for a unifying force to bind the new Australians together.
The Cult of the Don.
Yup, that man, who was by repute an "arsehole" - a nasty little stock trader from South Australia was to become the new idol of a national religion that was, at its core, the epitome of John Howard's "Vision for Australia".
Howard wasn't writing questions to keep people out - he must have been coldly aware that five of the biggest groups seeking to land on our shores already knew very well who Don Bradman was - he just wanted to make sure they understood how high the Don must be placed in the national esteem.
After all it is not as if the English, South Africans, New Zealanders, Indians and Pakistanis have never seen a game of cricket - its just that their idea of who is a cricket hero needs a little adjustment before they'll really fit in to Australian society.
Sadly for Howard, although he may have been able to bowl a googlie in the last term, the electorate were all too aware that Howard, like Don Bradman had a limited game, played it then sat back and traded on the success that was as narrow in its scope as it was emphatic in effect.
Frankly the sooner the Bradman question, and some of the other pathetic attempts to deter African and European migrants and dealt with, the happier I'll be.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Unintended consequences
Policy changes in government can sometimes communicate a more general message to the community.
Australia has just emerged from 11 years of conservative government and the policies enacted by that government have had a broader impact than intended.
Take for example the policy towards refugees. It was touted as a way of protecting the country and all statements to the contrary it also communicated an attitude of ‘we don’t care’ and if even we did actually care, it has been interpreted by some Australians as meaning just that.
Other areas of social justice have also been ‘harder’ – the approach towards the unemployed and the ‘tough love’ strategies in dealing with indigenous issues are some examples of where policy, with probably good intent, and even with good interventions in some cases can be misinterpreted.
I work with people with disabilities – probably the easiest group to defend in terms of justifiable need and yet there has been a hardening towards funding for the disability sector that parallels the situation in other sectors. This has occurred even while the rhetoric has been directly contradictory to the funding situation.
Everyone agrees that funding should be increased, that people with disabilities should be included and that families and carers should be supported – this is bipartisan politically and yet. . .
Australia has been conditioned not to care. 11 years of being told to put ourselves first and that security is the most important national priority has resulted in behavioural change at the social, cultural and political levels and acculturated a nation that no longer has the capacity to care.
The greatest task facing this nation today is to restore compassion as a central core of policy, practice and belief.
Australia has just emerged from 11 years of conservative government and the policies enacted by that government have had a broader impact than intended.
Take for example the policy towards refugees. It was touted as a way of protecting the country and all statements to the contrary it also communicated an attitude of ‘we don’t care’ and if even we did actually care, it has been interpreted by some Australians as meaning just that.
Other areas of social justice have also been ‘harder’ – the approach towards the unemployed and the ‘tough love’ strategies in dealing with indigenous issues are some examples of where policy, with probably good intent, and even with good interventions in some cases can be misinterpreted.
I work with people with disabilities – probably the easiest group to defend in terms of justifiable need and yet there has been a hardening towards funding for the disability sector that parallels the situation in other sectors. This has occurred even while the rhetoric has been directly contradictory to the funding situation.
Everyone agrees that funding should be increased, that people with disabilities should be included and that families and carers should be supported – this is bipartisan politically and yet. . .
Australia has been conditioned not to care. 11 years of being told to put ourselves first and that security is the most important national priority has resulted in behavioural change at the social, cultural and political levels and acculturated a nation that no longer has the capacity to care.
The greatest task facing this nation today is to restore compassion as a central core of policy, practice and belief.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Howard and Rudd – Christian Confidential
John Howard and Kevin Rudd will be using a webcast to address voters this week, but only Christian Voters.
In a message tailored for Christian audiences alone, Howard and Rudd will lay forth their positions on a number of issues. To access to the webcast your church as to register here by noon tomorrow: http://www.australiavotes.org/index.php
But what if you are not in a church, or like me, not a Christian?
Has my relevance slipped because I am not a Christian – am I no longer interested in what they have to say about issues that are important to one segment on the population?
I’d suggest that I am very interested and as part of a democratic process I am appalled to see access to the presentation limited to only the members of “The Club”.
Sure, the media have access and will report on the webcasts – but I’d like the unfiltered, unspun version, straight from the horses’ mouths.
I support the concept of speaking with a message for a particular group and I think it is important for Christians to hear the positions of political leaders on matter that are important to them – but excluding the non-Christian population sends a message that somehow they are perhaps less worthy to participate in the discussions that are likely to centre on moral and ethical as well as religious (Christian) issues.
The event has been organised by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) and is being held at the National Press Club – strange then that at an event of this importance the content should be restricted ‘to Christians only’.
ACL seeks to drive policy change to support the Christian viewpoint – which is fair enough since that is what they are founded to do, but for a broader impact why not make the webcast available to every Australian?
If I were one of the supporters of ACL I’d be asking why the opportunity to witness to non-Christian Australians was being lost – or perhaps they think we’ll misconstrue the message?
I wonder if the restriction of access to churches only was something that came from ACL – or was a request of the political parties involved in the webcast?
On the website for the broadcast they have an FAQ section. One of the questions is in fact:
Okaaaay – specifically addressing the Christian Voter? When our political leaders speak, they are always potentially speaking to the whole country and while I am happy, nay ecstatic that they address specific segments, that address should be equally available to all whenever possible – I would understand an attendance restriction if it were in a venue that could only hold a few people – but this is being broadcast on the web.
Not Happy, John.
And Kevin.
And especially ACL.
Am I just being unreasonable?
Rant over – back to your coffee!
In a message tailored for Christian audiences alone, Howard and Rudd will lay forth their positions on a number of issues. To access to the webcast your church as to register here by noon tomorrow: http://www.australiavotes.org/index.php
But what if you are not in a church, or like me, not a Christian?
Has my relevance slipped because I am not a Christian – am I no longer interested in what they have to say about issues that are important to one segment on the population?
I’d suggest that I am very interested and as part of a democratic process I am appalled to see access to the presentation limited to only the members of “The Club”.
Sure, the media have access and will report on the webcasts – but I’d like the unfiltered, unspun version, straight from the horses’ mouths.
I support the concept of speaking with a message for a particular group and I think it is important for Christians to hear the positions of political leaders on matter that are important to them – but excluding the non-Christian population sends a message that somehow they are perhaps less worthy to participate in the discussions that are likely to centre on moral and ethical as well as religious (Christian) issues.
The event has been organised by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) and is being held at the National Press Club – strange then that at an event of this importance the content should be restricted ‘to Christians only’.
ACL seeks to drive policy change to support the Christian viewpoint – which is fair enough since that is what they are founded to do, but for a broader impact why not make the webcast available to every Australian?
If I were one of the supporters of ACL I’d be asking why the opportunity to witness to non-Christian Australians was being lost – or perhaps they think we’ll misconstrue the message?
I wonder if the restriction of access to churches only was something that came from ACL – or was a request of the political parties involved in the webcast?
On the website for the broadcast they have an FAQ section. One of the questions is in fact:
Q. I am not a Christian or member of any church, can I watch the webcast?
A. Unfortunately, Mr Howard and Mr Rudd will be specifically addressing the Christian voter and only churches and Christian organisations will be able to register for the webcast. However, media will have the opportunity to attend the Canberra event and will be freely available to report on the speeches.
Okaaaay – specifically addressing the Christian Voter? When our political leaders speak, they are always potentially speaking to the whole country and while I am happy, nay ecstatic that they address specific segments, that address should be equally available to all whenever possible – I would understand an attendance restriction if it were in a venue that could only hold a few people – but this is being broadcast on the web.
Not Happy, John.
And Kevin.
And especially ACL.
Am I just being unreasonable?
Rant over – back to your coffee!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
