Tuesday 2 September 2014

48. Royal Commissions and Consultation

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the South Australian Royal Commission into child protection. Given the recent appalling revelations of a Families SA officer abusing children in their care, and the apparent failure of the Department or system to respond and protect kids, who could grumble about an independent inquiry to find out what went wrong and to stop it happening again?

Well, my grumble is more about the way the Royal Commission was set up.

When the government announced the inquiry, it called for public submissions on the draft Terms of Reference – because as we know, the government does not “announce and defend” anymore.

Well, various groups and concerned individuals put in submissions suggesting changes, including broadening the inquiry to look at ways to keep kids out of state care in the first place, and also to look at what happened to all the previous inquiries into the child protection system – lest we re-invent the wheel or repeat past failures.

But 3 days after public submissions closed, the final Terms of Reference were announced – with almost no changes. There was a tinkering with some legalese, and the insertion of 6 words requiring a consideration of resources and the financial achievability of any recommendations.

It is not clear if this last change was a small recognition of the various submissions calling for a cost-benefit analysis in light of the huge cost and unknown benefit of police screening of workers and volunteers, or whether the change in wording was simply a common sense request not to recommend 24/7 guard details and video surveillance.

Either way, there was no widening of the terms of reference to consider the broader context of child protection, nor any acknowledgment that we have been here before.

Ultimately, if the government wants a narrow inquiry that addresses specific issues quickly, that’s legitimate – but don’t go through the farce of public consultation if you already know what you want.

“Consult and ignore” is no better than “announce and defend”.

The state government has a Stronger Together partnership with the community sector, they have the Better Together principles allegedly underpinning all government community engagement, and there is now even a Charter of Citizen Participation proposed in the new planning system reforms.

But frankly, these all amount to nothing if the community input is simply ignored, or if there is no explanation of why the government chose to proceed the way it did.

It is simply public servants ticking boxes that they have consulted, and I am too old and grumpy to be bothered with that game.

If you want an example of how such consultation should be treated, check out SACOSS’ last submission in relation to the ACNC.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 2 September 2014

Tuesday 19 August 2014

47. Terrorism Tourism

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about “terrorism tourism”.

The government has announced changed to income support payment criteria because, according to our Prime Minister:
The last thing we want is terrorism tourism on the taxpayer and there will be no terrorism tourism on the taxpayer as a result of these measures

Now I am not sure about the grammar here, or whether self-funded terrorism is really preferable, or whether we should be aiming to keep terrorists here? But hey, “terrorism tourism” is a great slogan because it ties welfare payments to an attack on Australian security.

But really, any time someone talks about terrorism it should ring propaganda alarm bells because it is a slippery term which usually boils down to a strong disagreement with the politics or values of the supposed terrorists. It’s the old adage that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. Think Nelson Mandela.

But seriously, there is a real issue of Australian citizens going overseas to be trained, to fight and to kill – and potentially bringing those skills and ideologies back here.

I am not defending those actions, or the causes that give rise to them, but before we go putting more bricks on Fortress Australia and giving away more rights and freedoms in order to protect our rights and freedom, I just want to suggest that this is not new:
  • in the 1930s when world communism was the scourge of the establishment, some 70 Australians went to Spain to fight alongside the anarchists and communists; 
  • in the 1970s, the young radical pilgrimages were to Vietnam and China;
  • in the 1980s it was to support the National Democratic Front in the Philippines, and 
  • in the 1990s young Australians went to the Balkan bloodbath.

There were the same concerns and the same headlines then, but I suspect that some of the current outcry is that these alleged terrorists are Muslims – that is, they are not “us” and there is some sense that “we” never should have let them in. Even if they were born here, they don’t really belong here.

But instead of a meaningful conversation about multiculturalism, the complexity of middle eastern politics, or about gender and the attraction of war, and the huge questions of religion and the morality, we have trite slogans like terrorism tourism and the demand that everyone play for something called “Team Australia”.

Team Australia, spare me.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.




This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 19 August 2014

Tuesday 5 August 2014

46. Advisory Committees

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the State Government plan to abolish a raft of advisory committees and boards across all government areas. The committees have now been asked to show cause why they shouldn’t be cut.

The government says it is getting rid of bureaucracy and allowing citizens direct access to government. Who could complain about that? Well, I could!

The idea that having experts or stakeholder representatives on committees advising government somehow stops people having access to government is bizarre. It blames committees for separate processes of poor government engagement with the community, and it misunderstands the role of those advisory boards and committees.

The fact is that such committees can be useful, and often the only chance different stakeholders get to sit around a table to try to arrive at a common position.

That is potentially good both for policy development and for better community understanding of issues.

The real problem with such committees is that this potential is systematically sabotaged. The relevant government department usually controls the agenda and most of the information flow to the committee, and takes up most of the meeting time proferring its own advice or doing show-and-tell presentations on uncontroversial issues.

The committees are usually chaired and peopled by those handpicked or approved by Ministers and departments, ensuring the committees are “reasonable” (Humphrey Appleby would say “sound”) rather than representative.

Participants may be further prevented from reporting back to their constituencies by government-imposed confidentiality requirements, and there is a pervasive culture that avoids conflict or hard questions by not making formal decisions. Despite rules requiring majority decision making, votes are almost never taken.

General discussion and opinion substitutes for policy advice, and committee minutes – written and vetted by the department – simply note briefings and discussion with no actual decisions or outcomes.

So, having gutted and undermined the ability of these advisory committees to give independent and robust advice, the government now says they don’t work and should be abolished.

But here’s a radical idea, why not try to make them work by actually giving them independence and real questions to deal with – and expect actual decisions and advice, not just discussion and noting of government briefings.

Of course, that’s hard – and challenging. You might get different, and maybe even uncomfortable policies put forward. Perish the thought – much simpler just to abolish the committees.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.





This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 5 August 2014

Tuesday 29 July 2014

45. Families SA & Child Protection

Hi. I am Greg and I want to Grumble about the demise of Families SA chief, David Waterford who spectacularly resigned on the weekend deepening the state government crisis over child protection.

Now I don’t know any more than is in the public domain, and Mr Waterford is certainly no friend of community services. My experience of him goes back to the gutting of financial counselling services in 2010, where he appeared hostile and obstructive at best.

More importantly though, it is not like he was a brilliant leader and the child protection system in SA was the best thing ever – clearly it’s not, and he has presided over this flawed system.

But running an appalling system is not why he resigned.

He resigned because he gave incorrect advice to the Minister, and they in turn made misleading statements to the media – not the parliament mind you, to the media. This is obviously fatal because we have such a superficial political dialogue that it is impossible to simply say, as any reasonable person elsewhere would, “look, we gave some advice last week, but on further checking we found out something else”.

But what sort of message does this send? Presumably it is ok to oversee a failing system – even one as vitally important as child protection – but if you embarrass the Minister that is a crime requiring falling on one’s sword.

And more broadly, when I see the unflattering image of David Waterford on the front page of today’s Tiser with screaming headlines about the “shambles” of the communication around the latest child protection disaster, I wonder about the impact on a public service already so cautious and risk averse that at times it appears incapable of decision – let alone innovation.

I fear this type of public flogging may drive public servants to focus even more on covering their own-backs, implementing even more layers of centralisation and control – notwithstanding that part of the problem of the system is this centralisation, the ensuing mountains of paperwork which senior public servants have to wade through in long hours at night, and the lack of authority and agency at other levels of the system.

Ultimately, we probably do more damage by having a public service with a culture of risk and decision avoidance, than we do from having the odd controversy or wrong fact communicated.

Maybe I am naïve, or a hopelessly unreconstructed modernist, but I think outcomes are more important than communications!

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 29 July 2014

Tuesday 22 July 2014

44. Krispy Kreme

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about a certain doughnut shop that has opened up on Port Road at Croydon.

Now for years when I have caught planes home I have been bemused to watch people rearranging the overhead luggage so that they could bring their box of Krispy Kremes back to the apparently deprived and doughnut-less frontier town Adelaide.

But now, amid much fanfare, we have our very own Krispy Kreme outlet!

Last Monday I was mildly amused to see people camping in the freezing cold to be the first to contribute to the global franchise’s $500m a year revenue. That was just bizarre (as was the knife-point doughnut theft later in the week), but what I want to grumble about was the number of people who thought it was fine to park in the bike lane outside the shop.

As I rode by on Thursday I counted 12 cars parked in the no-parking zone.

I’m sorry, it is not ok that I and other cyclists are put at risk by being forced out into the traffic lanes just so that they can get closer to the their sugar fix.

I don’t think you need to be a health fanatic to say that in peak hour traffic, my health and wellbeing should have a higher priority than their easy access to breakfast treats.

And ok, having got that Grumble out of my system, I will acknowledge that it is pretty trivial in a week where the Australian government abandoned any real policy to address climate change, madmen or zealots shot down a passenger plane at horrendous human cost, and in a disproportionate and bloody response to rocket attacks against it, Israel is bombing Gaza and continuing the cycle of war and hatred.

But what can I say about that. To paraphrase Gandhi, when I think of western civilisation, I think it would be a good idea.

But the issues here are just too big, too horrible and too disempowering.

I am Greg, and I despair.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 22 July 2014

Tuesday 15 July 2014

43. Preventive Health Cuts

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the Federal government terminating the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health.

The agreement is, or at least was, where the Federal and State government cooperated and funded key preventative health programs to keep Australians healthier.

But in the Federal Budget, the Commonwealth unilaterally terminated the agreement. This was lost in the plethora of other budget cuts – including in the health area, but given the importance of prevention, and the potential future budget savings, was this really a good move?

Well, last month in Senate Estimates Committee, Labor Senator Jan McLucas asked why the Agreement was cut – and the answers would have been funny if it wasn’t so serious.

The Department of Health’s first response was that it was a government decision (meaning not the Department’s) but that there was duplication and overlap with services the states provided. When asked how they made that judgement, they said that a review was undertaken.

When asked whether the review had been published, we found out that it was not finished. The “formative work” had been done but the next stage was to consult with the states and territories. So, they thought there was duplication, but did not bother to check with the states who were providing the programs on the ground.

In fact, on further questioning, it was clear that the Federal Department didn't really have detail on what activities were actually funded. Oh, and the review was not really about the “population outcomes” – ie. about whether the programs were actually working.

And when Greens Senator Penny Wright asked what impact cutting those preventive health programs might have on hospital care and potential savings on the health budget, again the Department could not tell us and said it was impossible to know.

So all that was both sad and farcical, and I haven’t even mentioned the quibbling over whether it was correct to say the programs had been “cut” when really all that had happened was that the Commonwealth had defunded them.

But the bottom line is, we cut prevention programs with no evaluation of their effectiveness, then say we have to charge fees for doctors’ visits and wind back our universal health care system because there are too many people getting sick. Hmmm.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

*Disclosure: SACOSS received funding for a project officer under the Healthy Workers Initiative.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 15 July 2014

Tuesday 8 July 2014

42. Post-ACNC Regulation of Charities

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the government's consultation on the replacement arrangements planned for when it abolishes the national charities regulator, the Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission (the “ACNC”)

Comments on the proposed arrangements are due by 20 August, but the Options Paper the government is seeking responses to says this feedback will inform public consultations in July and August.

Now that could be an innocent stuff up, but when their submission template (which doesn’t work, BTW! [at least when this Grumble went to air]) contains a list of stakeholder categories that shows no understanding of the scope of the charity sector you really have to wonder.

Curiously, the “Centre for Excellence,” which the government previously touted as taking over the education and support functions of the ACNC is not mentioned at all, while predictably the regulatory functions will revert back to the tax office and ASIC.

I have grumbled before that getting advice and processing of applications was slow under the ATO, and that the ATO has been used as an attack dog by governments concerned about charities asking difficult questions.

And when it was in charge, the ATO did not even have an up-to-date public list of charities, despite their entitlement to significant tax concessions. And now that public database, built by the ACNC, is to be mothballed.

But of course the Bill to abolish the ACNC has not gone through the Senate yet. When a Senate Committee recently conducted an inquiry on the bill, over 80% of respondents (and almost all the charities responding) said they wanted the regulator retained.

Yet the government members of the committee just ignored all the research and reasons put forward by the vast majority and wrote a report supporting the abolition – and so we have this latest consultation.

And no doubt there will be charities and not-for-profit organisations lining up like sheep to comment on the new proposal. You know the format: “thank you so much for the chance to comment on this important proposal”; “we appreciate the government’s intention to support charities”, etc etc.

Bah, bah.

Well, here is my submission:

I don’t want arrangements made to replace the regulatory body that came about after years of poor regulation, bookshelves full of government reports recommending the establishment of such a purpose-built regulator, and a broad public consultation to design a better system.

And why should I take time and effort to comment on your proposal when you have not listened to a word that the vast majority of our sector has said about the ACNC and sector regulation.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 8 July 2014

Tuesday 1 July 2014

41. Community Grants

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the state budget.

Last week I said that there was not much to grumble about in the budget, and at the macro level that’s true. But there’s always devil in the detail. In this case it’s cuts to natural resource management grants to community groups.

These grants went to farmers and landcare groups, to Aboriginal communities, to schools, to local progress associations, to friends of parks groups and more – 106 grants last year to protect and restore our environment. Small amounts of money that make a big difference on the ground.

And that broad list of recipients shows that this sort of environmental work is not just good for the planet, it’s also good for social and economic development.

But on TV last week the Minister, Ian Hunter, was telling us that cuts had to be made and that he had a choice of cutting those good community grants or losing 12-14 environment department staff. Ok, it is a hard choice, but it’s a lousy justification.

Spending and cuts are always about priorities, and on top of massive cuts to the environment department and programs in recent years (the Conservation Council of SA was moved to nominate Park Rangers as an endangered species), it’s pretty clear that this government just does not prioritise the environment.

But even within the environment budget, what are we to make of this putting the department in front of the community?

The Minister is right that those department officers would do important work, but what analysis was done on the benefits of the community grants program?

I ask because there is huge value-for-money where programs harness and support volunteer efforts. That is true for the environment, for sport and rec clubs, and across the community services sector.

But in our economic system, if something (like volunteer work) doesn’t have a dollar value then it is not valued (I did a PhD on that in a past life!), and these cuts are just another example of governments under-valuing the contribution of the community sector.

Perhaps that is why we are called the third sector – it is where we come in budget priorities after business and government.

So while the budget overall was a good response to South Australia’s economic circumstances and to federal government deficit shifting, when it comes to cutting environment programs, what can I say:

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 1 July 2014

Tuesday 24 June 2014

40. Grumbling about Grumbling

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about not having time to grumble.

It has been a few weeks since I last grumbled on air, but it is not as if there has been nothing to grumble about.

The vicious story of the federal budget has continued with more details on how it will hit those on low incomes much harder than those on higher incomes.

The cuts to health and education continue to threaten vital services as the federal government simply shifts deficits to state governments without addressing long term revenue and federation issues.

And one of my colleagues looks like losing her job because the federal government prioritises researching medical machines that go "bing" over preventative measures that stop people getting sick in the first place.

And beyond the budget, the federal government continues to push on with its plan to abolish the national charity regulator with a farcical report from its Senate Committee members who simply ignored 80% of the submissions put to them, including those from most of the major charities and their peak bodies.

But I have been away, and then there was a national conference, a SACOSS constitution to write, state bureaucrats to wrestle and a state budget to wade through (which actually didn’t contain too much to grumble about). With that and with a hundred other things to do, there just hasn’t been time to grumble.

You may only hear two minutes worth, but it takes a lot longer to have a really good grumble.

It’s not just gratuitous whinging (well, hopefully not most of the time). A good grumble needs research, topicality, a framework, and most importantly, a challenge about why we do things the way we do and maybe even a hope that we could be better.

And that takes time and energy.

But looking ahead, post-budget and settled back at work, I am Greg and I will be grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 20 May 2014

Tuesday 20 May 2014

39. Federal Budget

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about the federal budget - of course. But where to begin?

Perhaps with “class warfare”. Yes, I know the language is extreme, but when former Treasurer Wayne Swan proposed taxing mining super-profits and some other fairly minor tax changes, he was accused of class warfare. So what are we to make of a budget with corporate tax breaks and a massive attack on welfare? If taxing the rich is class warfare, what is attacking the poor? The language of class warfare may appear silly, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I could also grumble about particular things in the budget:
  • the cuts to hospital and schools funding,
  • the introduction of fees for visits to the doctor,
  • the scrapping of funding for preventative health programs,
  • the increasing costs of PBS medicines,
  • the changing of pension indexation so that those older Australians or those with a disability will fall behind the rest of the population,
  • the increasing of the age to qualify for Newstart, leaving independent adults stranded on the pitiful Youth Allowance
  • the introduction of a 6 month starvation period before young people can qualify for income support,
  • the cuts to legal aid, the National Rental Affordability Scheme,
  • the cutting of funding to a range of advocacy organisations…

And more - so much to grumble about.

But what can I say that has not already been said in countless commentaries and in marches across the country on the weekend – including by SACOSS’ Ross Womersley.

Well, unusually, I want to point to some good news in the budget. The forward estimates show that government revenue is predicted to return to historic average levels in 3 to 4 years. That’s important because declining revenues in recent years have undermined the ability of government to provide vital services.

But if these revenue figures are correct, then where is the emergency that required so much budget pain?

Significantly though, this revenue return is largely a product of forecast economic growth rather than any serious revenue strategy. The only long term revenue building measure in this budget (apart from the token tax on high income earners) is an increase in fuel taxes.

But ABS figures show that those who are unemployed or on study payments spend proportionately more on petrol than other households do.

So again, it is the poor who will bear the biggest burden of this budget – more ducks quacking?

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 20 May 2014

Tuesday 13 May 2014

38. Q&A and student protest

Hi, I am Greg and given that it is budget night, I should grumble about the budget curtain-raiser, the alleged Commission of Audit.

But it is such a transparent political trick with its obvious ideological agenda and laughable methodology, it is really not worth grumbling about.

Instead I want to grumble about the condemnation and outrage that followed a group of students interrupting the ABC’s Q&A program last week.

Now Q&A is the weekly fix for those who need their political prejudices confirmed regularly, and host Tony Jones has achieved cult status as the controller of political egos.

But last week, a group of uni students with a concern for the future and fairness of tertiary education dropped a banner and chanted slogans until they were removed from the august ABC studios.

Now it is the nature of the beast that campaign slogans and chanting do not do justice to any issue, but did we really need Tony Jones’ patronising adjudication that the students were doing themselves no favours.

I’m sorry Tony, you might be comfortable being referee of a weekly political joust, but social change does not come from such staged and sterile discussion.

Q&A is as much about entertainment as politics, and the students were no less entertaining and a good deal more genuine than many Q&A’s panelists. And guess what, they did succeed in highlighting education issues in a way that their allotted subservient Q&A question would not.

And as for the claim that democracy had been restored when the ABC returned from its interlude of musical censorship, I’m sorry, I don’t ever remember an election for positions on a Q&A panel – otherwise we would be spared the weekly IPA rant.

And let’s not forget, many of the people who will be most immediately affected by changes to higher education are those currently at school and ineligible to vote. Democracy without representation? Hmmm.

At a time when political debate is dominated by corporate interests in the guise of budget auditors, and funding cuts threaten advocacy on behalf of vulnerable people, I don’t think we need self-righteous condemnation of those who put political change above political entertainment - no matter how annoying they are.

I am Greg, and I am grumbling – but not about student protest.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 13 May 2014

Tuesday 6 May 2014

37. Nature Play

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the state government spending on a program to get kids to play in nature.

There is a significant body of research that shows that experiencing nature can help with physical and mental health.

There are obvious things like activity helping to address childhood obesity and benefits later in life in relation to cardio-vascular health and depression, but evidence suggests that kids who play in nature tend to be more creative, have better focus, problem solving ability, self-awareness and self-discipline.

Wow, all that just from playing outdoors in nature.

As one study concluded, children will be smarter, healthier, happier and better able to get on with others when they have regular opportunities for free and unstructured play outdoors.

So why am I grumbling? I am grumbling because we appear to have reached a point where such a program is actually needed.

The stats are appalling: about one in four kids have never climbed a tree, or gone bush-walking, 17% have never visited a national park, and 11% have not played in a garden or a park in the last year.

What is going on there? Is the most complex and dynamic interactive system on the planet – i.e. nature – being replaced by the pale two-dimensional interactivity of computer games, or has nature simply been concreted out of our urban landscape?

Or have the lawyers and safety bureaucrats stolen childhood without a thought about the consequences? Someone might get hurt, someone might get sued, stranger danger – bring out the cotton wool. Where was the cost-benefit analysis of the risk of broken arms verse the retardation of learning, or alienation from the place we live?

But that leads to my second grumble. If these stats are correct and the next generation is indeed living dangerously by living indoors, then we certainly need an organisation like the recently established, Nature Play SA with their list of 51 things to do before you are 12 (it was a long time ago, but I reckon I would have done about 35 of them).

But it is one small community organisation. If we are really going to introduce the sensations of the natural world to a cyborg generation, we need more resources for programs like Nature Play, but we also need to re-think how we regulate childhood.

Yes, even a lefty can argue for deregulation.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 6 May 2014

Tuesday 22 April 2014

36. Red Tape Reduction (Again)

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about red tape reduction (again).

I recently grumbled about the government’s “bonfire” approach to red tape reduction, but fortunately the national charity regulator, the ACNC has been saved at least temporarily from the bonfire and there is a now a Senate Committee review.

I suspect the Committee will simply hear again that most charities like the notion of a purpose-built, independent regulator and don’t wish to be returned to the regulation by the tax collector.

But if the government really wanted to reduce red tape for the charitable sector, it would pick up recent recommendations from the Not-For-Profit Reform Working Group about changes to tax deductible gift giving.

Currently, most charities get tax basic concessions by virtue of being charities. But if you want donations to you to be tax deductible, you need a whole separate process. In many case you need to establish a separate Gift Fund in your constitution with its own bank account and management committee. And if you’re an environmental, arts or harm prevention charity you then need to apply to the relevant Minister to be placed on the appropriate register of organisations.

The Minister may sit on an application for years, or grant it as if it was a piece of political largesse for supportive charities.

However, there are also charities who are exempt from such Ministerial whim – those who because of some historical accident or political deal are listed in legislation as being deductible gift recipients.

It’s stupid and it’s dodgy.

A good piece of red-tape reduction would be to abolish the need for a separate Gift Fund and the various Registers, and repeal the separate parliamentary listings and then simply extend tax deductible gift recipient status to all charities.

This would increase donations to charities, remove the implicit notion that some charities are more worthy than others, and be a direct assistance to thousands of organisations who are doing good work in the community.

It should be simple – if you are a not-for-profit organisation with a charitable purpose, you should get all the same tax charity concessions. Full stop.

If the government is not prepared to embrace this really good piece of red tape reduction for the charitable sector, we might just begin to suspect that their red tape reduction is really about something else – which is where I finished my previous grumble.

I am Greg and I am still grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 15 April 2014

Tuesday 15 April 2014

35. Age Pensions

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about proposals to raise the pension age.

I am not necessarily against changing the pension age, or tightening some of the restrictions so that we are not subsidising relatively wealthy people, but it is such a mono-dimensional debate.

“Be prepared to work until your 70” the headline says – but what does it mean for people who aren’t working? We already have a real problem of mature age unemployment – people who may have worked for 30 or 40 years, but who find themselves out of work and facing age discrimination in the employment market.

Sure, if you are a CEO, an academic or a highly paid consultant there might be jobs for 60 year olds which value that lifetime of experience, but for many people, if you are made redundant or out of work in your 60s it might be near impossible to get another job.

For those people, raising the pension age is not about the inconvenience of staying in work longer, but living for longer on the much lower unemployment income support rather than getting the higher benefits of the age pension. The difference is about $120 a week in the base rate, so raising the pension age may sentence older unemployed workers to another 1, 2 or 5 years of living below the poverty line.

If we are going to have a conversation about raising the pension age, can we have a real discussion which includes:
  • how we are going to change workplace cultures to provide job possibilities for older employees;
  • whether we can create a part-time job pathways for older workers to ease into retirement, or to just share work more fairly; and 
  • how we can index pensions so that pensioners do not begin to slip backwards relative to the rest of the population – in the same way that those on CPI-indexed benefits like Newstart and Austudy have been left behind.

And finally, if we keep people in work longer, who is going to do the vast amount of volunteer caring and community work that younger retirees do – because there is no doubt that retirees care for grandchildren, aging parents and siblings, and are the backbone of many community organisations?

These are genuinely hard issues. Much easier to just cut benefits to vulnerable people in order to fill a revenue hole at the same time as we cut mining and pollution taxes.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 15 April 2014

Tuesday 8 April 2014

34. Taxes and GST

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about taxes. It’s a familiar theme – in fact, my first Grumble here was that constantly cutting taxes erodes the revenue base and leads to cuts in vital services.

But since then the political debate has moved. The Federal Treasurer is now saying taxes will never cover projected levels of spending, the Head of Treasury is openly canvassing increasing the GST and the Governor of the Reserve has also weighed in on the tax reform.

Of course this is a bit weird when the government is pursuing the abolition of the mining super-profits tax and pushing to sell-off assets like Medibank Private – which, while boosting the coffers in the short term, would leave a revenue hole over time.

However, at least we are beginning to have a debate about how we fund services, without pretending there is a magic pudding that can provide comprehensive government services with low taxes.

But I am still grumbling because it remains an economists’ debate – devoid of analysis of power and the impacts on real people who will lose income support or services.

At least many business groups have moved on from dreams of low or no taxes and are calling for a comprehensive overhaul of the tax base. But hey surprise, they favour increasing the main tax that business doesn’t pay – the GST.

But if we were to increase the GST, who would be most affected? Generally consumption taxes impact most on the lowest income earners as a larger proportion of their household budget goes on consumption, rather than savings or investment.

However, it is not that simple.

GST revenue could be increased simply by raising the rate – say from 10% to 12%. Or it could be increased by extending the range of items it applies to. One option mooted is to extend it to health costs. This would impact disproportionately on people living with chronic health conditions, many of whom are on low incomes.

By contrast, extending the GST to education would be progressive as those who can afford private education would pay more than low income households in the public school system.

And there could be other suggestions – what about increasing the GST rate but removing it from necessities like utilities. That would ease the burden on low income households.

But I suspect that progressive tax change is still not really on the agenda.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 8 April 2014

Tuesday 1 April 2014

33. Knights and Dames

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about knights and dames. Yes, it is predictable, and in the week since Lord Abbott’s non-surprise policy, there has been much derision of the re-introduction of imperial-style honours.

And rightly so. But do such things really matter?

It is a bit pathetic, slightly embarrassing, but mostly it is just funny.

But what I actually want to grumble about is who gets the titles of Sir and Dame. Any honours, whether they are Australian or British imports, are supposed to be about recognising great service to the community, but do the retiring or incoming Governor-General really qualify?

I don’t mean personally, but I thought the position of Governor-General was itself a sort of recognition of service, and a very well paid one at that at around $400,000 per year. Do we also need to knight them?

Quentin Bryce’s career before being Governor –General included being a successful barrister, a CEO, a senior government official and Governor of Queensland. All well remunerated. Similarly, the new resident of Yarralumla has been well recognised and rewarded for his high-profile military career.

Both G-Gs have contributed community service beyond their careers, but mostly their qualification for honours are their career achievements. Well, I am sorry, that is just their day job.

Lots of people make enormous contributions in their day jobs - creating the infrastructure, goods and services that we all use, and they are rewarded and recognised far less than those most likely to be knighted.

So, if we are going to have a system of honours, could we recognise people who make a contribution to our community beyond their day job?

There is no shortage of them – volunteers who keep community groups of all sorts running; those who care for relatives, neighbours and sometimes strangers; and activists who spend their lives being ostracised for trying to make the world a better a place.

All these people give up time and money to make their contribution. No wages, no social recognition, no rent-free cottages by the lake. And no knighthoods. 

Of course sometimes these community contributors (usually the safer, more conservative ones) get minor honours, but as we have seen with our be-knighted governors-general, the big honours are reserved for those who have already been recognised and rewarded.

To those that have, shall be given. It is called a class system.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

And vale Tony Benn – a champion, but not a knight or Lord of the realm.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 1 April 2014

Monday 24 March 2014

32. Red Tape Bonfires

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about “repeal day” – it’s tomorrow and it’s the day touted by the Federal government where over 10,000 regulations and legislative provisions will be repealed in a veritable bonfire of red tape reduction.

It is very exciting … except that you cut red tape, you don’t burn it. As any park ranger will tell you (if you can find such an increasingly rare species), when you burn things – even with good intentions – it can get out of control.

The government has copped lots of criticism over the proposal to remove restrictions on financial advisers' secret commissions and is now trying to hose down that particular part of the bonfire.

But I want to grumble about another bit of the pyromania: the abolition of the national charity regulator, the ACNC (Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission). This is not a hangover of some ancient legislation – it is a body put in place 18 months ago after a raft of government reports recommending its establishment.

There is widespread support for the ACNC in the community sector, although there are a few different voices from some parts of the Catholic Church who object to a slight increase in transparency for their tax free entities. But we only have to watch the nightly news to see how well trust and self-regulation has worked for the Church.

Let’s be clear though. Abolishing the ACNC is not about red tape reduction – it is simply a transfer of regulation from the ACNC back to the Tax Office or to ASIC. And when they had responsibility previously, they failed to even maintain an up-to-date list of who was entitled to get tax concessions and where those organisations could be found.

More importantly, the Tax Office has been used by past governments to attack and pressure charities who were doing effective policy advocacy.

For that reason, when the ACNC was established, its governing legislation ensured the independence of charities and our right to advocate for charitable causes. With its abolition, we lose the protections of an independent regulator.

This government has already been attacking advocacy: defunding the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia and the Environmental Defenders’ Offices, and cutting funding to Aboriginal community legal centres on the basis that advocacy and not front-line services should be cut.

So beware.

There are historical precedents for using bonfires to silence dissent: books, witches, villages – but it is not a good record.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 25 March 2014

Tuesday 18 March 2014

31. The SA Election

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the state election.

I am not going to grumble about the fact that we don’t know the result yet – it is frustrating, but it is a small inconvenience and won’t impact on the future of our state.

Nor am I going to grumble about the misreporting of the campaign with weeks or months of media commentary about a safe Liberal win. It does make me wonder what the analysis of the journalists and pundits is really worth, but I suspect they were not alone in this instance.

And I am not going to grumble about standing at a polling booth for ten hours in a desperate attempt to get maybe one or two more votes for the candidate I was supporting. Possibly pointless, but if we ban how-to-vote handing out, then we might simply reinforce the power of the major players who dominate the media coverage. As much as I hate them, the same might be true of the core-flute street posters.

I could grumble about the numbers of people I saw on Saturday who complained about having to vote, didn’t know who was running and were indifferent to the result. Yes, their votes carry the same weight as anyone else’s, but I won’t grumble about that because voluntary voting would just magnify the power of marginal groups at the expense of a real representation of community opinion. And perhaps complete indifference is as legitimate a democratic position as any other.

Finally, I am not even going to grumble about the fact that the party that got the majority of votes has not necessarily been elected. The only real way to stop that would be not have local electorates, but that would make government very distant and unresponsive. And if government was truly proportional to the vote, there would always be minority government.

That said, I would not necessarily grumble about minority governments either, because, in recent times, at both state and federal levels, minority governments have proven stable and had good legislative records.

So all in all, I don’t have much to grumble about in this election. Ok, the upper house electoral system still needs reform, it would be nice if the media and the major parties didn’t treat it like a presidential contest, if the campaign events were less scripted and if more issues and voices were heard, but given all these systemic constraints, the election was ok.

I am Greg, and I am obviously getting soft!

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 18 March 2014

Monday 3 March 2014

30. Things British

I am Greg and I want to grumble about things British.

On Monday next week, after searching the diversity of world music, WOMAD will present us with (groan) British folk music! - albeit in the iconic form of Billy Bragg.

Despite sometimes dubious gender politics and a more recent country twang in his music, Bragg has been knighted by the left, partly because of his articulate opposition to the brutality of Thatcherism in the late ‘70s, but also for giving us some decent words to the Internationale.

But there is bigger British news. A royal visit!  William, Kate and what’s-his-name coming here – to see us! I have already begun practicing bowing and tugging my forelock.

And better still, their most esteemed personages will visit Elizabeth – a town whose name pays homage to one ruling institution and its economic base to another.

However Elizabeth (the town not the corgi-owner) is doing it tough at the moment, so the distraction will be welcome as the young royals drop by to cheer the local spirit before disappearing to continue their world tour.

But beyond music and sycophantic flag waving, and sandwiched between the boom of V8 engines and the froth of various festivals, there is a celebration of a much greater British institution – a democratic election.

The South Australian state election. Does anyone actually know what policies are at play beyond sound bites about alleged economic miracles or basket-cases? Who will really help those struggling in Elizabeth or elsewhere?

The lack of policy detail and analysis is disappointing, and as usual we get almost no reporting of the Upper House so it’s a surprise when some marginal player we have never heard of flukes a seat.

To paraphrase Billy Bragg: the best of all this bad bunch is shouting to be heard, above the sound of personalities tweeting.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 4 March 2014

Monday 17 February 2014

29. Excellence

I am Greg and I want to grumble about that genre of mindless bureaucracy which is service quality standards or service excellence accreditation.

The accreditation is a potentially useful idea sabotaged by a focus on process rather than outcomes as someone goes into a workplace they may have no understanding of to ensure that a series of policies and practices are in place – regardless of whether or not those predetermined processes are useful or appropriate.

And so, there are occupational health and safety processes to ensure that office workers don’t get paper cuts in the paperless offices, whilst at the same time ignoring the big issues of workload, long hours, and job insecurity.

There are staff management policies which ensure that the most ruthless bosses know which boxes to tick and the best managers can’t do what might actually promote good work; and privacy policies full of stunning requirements like keeping people’s private information private.

There are even policies about having policies, but not, sadly, about whether the work and service is actually excellent.

And that is the point. Excellence is about a focus on people’s needs and outcomes, it is not about an accumulation of processes divorced from outcomes, and organisational structures and cultures.

Any accreditation divorced from outcomes, but particularly in relation to services to vulnerable and disadvantaged people is insulting, and a great waste of time and resources, but apparently you won’t be eligible for government grants and contracts if you don’t have such important paperwork. Not that that will stop another set of bureaucrats asking you again for the same policies when you apply for or report on the abovesaid grants.

So while we hear lots of talk about red tape reduction, and have seen some good moves at state and federal level lately, there is still a long, long way to go.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 18 February 2014

Tuesday 11 February 2014

28. Pay Day Lending

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about pay day lending. Maybe I spent too much time over summer watching sport on TV, but I got sick of being bombarded with advertisements offering me nimble loans or shouting CashTrain. I could also see a cash wizard, and if I couldn’t sell junk to Cash Converters I could perhaps get a loan there. So much cash available so easily (loans approved in less than 60 minutes).

Payday lending, that is, short term loans for relatively small amounts may be useful to get tide you over a cash shortage if something sudden comes up, but as Humphrey Bogart famously said in Casablanca, “for a price Ugati, for a price”. And what a price it is – interest rates equivalent to 48% per annum interest, plus an establishment fee of around 20% of the loan sum. Using one company’s loan calculator, a $500 loan for just over two weeks would cost more than a $120 bucks. And then there are extra charges if you change the term of the loan, or make late payments, or if they have to send you follow-up letters.

Of course, it is good that these fees are disclosed clearly on the company websites, but it is a bit nauseating when the companies trumpet that they are being upfront and that there are no hidden fees and charges. The disclosure is required by law and they don’t mention that their fees are often the maximum permitted by law. Or that the payday lending industry fought tooth and nail against better regulation and caps on when they were introduced a couple of years ago.

Despite the advertising, they’re not my best mate – my best mate wouldn’t charge me effectively 25% interest on a short term loan. But that is the point, people who are better off usually have access to credit or other financial resources. And those that don’t pay a premium for their poverty.

But maybe it is all ok. If I get into financial trouble, there is another whole series of adverts with the extremely rich Tammy May telling us that My Budget will sort out my finances – and add to hers.

There are better ways to help people struggling with sudden bills and cost of living pressures, but with private interests cashing in on poverty, I can only wonder how long it will be before charities’ financial counselling and assistance programs are seen as “anti-competitive”, or government funding of services is accused of crowding-out the private sector.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.


First Broadcast: 11 February 2014

Monday 3 February 2014

27. Biases and lots of other things

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about lots of things! As the political year ratchets up, there has been so much to grumble about in the last week or so. There was our PM attacking the ABC for reporting asylum seeker claims of abuse, followed by a litany of Coalition MPs complaining (again) about the Labor-Green bias of the ABC – in the same week that our national broadcaster aired serious corruption allegations against building unions. But why is it that the scandal is about dodgy people in the unions, but not also the dodgy builders who paid them the alleged bribes. Sounds like bias to me.

Then there was Andrew Bolt complaining (Advertiser, 30 January) about racism and claiming to be indigenous (he really doesn’t understand race or structural power does he?). And on Mr Bolt’s other favourite subject, what about the weather? Another record heatwave to follow the all-time hottest year in Australia last year. It’s unpleasant, but at what point do we move from a discussion of weather to one of climate change – or is that a biased question?

Apparently not biased however is the recent government appointment of another of the diaspora of the right-wing think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. This time it was Ted Lapkin to assist in dismantling the national charity regulator that was set up just 18 months ago with support from the sector and on recommendation of about a dozen official inquiries.

And on the other side, what are we to make of the current state Labor Party TV adverts with the normally calm and thoughtful Jay Weatherill bouncing around unnaturally like a cross between Peter Garrett and a thunderbirds marionette. Given that he is trying to convey the achievements of his government, it’s a distraction which says again that the political image-masters are valuing impression over substance – and doing it badly at that. And then along came Don Farrell. Hmmm.

Meanwhile, across the border the WA government is sanctioning the slaughter of sharks and the NT government is shooting crocs in bloody retribution against innocent creatures. As we sprawl into their territory and tame or kill whatever confronts us, I am left yet again to wonder, how much room are we to leave for the other 99.999% of the planet’s species?

So much to grumble about, and so little time. I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 4 February 2014

Monday 27 January 2014

26. Australia Day

Hi. I am Greg and it should come as no surprise that I want to grumble about Australia Day. I grumbled about Christmas and New Year’s Day, so why wouldn’t I grumble about national Flag-Waving Day?

Public holidays and long weekends are good things, but could we please commemorate something decent, rather than religious celebrations, a horse race, two military invasions and a foreign monarch’s pretend birthday?

Labour day in October is a start, but wouldn’t it be good if we had public holidays to celebrate our unique environment, perhaps a volunteers’ day holiday, or international human rights day, and maybe a multicultural celebration. And is it too much to ask for Australia Day to be on a day that doesn’t require a re-writing of history?

Quite apart from the obvious problem of celebrating the invasion and dispossession of Aboriginal people, the day is not the anniversary of the founding of the Australian state or nation. Australia came into being in 1901, not in 1788 when a failed “tough on crime” policy put a penal colony in one small corner of our continent. And that colony was essentially a military dictatorship, so we are not talking about a great moment of Australian democracy.

It’s tricky though. Most countries’ national days mark an event of liberation from colonial rule (not its imposition), but there is no clear liberation event for Australia. It might be the advent of responsible (though not democratic) government in the 1850s, or of federation which brought about an “Australian” state. But the laws of the British parliament still applied up until 1932, and 7 years later our Prime Minister still appeared to believe that Britain declared war on our behalf. And it was only in the 1980s that the highest court in Australian law was actually an Australian court.

Of course we still have another country’s monarch as our queen, a foreign logo in the corner of our flag, and the future of Holden and Ford workers is determined in overseas Board Rooms. So perhaps we still await a definitive Australia Day. Or maybe in an era of globalisation it is not really that relevant. Or possibly nationalism was a bad and bloody idea in the first place and we would be better focusing on community rather than country, and people rather than states. Hmmm, there’s a thought.

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.



This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 28 January 2014

Monday 20 January 2014

25. Asylum Seeker Policy

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about asylum seeker policy. This week SACOSS launches a state election policy around the treatment of asylum seekers in our communities. A number of SACOSS members provide services to asylum seekers who are living in South Australia waiting for determination of their cases, but I can’t tell you how the SACOSS policy was developed or why state government intervention is important in relation to what is primarily a Federal issue, because that is an operational matter and I can’t comment on operational matters.

However, I can talk about other countries, and so I want to grumble about the treatment of those on a particular ship full of asylum seekers. Over 900 asylum seekers, members of a religious minority fled a brutal dictatorship that was very clearly persecuting them. The boat sailed to Cuba but was denied entry there. In sight of the United States they pleaded for entry, only to be sent a response from the State Department that said that passengers must "await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible." There are conflicting reports about whether military vessels were sent to turn the boats away – perhaps another operational matter we may never know with certainty.

The ship sailed north, but Canada also rejected the asylum seekers, and the boat went back to the region it came from. Some of the asylum seekers were settled in friendly countries from there, but 254 were murdered by the dictatorship.

The story is well-known: the year was 1939, the ship was the MS St Louis and the passengers were Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. But from the shameful treatment of those desperate people and many thousands like them, the Refugee Convention was created – and signed up to by Australia 60 years ago tomorrow (22 January 1954).

But I want to grumble because despite the Convention, the story of the St Louis has way too much resonance in contemporary Australian debate. And because the Australian Human Rights Commission reports a “significant gap” between Australia’s human rights obligations and our current treatment of asylum seekers. And because Commission’s Chair is right that “the denial of work rights to asylum seekers living in the community on bridging visas … may force individuals and families into poverty and lead to breaches of multiple human rights.”

Welcome to the lucky country.

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 21 January 2014

Monday 13 January 2014

24. Cory Bernardi

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about Cory Bernardi. There is a lot of that about lately as many people have rushed to social media to vent their outrage at Cory’s book, The Conservative Revolution.

But what is striking – and what I want to grumble about is how few of the people sounding off have actually read the book. Some admit they haven’t read it, many more are just hurling generic abuse with no real engagement with the text – which to me is just a little too close to what the right does when it dismisses whole swathes of research on the basis of alleged “common sense” or anecdotal experience.

Now I understand that you may not want to legitimise or reward conservative propaganda by buying the Bernardi book, and sometimes parody is the best way to attack offensive views. But sarcasm is often a low form of wit and much of the commentary is not critique – it is simply abuse. Even if his ideas are wrong, silly or offensive, he has held these views throughout his political career. What makes writing them down so special as to warrant this outcry?

What we should really be outraged about is that a man who holds these views got re-elected to the Senate almost by default. Sitting at the top of the Liberal ticket in South Australia (what was that about him not representing the views of the government), he didn’t attend various campaign fora in the lead up to the last election, said very little publicly and did not feature in the media which fixated on the Presidential-style contest.

How many people who put a 1 in the Liberal box on the big Senate ballot paper knew that they were voting for a conservative revolution built, according to the advertisement for the book, on faith, family, flag, freedom and free enterprise. A nice alliteration, even if somewhat self-contradictory.

So fine, go ahead and grumble about Cory and his book, but where was this critique in the lead up to the election when it might have mattered more? Where was the media exposure? How many now exercising their wit and outrage actively campaigned for something different? And what of those who actually hold such beliefs, I doubt we will change their mind by simple abuse. Social media is easy, social change is hard.

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 14 January 2014

Monday 6 January 2014

23. Statistics

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about statistics. It is not that, as the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Statistics here are maligned as they simply give us the answer to the question asked, and in doing that they illuminate important trends and social processes. Yes, at the same time they hide other things that don’t fit the categories used to make the stats, but all knowledge does that – our view is shaped by our foundational assumptions and frameworks.

Now I have been known to use the odd statistic in political debates, but my grumble is that some statistics are so powerful that they cease to be constructed numbers and become more important than the thing they represent. For instance, CPI (the Consumer Price Index) is the cost of living, not the experience of people struggling to pay bills. I suppose you could expect that in a country whose national sport is little more than double-entry book-keeping, with the 6-ball space between the advertisements taken up with discussions of figures, averages and historical aggregates.

Of course cricket statistics are mostly harmless, but it is a worry when national policy is based blindly on statistics – without questioning the assumptions behind them. For instance, when commentators talk about the economy and market forces, it is worth remembering that less than half the goods and services produced in Australia in any year are produced in a market economy. The rest are produced in the home, in the voluntary sector or by government – and often produced very efficiently! GDP – Gross Domestic Product – is not the economy!

Similarly, our environment doesn’t count in economic statistics – hence the push to introduce it via something like a carbon tax. But in the battle of statistics between atmospheric parts per million and economic dollars per capita, there was only ever going to be one winner – and that really is the point. Statistics are useful for getting attention and making arguments, but ultimately policy is decided by power not by facts and stats. So can all the well-meaning academics and policy-wonks stop tieing up our community organisations and social movements with intricate policy debates that don’t matter, and can we get on with mobilising the political power we will need to see the world changed for the better.

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-23/ 

 First Broadcast: 7 January 2014