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