49. Christmas Presents

Hi. I am Greg and to begin the year, I want to reflect back and grumble about Christmas presents.

Not being one for celebrating deities of either the religious or commercial kind, I headed for the hills for Christmas – literally. I was staying in a small town at the foot of Mt Buffalo in Victoria, and on Christmas morning a few hardy souls pedalled up the mountain to enjoy the grand views of the alpine plateau.

About half way up two cyclists cruised past me like I was not moving. I was relieved when I got to the top to find that they were half my age, but on returning to where I was staying, there were a couple of teenagers riding their new bikes around the park. No doubt that was a Christmas scene repeated around the country, but the catch here was that these were electric bikes.

Now electric bikes can be good and useful – but do healthy teenagers really need an electric assist to pedal the largely flat terrain that a 20-inch bike wheel will traverse?

We hear the messages about childhood obesity, we know the benefits of exercise to mental and physical health, and you don’t have to wear lycra to enjoy the simple pleasure of riding a bicycle. And yet, here were these kids whizzing around the park on their carbon-unfriendly toys.

Ok, an electric bike is still a better present than a computer game or an I-something, but really – if one has to buy-into the Christmas consumer culture (and that’s a whole grumble in itself!), is that really the best that can be done?

And so, to the two guys who passed me on the way up to Mt Buffalo, and especially to the pair on the tandem I saw the day before pulling a trailer over Mt Hotham – chapeau!

And to all those who trundled, walked, jogged or swam over Christmas – well done.

But for those whose Christmas presents encouraged sedantry lifestyles, or just thoughtless and wasteful consumerism: hmmm.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 6 January 2015

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

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

18. Smokers

Hi, I’m Greg and I want to grumble about smokers. Not smoking, smokers. Yes, I know smokers are just people addicted to a noxious substance and we should really feel sorry for them. Their addiction means that they pay daily tribute to some of the biggest and nastiest corporations around the world – an immoral profit based on dependence and a history of insidious advertising and a denial of science.

I should be compassionate because I know that statistically smokers are likely to suffer more from cancer and other diseases and die earlier than non-smokers, and I know that people on low incomes, and people who are desperate or stressed and those who suffer depression and other mental health problems are all more likely to smoke than those with more resources or for whom life is easier. Should I really begrudge people a short term relief from a simple smoke?

I should be more understanding, but sometimes I simply resent having to hold my breath as I go in and out of buildings, or having to have a conversation with someone whose clothes and breath fill the air with the putrid aftermath of their craving. I resent the colonisation of our-door spaces at various venues, and I particularly resent people coming up talk to you when they are smoking, or light up next to you completely oblivious to how obnoxious and anti-social that is.

I won’t even dignify the notion of smokers’ rights with a grumble because at the point where smokers are imposing their smoke (and their medical bills) on the rest of us, it is not about their right or choice whether to smoke, it is a public health issue. And of course where a corporate sponsored addiction is concerned, it is never really about free choice anyway.

So, I actually want to congratulate governments over the last 20 years for a range of public health responses which have de-legitimised and de-glamourised smoking, and which see us no longer having to share aircrafts, music venues and restaurants with the offensive smoke. Even while I grumble about smokers, it is worth remembering these good changes – our lives made better by preventative health approaches.

We could learn a lesson from that for all sorts of addictions and health problems where prevention (or at least risk minimisation) may be better than cure. Alternatively, we can call this a “nanny state” and just continue to plough money into a completely unsustainable health system that remains dominated by expensive tertiary-end care. However, unlike my dashes into buildings, I won’t hold my breath for a policy change there.

I am Greg, and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-18/ 

First Broadcast: 3 December 2013