Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the possums that kept me awake on a bushwalk recently.
Now you would think that after a week holiday in spectacular Tasmanian mountain wilderness and among beautiful gardens, I would have little to grumble about. But every bushwalker has experience or has heard the stories of possums that get into huts, rip through tents or backpacks (or even learn how to use the zippers) and eat into the walkers’ food supplies.
The first night on a high Tasmanian plateau it was paddy melons sidling up to the tent in search of food, and on the second night possums made regular attempts to get into the historic but crude hut.
The third night we were camped in a spectacular spot by a mountain lake, but as the sun set another possum poked its head out of the dead tree next to our campsite.
It did not take long for it to be on, and this was no timid wild creature. Unable to shoo it away by shouting and banging on the tent, and with throwing things at it providing only very temporary relief, at 1am we tried hanging the food bag on a stretch rope from the limb of a tree.
There was some rest, but after a few hours the possum was on the bag noisily nosing through the rubbish at the top. I got up, grabbed my walking stick and poked the possum away – but only as far as the ground where it circled around to have another go at the food. I swung the stick to frighten it, but to no avail.
In hindsight, with a torchlight in its eyes the poor nocturnal creature was probably blinded, and it was only when the stick hit him that he took flight (NB. Curiously, I have now gendered the possum, when really I have no idea).
I was horrified. How did a vegetarian respecter of animal rights so quickly move to violence against a native animal in its own habitat?
I was tired, I had a right to a night’s sleep and I had worked hard to carry the food there – although in reality there was plenty of food.
And though we were on his patch, I was also steeped in the folklore demonising the other and angry that he had refused to leave us alone or to be dissuaded by warnings and gentler methods of persuasion. Force was necessary.
Hmmm. Sound familiar?
Yet again, I find myself talking about the processes of colonialism.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 21 April 2015
Greg's Grumbles can be heard on Radio Adelaide during SACOSS' Small Change program - 6pm every Tuesday night. 101.5FM or online.
Tuesday, 28 April 2015
Tuesday, 14 April 2015
57. Chloe Valentine Inquest
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the Chloe Valentine Inquest.
Like many people, I watched the news in horror as the Coroner revealed the appalling failings of our child protection system. And I was moved to tears watching a grandmother dealing with the tragedy. I can not begin to imagine her pain and the fury she must feel having begged the authorities for custody of her grandchild.
But then came the Coroner’s recommendations, and frankly, I am sorry – but extrapolating from a case study is not really a good basis for social policy. Yes, in this case the actions of the Department are indefensible and there is little doubt that this child should have been removed from her parents, but it is not that long ago that we apologised for a generation stolen from their parents for what at the time seemed like good reasons.
There are costs to removing children from their parents as there are risks to leaving them, and we know that a change in policy to favour removal over risk management will lead to another generation of Aboriginal kids taken from their parents. The word Aboriginal did not appear in the Coroner’s report – and maybe that should be pause for thought when we move from reaction to policy.
And talking of dodgy policy, on what basis did the Coroner decide that Income Management would have helped the situation when most credible public policy analysis shows there is no basis for believing that restricting the expenditure of people on income support has any impact on behavioural choices or child welfare?
Income management was a paternalistic racist policy borne out of anecdotes, political expediency and at best a desperation to do something, anything. But it is not good policy and the Coroner’s report provided no evidence or argument about the success of Income Management – just an assumption and some moralistic judgement of what he thought was right.
Blokes at pubs make pronouncements on policy based on their own experience and anecdotes – but real public policy is more complicated than that. I’m no expert on child protection, but I know it is a fallacy of liberal philosophy that society is nothing but a collection of “individuals making their way” (to quote the late but not great invader of the Falklands, Margaret Thatcher).
Is it such a dream that we might start a serious public policy debate from an analysis of history, power and social structures?
And if we were doing that, would we start with lawyers in a quasi-judicial processes, or with someone who was an expert in child protection?
Of course as we grieve for an innocent child, this critique of the inquiry which is calling Families SA to account won’t make me popular. But for the record, SACOSS called for an independent inquiry into South Australia’s child protection system in January 2013. The government responded saying it was under control and a review wasn’t needed.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 14 April 2015
Like many people, I watched the news in horror as the Coroner revealed the appalling failings of our child protection system. And I was moved to tears watching a grandmother dealing with the tragedy. I can not begin to imagine her pain and the fury she must feel having begged the authorities for custody of her grandchild.
But then came the Coroner’s recommendations, and frankly, I am sorry – but extrapolating from a case study is not really a good basis for social policy. Yes, in this case the actions of the Department are indefensible and there is little doubt that this child should have been removed from her parents, but it is not that long ago that we apologised for a generation stolen from their parents for what at the time seemed like good reasons.
There are costs to removing children from their parents as there are risks to leaving them, and we know that a change in policy to favour removal over risk management will lead to another generation of Aboriginal kids taken from their parents. The word Aboriginal did not appear in the Coroner’s report – and maybe that should be pause for thought when we move from reaction to policy.
And talking of dodgy policy, on what basis did the Coroner decide that Income Management would have helped the situation when most credible public policy analysis shows there is no basis for believing that restricting the expenditure of people on income support has any impact on behavioural choices or child welfare?
Income management was a paternalistic racist policy borne out of anecdotes, political expediency and at best a desperation to do something, anything. But it is not good policy and the Coroner’s report provided no evidence or argument about the success of Income Management – just an assumption and some moralistic judgement of what he thought was right.
Blokes at pubs make pronouncements on policy based on their own experience and anecdotes – but real public policy is more complicated than that. I’m no expert on child protection, but I know it is a fallacy of liberal philosophy that society is nothing but a collection of “individuals making their way” (to quote the late but not great invader of the Falklands, Margaret Thatcher).
Is it such a dream that we might start a serious public policy debate from an analysis of history, power and social structures?
And if we were doing that, would we start with lawyers in a quasi-judicial processes, or with someone who was an expert in child protection?
Of course as we grieve for an innocent child, this critique of the inquiry which is calling Families SA to account won’t make me popular. But for the record, SACOSS called for an independent inquiry into South Australia’s child protection system in January 2013. The government responded saying it was under control and a review wasn’t needed.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 14 April 2015
Tuesday, 31 March 2015
56. Remote Aborigines
I am Greg and following last week’s grumble about our limited understanding of Aboriginal history, I want to reflect more on issues of colonialism and welfare.
My last grumble criticised the racist idea that the Australian population had been growing since 1788 as it was clear that in the aftermath of the arrival of Europeans the Aboriginal population – and therefore the Australian population – plummeted in the early years of the nineteenth century.
But it is important not to see colonisation as just an event in 1788 or the nineteenth century. While colonial diseases may have had a devastating immediate impact, colonisation generally refers to a process of the imposition of an imperial state on a subject population.
In 1788 there were hundreds of Aboriginal nations and the arrival of a British military garrison in Sydney was, in the short term at least, an invasion of only one country. Each Aboriginal nation was colonised at a different subsequent point, but it was not a one-off process.
Yes, land was taken and colonial law enforced, but Aboriginal people remained on much of their land and continued to live under Aboriginal law as well – that was what the Mabo judgment recognised when it found the existence of continuing native title.
For some groups a more absolute dispossession happened through the nineteenth century as towns and cities were built on their land, although even then it was rarely complete. For other nations, dispossession happened in the 1950s with their removal for a bombing range in the north of South Australia, or in the 1960s and 1970s for new mines, or the 1980s and 1990s for new resorts, roads and even bridges, or in the 2000s with the army invading the Northern Territory.
For Aboriginal groups with continuing connection to country, colonialism was not about a historic event in 1788, it is a micro process which happens every time a new land use or policy means that Aboriginal law and land is displaced by a colonial land use backed by the force of the state.
That is why the PM’s comments about a lifestyle choice to live in remote areas and the policy agenda which underpins it were so offensive. Shifting Aboriginal people off their country is another act of colonial dispossession.
That said, providing services to those in remote communities with few resources is a genuinely difficult issue. But the history matters.
Viewed from a prism of a colonisation that happened in the distant past, payments and services to these communities are seen as welfare – a drain on the public purse with an ongoing assimilationist assumption that the people there really should be more productively employed (elsewhere).
But if we see colonisation as ongoing, and we want to think instead about rights to self-determination, then perhaps we could talk about supporting Aboriginal people to stay on country – not in poverty or on welfare, but by right.
And then it is a question not of a decision in Canberra, Perth, or Adelaide, but of negotiation between equals about economic arrangements and what we might be prepared to pay not for welfare but for heritage protection, or perhaps even simply for “rent”.
It is not a panacea, but it is not colonialism either.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 24 March 2015
My last grumble criticised the racist idea that the Australian population had been growing since 1788 as it was clear that in the aftermath of the arrival of Europeans the Aboriginal population – and therefore the Australian population – plummeted in the early years of the nineteenth century.
But it is important not to see colonisation as just an event in 1788 or the nineteenth century. While colonial diseases may have had a devastating immediate impact, colonisation generally refers to a process of the imposition of an imperial state on a subject population.
In 1788 there were hundreds of Aboriginal nations and the arrival of a British military garrison in Sydney was, in the short term at least, an invasion of only one country. Each Aboriginal nation was colonised at a different subsequent point, but it was not a one-off process.
Yes, land was taken and colonial law enforced, but Aboriginal people remained on much of their land and continued to live under Aboriginal law as well – that was what the Mabo judgment recognised when it found the existence of continuing native title.
For some groups a more absolute dispossession happened through the nineteenth century as towns and cities were built on their land, although even then it was rarely complete. For other nations, dispossession happened in the 1950s with their removal for a bombing range in the north of South Australia, or in the 1960s and 1970s for new mines, or the 1980s and 1990s for new resorts, roads and even bridges, or in the 2000s with the army invading the Northern Territory.
For Aboriginal groups with continuing connection to country, colonialism was not about a historic event in 1788, it is a micro process which happens every time a new land use or policy means that Aboriginal law and land is displaced by a colonial land use backed by the force of the state.
That is why the PM’s comments about a lifestyle choice to live in remote areas and the policy agenda which underpins it were so offensive. Shifting Aboriginal people off their country is another act of colonial dispossession.
That said, providing services to those in remote communities with few resources is a genuinely difficult issue. But the history matters.
Viewed from a prism of a colonisation that happened in the distant past, payments and services to these communities are seen as welfare – a drain on the public purse with an ongoing assimilationist assumption that the people there really should be more productively employed (elsewhere).
But if we see colonisation as ongoing, and we want to think instead about rights to self-determination, then perhaps we could talk about supporting Aboriginal people to stay on country – not in poverty or on welfare, but by right.
And then it is a question not of a decision in Canberra, Perth, or Adelaide, but of negotiation between equals about economic arrangements and what we might be prepared to pay not for welfare but for heritage protection, or perhaps even simply for “rent”.
It is not a panacea, but it is not colonialism either.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 24 March 2015
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
55. Aboriginal History
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the government’s lack of understanding of Aboriginal history. In the last week the PM has been rightly lambasted for his comment that living in remote communities was a “lifestyle choice”.
And of course before that there was his infamous comment about Sydney that it was “hard to think that back in 1788 it was nothing but bush”. Indeed, it is hard to think that!
But what caught my attention was a comment from Joe Hockey in launching the government’s Intergenerational Report that Australia’s population had been growing since 1788. Well, actually, no.
When the British Navy set up camp with their conscripted colonisers in 1788, the population of what is now Australia was probably about 750,000. Estimates are difficult because obviously there was no census of the several hundred Aboriginal nations across the continent.
Early European estimates of an Aboriginal population of around 300,000 were based on observations of communities which had already been devastated by deadly diseases which travelled faster than the colonial push into country. More recent estimates go as high as over 1m Aboriginal people at the time of initial colonisation.
Yet by the end of the nineteenth century, as a result of disease, dispossession, and the other intentional and unintentional colonisation processes, there were only about 100-150,000 Aboriginal people.
Again, estimates are difficult, but this massive depopulation is extraordinary. If we took the mid-point estimate of an original 750,000, then the equivalent of about 6 in 7 Aboriginal people disappeared over the course of the century. [See note below]
In relation to Joe Hockey’s comment, if we assume that much of that population loss was in the first half of that period, then it was probably not until the gold rushes of the 1850s that Australia’s population reached the heights of the pre-colonial period. So, no Mr Hockey, the population has not been growing since 1788.
And it is not good enough to ignore the Aboriginal population simply because they weren’t counted in the original statistics – to do so simply imports nineteenth century racism into the present.
To be fair to the Treasurer though, numbers have never been the strong point of Intergenerational Reports and it was only a throw-away line. But as with the PM’s mis-statements, such one-liners are important because they reveal underlying assumptions and arguably a more real version of government thinking than heavily manicured policy statements.
But what is more interesting was that Joe Hockey’s population comments did not cause an outcry – hardly even a stir.
It is perhaps a marker of the distance we still need to travel before we fully appreciate and come to terms with our colonial history.
And about that, moreso than the silly statements of our alleged leaders, I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 17 March 2015
Endnote: To put the figures of Aboriginal population loss in perspective, the catastrophic global influenza epidemic of 1918-20 killed more people than World War 1. It was probably the biggest single demographic event of the last century and in Australia cost the lives of over 2% of the population – yet the Australian population continued to grow in those years – in marked contrast to the massive loss of Aboriginal population after 1788 which has only relatively recently recovered to pre-colonial levels.
And of course before that there was his infamous comment about Sydney that it was “hard to think that back in 1788 it was nothing but bush”. Indeed, it is hard to think that!
But what caught my attention was a comment from Joe Hockey in launching the government’s Intergenerational Report that Australia’s population had been growing since 1788. Well, actually, no.
When the British Navy set up camp with their conscripted colonisers in 1788, the population of what is now Australia was probably about 750,000. Estimates are difficult because obviously there was no census of the several hundred Aboriginal nations across the continent.
Early European estimates of an Aboriginal population of around 300,000 were based on observations of communities which had already been devastated by deadly diseases which travelled faster than the colonial push into country. More recent estimates go as high as over 1m Aboriginal people at the time of initial colonisation.
Yet by the end of the nineteenth century, as a result of disease, dispossession, and the other intentional and unintentional colonisation processes, there were only about 100-150,000 Aboriginal people.
Again, estimates are difficult, but this massive depopulation is extraordinary. If we took the mid-point estimate of an original 750,000, then the equivalent of about 6 in 7 Aboriginal people disappeared over the course of the century. [See note below]
In relation to Joe Hockey’s comment, if we assume that much of that population loss was in the first half of that period, then it was probably not until the gold rushes of the 1850s that Australia’s population reached the heights of the pre-colonial period. So, no Mr Hockey, the population has not been growing since 1788.
And it is not good enough to ignore the Aboriginal population simply because they weren’t counted in the original statistics – to do so simply imports nineteenth century racism into the present.
To be fair to the Treasurer though, numbers have never been the strong point of Intergenerational Reports and it was only a throw-away line. But as with the PM’s mis-statements, such one-liners are important because they reveal underlying assumptions and arguably a more real version of government thinking than heavily manicured policy statements.
But what is more interesting was that Joe Hockey’s population comments did not cause an outcry – hardly even a stir.
It is perhaps a marker of the distance we still need to travel before we fully appreciate and come to terms with our colonial history.
And about that, moreso than the silly statements of our alleged leaders, I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 17 March 2015
Endnote: To put the figures of Aboriginal population loss in perspective, the catastrophic global influenza epidemic of 1918-20 killed more people than World War 1. It was probably the biggest single demographic event of the last century and in Australia cost the lives of over 2% of the population – yet the Australian population continued to grow in those years – in marked contrast to the massive loss of Aboriginal population after 1788 which has only relatively recently recovered to pre-colonial levels.
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
54. Everything
Hi. I am Greg and it has been 4 weeks since my last Grumble.
Please excuse the Catholic confessional introduction especially as it’s the Protestants now apologising because some of its Knox Grammarians took the motto of “doing the manly thing” the wrong way and were ignored or allowed to go on abusing children – probably for the same reasons that the music industry did not take Gary Glitter at his word when he asked if his pre-pubescent audience wanted to touch him there. We look forward to a nuanced government response which presumably will see the expansion of the state government Screening Unit to cover musicians and Presbyterians.
Meanwhile, there has been outrage from the anti-some-capital punishment campaigners over two Australians facing execution for drug smuggling in Indonesia. Now apart from the collusion of Australia’s police force in this debacle, I simply wonder why these two lives should mean so much more than the thousands each year whose judicial murder by our major trading partners and friends goes unremarked?
And on the subject of nationalism and dodgy analysis, we had the government’s Intergenerational Report trying to make us into the unlucky country which apparently will no longer be able to afford the health and welfare services of a decent society. And on that subject we’ve also had the McClure report into the future of welfare which either seemed to have forgotten about independent young people or contained a fairly radical proposal to cut off income support payments for any young person under 22 who is not residing in the family home (presumably surrounded by a white picket fence).
I’m still not sure about what is planned, but talking of government reports, there was also the state government review of South Australian taxes which led to a one-day media frenzy about one proposal while the rest of the thoughtful Discussion Paper got forgotten.
But of course it is a good time to forget things with Mad March’s Festival for the arty, Fringe for the hopefuls, cars that go brmmmm for the masses, and Womad for the self-righteous internationalists who can pretend to be African, Cuban, or Romanian for a day (or at least an hour).
And there, under introduced trees and over-abundant flying foxes we had a not very funny comedian ignoring structural power and vested interest and patronisingly telling us that we just need to talk to people differently about climate change.
But that was ok because if you live where I live, you might not have got to the famed parklands anyway because the government decided to repair the rail lines over the long weekend – because let’s face it our public transport system is only really for getting people to and from city offices on workdays? I mean, it is not like anyone would ride to Womad or anywhere else and want to catch a train home.
Much better to drive, particularly as the head of our Motor Accident Commission wants to make it safer for us by removing all trees within sight of any road because apparently these arboreal terrorists are leaping out in front of cars and adding to the road toll.
What was that about climate change?
I am Greg, I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 10 March 2015
Please excuse the Catholic confessional introduction especially as it’s the Protestants now apologising because some of its Knox Grammarians took the motto of “doing the manly thing” the wrong way and were ignored or allowed to go on abusing children – probably for the same reasons that the music industry did not take Gary Glitter at his word when he asked if his pre-pubescent audience wanted to touch him there. We look forward to a nuanced government response which presumably will see the expansion of the state government Screening Unit to cover musicians and Presbyterians.
Meanwhile, there has been outrage from the anti-some-capital punishment campaigners over two Australians facing execution for drug smuggling in Indonesia. Now apart from the collusion of Australia’s police force in this debacle, I simply wonder why these two lives should mean so much more than the thousands each year whose judicial murder by our major trading partners and friends goes unremarked?
And on the subject of nationalism and dodgy analysis, we had the government’s Intergenerational Report trying to make us into the unlucky country which apparently will no longer be able to afford the health and welfare services of a decent society. And on that subject we’ve also had the McClure report into the future of welfare which either seemed to have forgotten about independent young people or contained a fairly radical proposal to cut off income support payments for any young person under 22 who is not residing in the family home (presumably surrounded by a white picket fence).
I’m still not sure about what is planned, but talking of government reports, there was also the state government review of South Australian taxes which led to a one-day media frenzy about one proposal while the rest of the thoughtful Discussion Paper got forgotten.
But of course it is a good time to forget things with Mad March’s Festival for the arty, Fringe for the hopefuls, cars that go brmmmm for the masses, and Womad for the self-righteous internationalists who can pretend to be African, Cuban, or Romanian for a day (or at least an hour).
And there, under introduced trees and over-abundant flying foxes we had a not very funny comedian ignoring structural power and vested interest and patronisingly telling us that we just need to talk to people differently about climate change.
But that was ok because if you live where I live, you might not have got to the famed parklands anyway because the government decided to repair the rail lines over the long weekend – because let’s face it our public transport system is only really for getting people to and from city offices on workdays? I mean, it is not like anyone would ride to Womad or anywhere else and want to catch a train home.
Much better to drive, particularly as the head of our Motor Accident Commission wants to make it safer for us by removing all trees within sight of any road because apparently these arboreal terrorists are leaping out in front of cars and adding to the road toll.
What was that about climate change?
I am Greg, I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 10 March 2015
Tuesday, 3 February 2015
53. Sport
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about sport.
My grumble is not that it is the opium of the masses. It is, but we should not blame the medication for the disease. And I admit, I like most sport, despite finding much of the TV commentary fairly obnoxious. In fact, I am always glad for week 2 of the Australian Open tennis when all the Australians are out and the tennis can take centre stage.
And on the subject of nationalism, there was the Asian Cup. A brilliant dramatic final with Australia becoming the Asian champions of a sport we still struggle to call football. It is football all over the world, but like the Americans, we self-reference and pretend our parochial games are somehow international when we can find one or two other countries that play them.
I grew up playing soccer football when it was called “wog-ball” and only nerds played – a generation before a Samoan Australian called Cahill was the toast of the town, and blokes called Luongo and Triosi delivered an Asian Cup. But amid the nationalistic celebrations (which at least highlight our migrant heritage), did anyone remember that the Australian women’s team won the Asian Cup in 2010, the country’s first piece of soccer silverware?
But my current sports passion is bike riding and I love the festival of cycling that is the Tour Down Under. It was a great week in Adelaide, apart from Channel 9 getting out the cheque book out to buy the TV rights so that they could show the race highlights at 11pm.
Of course it was the public broadcaster, SBS, that built the audience to make it worthwhile for the commercial parasite to grab the rights, but we are used to that. Our hospital system works on the same principle with the public system doing the teaching and complex procedures, while the private hospitals skim the profitable bits.
But back on sport – I played soccer at a school that was dominated by rugby league and rode a bike a long time before lycra hit the café strip. So, I am glad the country has caught up – and it leads me to cheer all the weekend plodders who play whatever unfashionable sports they like.
But then I pick up a newspaper and see sport defined as elite, narrow and usually macho.
I am Greg, and when I am not bike riding, I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 3 February 2015
My grumble is not that it is the opium of the masses. It is, but we should not blame the medication for the disease. And I admit, I like most sport, despite finding much of the TV commentary fairly obnoxious. In fact, I am always glad for week 2 of the Australian Open tennis when all the Australians are out and the tennis can take centre stage.
And on the subject of nationalism, there was the Asian Cup. A brilliant dramatic final with Australia becoming the Asian champions of a sport we still struggle to call football. It is football all over the world, but like the Americans, we self-reference and pretend our parochial games are somehow international when we can find one or two other countries that play them.
I grew up playing soccer football when it was called “wog-ball” and only nerds played – a generation before a Samoan Australian called Cahill was the toast of the town, and blokes called Luongo and Triosi delivered an Asian Cup. But amid the nationalistic celebrations (which at least highlight our migrant heritage), did anyone remember that the Australian women’s team won the Asian Cup in 2010, the country’s first piece of soccer silverware?
But my current sports passion is bike riding and I love the festival of cycling that is the Tour Down Under. It was a great week in Adelaide, apart from Channel 9 getting out the cheque book out to buy the TV rights so that they could show the race highlights at 11pm.
Of course it was the public broadcaster, SBS, that built the audience to make it worthwhile for the commercial parasite to grab the rights, but we are used to that. Our hospital system works on the same principle with the public system doing the teaching and complex procedures, while the private hospitals skim the profitable bits.
But back on sport – I played soccer at a school that was dominated by rugby league and rode a bike a long time before lycra hit the café strip. So, I am glad the country has caught up – and it leads me to cheer all the weekend plodders who play whatever unfashionable sports they like.
But then I pick up a newspaper and see sport defined as elite, narrow and usually macho.
I am Greg, and when I am not bike riding, I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 3 February 2015
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
52. Scott Morrison
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about last week’s grumble!
Last week I took a cheap shot at the new Federal Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison. Now it is true that his record in overseeing our immigration regime – where secrecy ruled and meta-policy goals appeared to override any compassion for desperate individuals – does not fill one with hope that understanding and appropriate support for vulnerable people will be cascading down through Centrelink offices any time soon.
However, my grumble was bad politics – not because now that he is Minister we should speak nicely and announce our willingness to work constructively with him, but because it cedes the Minister too much power.
Anyone remember Graham Richardson – right-wing headkicker in the Hawke-Keating government? He did not have an environmental bone in his body, but as Environment Minister he protected swathes of precious old growth forests. Why? Because community groups mobilised to make it politically attractive to protect those forests.
So if we want to promote the interests of vulnerable and disadvantaged people, we need to stop begging whatever Minister is in power to do the right thing – or hoping that we get a “nice” Minister.
We need to mobilise popular support for the values that promote community over competition, or at least an inclusive growth that leaves nobody behind.
We need to make targeting the poor politically unpalatable.
If we do that, then it won’t matter – or at least will matter far less – if the Minister is a hard arse, a conservative Christian or a supposed social democrat who still believes that punitive and paternalistic Income Management is a good thing.
It’s called power. Exercising it is not always nice, and it is harder than whinging, but it trumps policy and compassion every time.
So yes, I am grumbling about Scott Morrison as Minister, but I am grumbling more about the fact that we let it matter.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
Last week I took a cheap shot at the new Federal Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison. Now it is true that his record in overseeing our immigration regime – where secrecy ruled and meta-policy goals appeared to override any compassion for desperate individuals – does not fill one with hope that understanding and appropriate support for vulnerable people will be cascading down through Centrelink offices any time soon.
However, my grumble was bad politics – not because now that he is Minister we should speak nicely and announce our willingness to work constructively with him, but because it cedes the Minister too much power.
Anyone remember Graham Richardson – right-wing headkicker in the Hawke-Keating government? He did not have an environmental bone in his body, but as Environment Minister he protected swathes of precious old growth forests. Why? Because community groups mobilised to make it politically attractive to protect those forests.
So if we want to promote the interests of vulnerable and disadvantaged people, we need to stop begging whatever Minister is in power to do the right thing – or hoping that we get a “nice” Minister.
We need to mobilise popular support for the values that promote community over competition, or at least an inclusive growth that leaves nobody behind.
We need to make targeting the poor politically unpalatable.
If we do that, then it won’t matter – or at least will matter far less – if the Minister is a hard arse, a conservative Christian or a supposed social democrat who still believes that punitive and paternalistic Income Management is a good thing.
It’s called power. Exercising it is not always nice, and it is harder than whinging, but it trumps policy and compassion every time.
So yes, I am grumbling about Scott Morrison as Minister, but I am grumbling more about the fact that we let it matter.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
51. Carbon Tax
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the carbon tax –
not yet rested in peace.
Now the politics of the carbon tax have always been odd. The
political left that usually advocates regulation to fix market failures supports a market
mechanism like carbon pricing to change behaviours and provide economic
incentives to address climate change.
Conversely, the usually free-market right opposes the market
mechanism of a price or tax on carbon and either prefers the otherwise hated
government intervention of “direct action” – or simply thinks that all the
science about climate change is wrong (while presumably all other science is
right – although with budget cuts to the CSIRO, I could be wrong on that one).
But it appears there is more to carbon tax politics. Late
last year Clive Palmer and Nick Xenophon seemed to be keeping a door open to an
emissions trading scheme – which was where the carbon tax they voted out was
supposed to lead us.
And then Tony Abbott weighed in with his now infamous answer
as to what, as Minister responsible for the status of women, he has done for
Australian women. What has he done for women – well he abolished the carbon
tax.
Apparently it is a panacea for many ills, but on hearing this
I was reminded of the famous Monty Python scene in the Life of Brian when the
Jewish nationalists – who would no doubt now be called a terrorist organisation
and we would be giving up our civil liberties to defeat them – were considering
what the Romans had done for them. But unlike aqueducts, sanitation, roads, medicine,
education, and law and order, the answer in modern Australia is simpler.
What has the government done for women: it abolished the
carbon tax.
What’s it done for the economy: it abolished the carbon tax.
What’s it done to secure a sustainable revenue base for
government: it abolished the carbon tax. Oops – own goal.
What has the government done for world peace: well, it
abolished the carbon tax (and stopped the boats).
And what has the government done for vulnerable and
disadvantaged Australians? Bugger the carbon tax - on the eve of Christmas, the
government cut millions out of community support programs and gave us Scott Morrison as
Minister!
Yeah, I am Greg and I am grumbling.
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
50. Men
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about men – collectively, as a group.
As we know, to our horror, last week 2 masked men barged into a newspaper office in Paris and gunned down staff because they did not like the satirical content of the paper, while an accomplice attacked that bastion of Zionist imperialism, a local supermarket in Paris. Before Christmas we had our own terrorist holding a Sydney café at gunpoint – with tragic results, and then there was the unspeakable massacre of children in the Pakistani school. All conducted by men – as were the Boston marathon bombings, the London underground bombings, the Bali bombings, the World Trade Towers – the list goes on.
I know you are probably thinking that these crimes were not about them being men – but it makes as much sense as thinking about these as Islamic crimes. Obviously not all men condone or commit violent crime, but nor do all Muslims. And nor is such terrorism confined to Islam – anyone remember Timothy McVeigh or Anders Breivik? And yet we speak about Islamic terrorists, not “religious terrorists” or male terrorists.
Obviously there is a difference in that these recent crimes were perpetrated by people claiming it was in the service of Islam, a claim rejected by most Muslims. But equally obviously, there are fanatical women in Islam – and with all sorts of beliefs – but they are far less likely to use the gun or bomb (notwithstanding the current “manhunt” for Hayat Boumeddiene, whose position in the terrorist saga appears to be defined by her relationship [girlfriend] to the male terrorists). So, given that it is overwhelmingly men that perpetrate such atrocities – “Islamic” or otherwise, surely gender has some part in the explanation?
As songwriter Judy Small asked long ago in the wake of another massacre “why does gunman sound so familiar, while gun-woman doesn’t quite ring true”?
Of course you may think I am confusing correlation with cause. The fact that it is men mostly that commit violence does not make men or masculinity the cause – and it certainly does not mean that all men are to blame.
But I wonder if we take the same approach to Islam? Or do we really believe that there is something inherent in the content of Islam that drives such terrorism? About a billion Muslims would disagree, but I could also point to texts, rituals and beliefs about masculinity that show and create a disposition to violence.
And meanwhile, each week in Australia, another woman dies and more are made homeless as a result of domestic violence.
I am Greg, I am grumbling about overly-convenient categories.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 13 January 2015
As we know, to our horror, last week 2 masked men barged into a newspaper office in Paris and gunned down staff because they did not like the satirical content of the paper, while an accomplice attacked that bastion of Zionist imperialism, a local supermarket in Paris. Before Christmas we had our own terrorist holding a Sydney café at gunpoint – with tragic results, and then there was the unspeakable massacre of children in the Pakistani school. All conducted by men – as were the Boston marathon bombings, the London underground bombings, the Bali bombings, the World Trade Towers – the list goes on.
I know you are probably thinking that these crimes were not about them being men – but it makes as much sense as thinking about these as Islamic crimes. Obviously not all men condone or commit violent crime, but nor do all Muslims. And nor is such terrorism confined to Islam – anyone remember Timothy McVeigh or Anders Breivik? And yet we speak about Islamic terrorists, not “religious terrorists” or male terrorists.
Obviously there is a difference in that these recent crimes were perpetrated by people claiming it was in the service of Islam, a claim rejected by most Muslims. But equally obviously, there are fanatical women in Islam – and with all sorts of beliefs – but they are far less likely to use the gun or bomb (notwithstanding the current “manhunt” for Hayat Boumeddiene, whose position in the terrorist saga appears to be defined by her relationship [girlfriend] to the male terrorists). So, given that it is overwhelmingly men that perpetrate such atrocities – “Islamic” or otherwise, surely gender has some part in the explanation?
As songwriter Judy Small asked long ago in the wake of another massacre “why does gunman sound so familiar, while gun-woman doesn’t quite ring true”?
Of course you may think I am confusing correlation with cause. The fact that it is men mostly that commit violence does not make men or masculinity the cause – and it certainly does not mean that all men are to blame.
But I wonder if we take the same approach to Islam? Or do we really believe that there is something inherent in the content of Islam that drives such terrorism? About a billion Muslims would disagree, but I could also point to texts, rituals and beliefs about masculinity that show and create a disposition to violence.
And meanwhile, each week in Australia, another woman dies and more are made homeless as a result of domestic violence.
I am Greg, I am grumbling about overly-convenient categories.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 13 January 2015
Monday, 5 January 2015
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)