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
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
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:
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)