I must confess that, the less cynical part of me supports Howard's plan to make it compulsory for year 9 and 10 students to study at least 150 hours of Australian history. It is a bit disturbing to see the perception among school children that, simply because history does not appear relevant to a particular career paths, it is a waste of time. It is important to know our past in order to put our present and future in context, to learn about where we come from so as to know where we may be going. It may be cliched to say "those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it", but those who don't know or care about the past can hardly be relied upon to build a future.
In fact I think that both history and civics/politics should be compulsory throughout secondary school. Not because it is important for getting a particular job, but because it is important for functioning as a citizen within our society. So why does the more cynical part of me have a problem with Howard's plan?
Perhaps it is the fact that, once again, he is using compulsion, (ab)using the fiscal strength of the Commonwealth to force the State governments to do it his way. Tying school funding to getting his own way with the school curricula appears to be yet another example of Howard's "attack the states" election strategy. However, there is a more fundamental problem. Throughout his rule, Howard has been persistently manipulating and changing the public discourse and mindset in ways that are disturbing, to say the least, making his view of the world the only "legitimate" view. He has done it subtly, persistently and very successfully. Those who object to dehumanisation of refugees are bleeding heart liberals who want to see Australia overrun, those who remember that our history includes massacring indigenous people, stealing children from their families and taking indigenous land are black armband historians, those who speak against Howard's policies are the lunatic fringe.
In light of this, it is difficult to believe that Howard would not impose his prejudices on the history curriculum that he wants to control. Ensuring that children across Australia learn history the way he wants them to learn it and ultimately perceive the world the way he wants them to perceive it. Howard is the consummate politician - whatever he does, he must derive a benefit from. If the only benefit he's after is to pursue his war on states electoral strategy, so be it. But if the benefit is to control what children learn about our past and consequently the way that they perceive the future, then it is yet another reason why this government should go.
October 13th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Education, States |
one comment
Mr Howard is once again going on about how States are bad hospital managers and how, because the Commonwealth contributes about half the funding to state hospitals, it would like to have more input into their operations. I won't argue with the contention that State governments are not always great managers of hospitals. Hospitals need money and some governments (State and Commonwealth) prefer to use their funds for more important things than public health - such as corporate tax breaks, increasing their budget surpluses, building casinos or advertising themselves. In that regard, State governments are unlikely to be any better or any worse than the Commonwealth government.
One can wonder why the Howard government, which is responsible for undermining medicare, demolishing the Commonwealth dental program and doing precious little to advance public health during its time in government is suddenly showing such an interest in our state hospitals. Could it have something to do with the advice given by the Liberal party pollsters that Howard's best chance to cling to power is to attack the States? Perhaps he hopes that by pointing the finger at the States we'll forget the damage his government caused to public health or that, thanks to his government, most of us now have no choice but to purchase ludicrously expensive private health insurance, which increases the prices and decreases the benefits every year. (Anyone who wants to see the "advantages" of such privatised system of health, should take a look at US health expenditure, which is by far the highest in the OECD, but the level of health in that country is below the OECD average).
It is not clear why Howard thinks that his government would be well placed to contribute to management of hospitals in any event. In the article cited, he as good as admits to knowing only about NSW hospitals - because that is the State where he resides. That was the whole point of having States in the first place - the government closest to the governed should have the most responsibility for management of smaller units (eg individual hospitals). The further the government, the less able it is to manage the smaller units, but it may be better placed to manage larger units (eg. medicare). This may not always work in practice, some State governments can be dreadful hospital managers, while others may be quite good. But that is the theory on which the Australian system of government was built.
Howard complains about States having control of hospitals when the Commonwealth contributes almost 50% of the money for hospitals (incidentally, doesn't it mean that it has half the responsibility for under-funding of hospitals?), but he is forgetting two very important things. The first is that it is not the government's money. It is our money, the taxpayer's money. We want it used for our benefit and most of us don't much care who uses it, so long as it is to benefit us. Unless Mr Howard can prove that he can do a better job using our money for our good (and bombarding us with ads doesn't qualify), he can spare us his whining. The second very important thing is the Australian Constitution. The States run the hospitals because there is no constitutional Commonwealth power for this activity. And yes, it is true that specific purpose grants allow the Commonwealth government to bring to its aid the oldest law of all - "he who has the gold makes the rules", but the bottom line is, if Mr Howard doesn't like how the powers are distributed between State and Commonwealth, he should hold a referendum so we, the Australian people, have a say about his attempts to undermine our constitutional system.
Better yet, perhaps he can focus on performing his job properly. With five interest rate rises since 2004, food prices skyrocketing and housing affordability at its lowest level ever, there ought to be plenty to do. He could even try doing something about the fact that almost half of all Australians now can't afford necessary dental care.
September 30th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Health and Welfare, States |
no comments
In a speech given yesterday, Howard set out the "agenda" for a fifth term in government. The third item on the agenda was "to embrace a sense of aspirational nationalism to guide relations between different levels of government in Australia". The term "aspirational nationalism" sounds like a political slogan rather than a concept with meaningful content. We must therefore begin by asking what is "aspirational nationalism" according to Howard and what does it mean for Australia. The PM had the following to say about this topic:
A sense of aspirational nationalism in the Federation
So much of the debate about Commonwealth-State relations concerns the respective roles of the two levels of government, as if an appropriate balance between the two were an end in itself.
To me, that misses the point. We should be neither centralists nor slavish adherents to states rights. We should be focused on outcomes, not systems.
We should be aspirational nationalists, and applying this spirit to the governance of the Federation will be my third goal of a next term.
We should want and aspire to achieve the best possible outcomes for Australians wherever they might live and by whatever method of governance will best deliver those outcomes.
Sometimes that will involve leaving things entirely to the states. Sometimes it will involve cooperative federalism. On other occasions, it will require the Commonwealth bypassing the states altogether and dealing directly with local communities.
I've often said that there are two powerful trends in Australia today: localism and nationalism. Neither are of a brash, exclusivist variety; both embody a very Australian brand of quiet, understated pride and patriotism.
Our local communities are objects of loyalty and solidarity that transcend the costs and benefits of daily transactions. Commitments to town and team, neighbourhood and network, provide much of the texture of social engagement and what we think of as our quality of life.
We in the Coalition believe in trusting people. We believe that by giving people more control over their lives at the local level, we encourage responsibility and so build a better society.
That includes looking at new ways of delivering government services and tackling problems that are more responsive to individual and community needs. The old rigid state monopoly models for health, education, employment and welfare services have become increasingly obsolete.
Sounds like a lot of waffle and sloganeering (eg. the talk of "very Australian brand of quiet, understated pride and patriotism"), but there is enough substance in the waffle to cause justifiable alarm, for what Howard envisages is not so much aspirational nationalism, but nationalist practices that would undermine the Australian federalism in order to further Howard's aspirations of a fifth term in office. Let's look at some of the more disturbing statements:
"We should be neither centralists nor slavish adherents to states rights. We should be focused on outcomes, not systems."
Now, this is quite an extraordinary thing for the Prime Minister to say. I take no issue with his statement about states rights. States rights is not a meaningful concept - people have rights, states have powers and responsibilities. The respective powers and responsibilities of the states and the Commonwealth are set out in the Australian Constitution (actually, the Commonwealth powers are set out in the Constitution, with the remaining powers becoming states' areas of responsibility, but the effect is much the same). In saying that we should focus on outcomes not systems Howard is suggesting that we should disregard the system established by our Constitution in order to achieve a particular outcome (which in the present case appears to be Howard's re-election). It may sound good when you like the particular outcome, but remember that this isn't always going to be the case.
In fact it is the system of government that is worth protecting rather than the ability of a government of the day to action every political whim. Consistently good outcomes cannot be attained without an appropriate system of governance, just like a house cannot be built without a foundation. The federal system established by our Constitution provides that foundation - it is a system for multi-level decision-making and participation at state and commonwealth levels and it is a system that functioned reasonably well for the last century. Howard seems content to undermine our political foundations for his own political purposes. The alarm bells should be ringing.
We should want and aspire to achieve the best possible outcomes for Australians wherever they might live and by whatever method of governance will best deliver those outcomes.
This begs the question - who defines what are the "best possible outcomes"? Under the federal system we, as state constituents, elect the state governments to deal with state issues, such as secondary education, healthcare and the like. If the state governments do not deliver the outcomes that we desire, they pay the penalty at election time. Yes, it is true that the system does not work perfectly in accordance with the theory and it is also true that sometimes the commonwealth government can and should intervene in traditionally state areas (eg. to ensure compliance with our international obligations). However, to say that we should simply allow the commonwealth government to intervene to impose the outcome that it considers "best" is to either say that state level governance should not exist (because on this approach state government policies will only be allowed to exist if the commonwealth government agrees with them) or to say that Australian voters cannot be trusted in electing the state governments that will deliver the best state-level outcomes. The latter proposition would seem to conflict with the later statement by Howard that "We in the Coalition believe in trusting people".
The old rigid state monopoly models for health, education, employment and welfare services have become increasingly obsolete.
This sentence sums up Howard's nationalist position. What Howard describes as "state monopoly models" are the powers and obligations reserved for the States under our Constitution. If the model is indeed obsolete, it is up to the Australian people to alter the system, by voting in favour of a constitutional amendment at a referendum. It is not for the government of the day (elected by a smaller and more transient majority than is required to amend the Constitution) to unilaterally change the foundations of our system of government.
Howard's position on commonwealth/state relations is one of utter arrogance. He himself wants to define the "best outcome", decide whether to leave matters for the states, engage in "cooperative federalism" or step in to overrule the states and impose a policy which the voters, as state constituents, may not have approved. He has already demonstrated the true meaning of "aspirational nationalism" when he intervened in state affairs, for political purposes, without consultation and without adequate attention to the cons and pros of his intervention, most recently by undermining Queensland government councils policy.
However, in his arrogance, Howard seems to have forgotten one inevitable consequence of his nationalist policy - his government is not going to rule forever. Will he still support the idea of "aspirational nationalism" when Labor is in power at the commonwealth level and it overrules the policies of Liberal-party governed states? Will Howard still believe that the focus should be on outcomes and not on the systems when he can no longer control the outcome? Somehow I don't think so. And when a government forgets that it will not govern for ever, it is a sure sign that it has governed for too long.
August 21st, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, States, Australian Constitution |
2 comments
The Howard government knows its in trouble. The polls aren't looking good. Despite the millions of taxpayer dollars the government is spending advertising its unfair WorkChoices laws, the electorate isn't convinced. The interest rates have risen 4 times since the last election in 2004, when the government ran a scare campaign against Labor and promised that interest rates will stay low under the Libs, and it looks like they will rise again, housing affordability is at the lowest level since records began and prices on food and essential items are are rapidly increasing.
To top if all off, leaked government-commissioned research by Mark Textor revealed that Howard is seen as "old and dishonest". If the results of the research are accurate, the only surprise is that it took the voters 11 years to cotton on to Howard's dishonesty. But that is not the theme of this post.
The same research report advised the government to "emphasise the commonwealth is bailing out ineffective and inefficient states"
Given that all States and Territories are presently governed by Labor, that explains a lot. If you can't shake Rudd and can't win on merits because the electorate realised that your merits are much more limited than you've been putting on, attacking Labor-governed States is a great way to go. At least now we know the true explanation for some of Howard government's recent conduct - it was following advice on an electoral strategy!
In recent months the Howard government has been aggressively interfering in State affairs. It sent troops into Northern Territory (not quite a State, but close) to deal with sexual abuse problems in indigenous communities - problems that the Howard government ignored for the last decade. It threatened to do the same in WA. It is planning to take control of the Murray-Darling basin with its water management plans. The Howard government's explanation for its actions adopted the Textor report recommendation to "emphasise the commonwealth is bailing out ineffective and inefficient states" to the letter. In an announcement posted on YouTube (trying to counter the "too old" image, no doubt), Howard stated "my Government only intervenes in those areas where state or territory governments have not fulfilled their obligations and local communities feel let down." One could ask why the government did nothing about these issues for 11 years, but the Textor report doesn't require that attacks on States have actual merit.
More recently, the government interfered in Tasmanian government health reform plan, promising funding for Mersey hospital services which were to be transferred to another hospital (and leading to a senior doctor at the hospital resigning in protest). And of course, consistently with the Textor recommendations, Abbott warned States that the "Commonwealth cannot rule out future interventions if state governments fail their constituents." There does not appear to have been any analysis about the pros and cons of the Tasmanian government health reform plan or about whether the intervention is likely to cause more harm than good, Howard government just followed the formula - "emphasise the commonwealth is bailing out ineffective and inefficient states" - and made sure its action was advertised all over Tasmanian newspapers. At least throwing Tasmania's health reform plans into disarray is not as morally objectionable as sending troops into indigenous with the primary aim of electoral advantage rather than achieving a positive outcome for the people concerned.
The latest Howard government tactic is to blame the States for anticipated interest rate increases and, consistently with the government strategy "when in trouble, spend lots of taxpayer money advertising", new TV advertisements are about to be aired blaming the Labor State governments for rising interest rates. The fact that the same governments ruled the States when in 2004, Howard took credit for low interest rates and strong economy does not seem to have struck the government as a bit of a contradiction. Either in 2004 Howard alone could not claim the entire credit for strong economy and low interest rates, and so he was lying then, or the current rising interest rates are not the fault of the states, and he is lying now. Either way, the perception of dishonesty appears to have sound basis.
Hopefully, the voters can remember the government's hypocrisy as they are bombarded with more misleading advertising, paid for by their hard-earned dollars.
Update: please see the excellent comment by Marek Bage in comments to this post regarding the Mersey hospital.
August 6th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Political advertising, Australian election, States |
5 comments
Howard loves to take credit when things go his way - be it a slight dip in unemployment rates, a strong economy at a time when economies prosper around the world or the interest rates, when they are low. While most of us may think that taking credit for something means you need to accept responsibility for that very thing when there is a problem, such responsibility is clearly not to Howard's liking. The PM wants to be praised for successes, but not blamed for failures.
Therefore, while the PM advertised low interest rates as one of his crowning achievements (too bad they didn't lead to an improvement in housing affordability), he has consistently refused to take responsibility for interest rate rises (4 rises since the last election, eight during the period of Howard rule), claiming that he had no control over the decisions of the Reserve Bank. This might beg the question of how he can claim credit for something he says he can't control, but let's not worry about that right now.
This is an election year and pointing the finger at the Labor party governed States is obviously far more attractive than bleating about not controlling the Reserve Bank. So the Howard government is now blaming State debt for putting pressure on interest rates. Commonwealth and States pointing fingers at each other is nothing new, but it is curious that Howard chose to attack States for spending too much at the same time as blaming Tasmania for not funding certain services at the Mersey hospital, intervening with a $45 million "rescue" package (and advertising his plan on no less than four full newspaper pages).
Well, its good to know that the expected fifth interest rate rise since the last election can be blamed on the Labor governments of the States and has nothing to do with the shameless government pork barrelling, that even has Costello concerned. And here I was getting worried too.
Thanks for reading and have a good weekend :-)
August 4th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Economics, States |
one comment
A federal system of government (ie. a system of state and commonwealth governments) has many advantages. One of its disadvantages, however, is the ability of a government to pass responsibility or blame for various defaults to another government (eg. commonwealth to state and vice versa). The game of pass the responsibility is more likely to be played when the state and commonwealth governments are of different ideological persuasions…or if one of them is facing an election.
Thus, it is little wonder that this game is being played out again, over the state of Australia's healthcare system. Newly released reports indicate that elective surgery waiting times have gone up since 1999 and the state of dental health across the country is such that one in five Australians have moderate or severe gun disease and about a third avoid going to a dentist because of the high costs involved. Poor dental health can have significant consequences on physical and metal wellbeing and can lead to the patient requiring hospitalisation or contracting fatal infections.
Having dumped the commonwealth dental health program upon being elected in 1996, the Howard government now blames the deplorable condition of dental health in Australia on the States. Tony Abbott accused the States of acting like "glorified beggars" or "spoilt children", saying that "dental waiting lists remained high across the country" and that "these remained a state responsibility."
One might have thought that a nation-wide problem suggests that something may need to be done on a federal level, but passing the responsibility to the states is obviously a more attractive option. Kevin Rudd promised to re-establish the commonwealth dental health program, as part of the emphasis on preventative health. Whether that would ameliorate the problem is unclear, but this approach is likely to be more productive than the finger pointing that the government is engaging in.
It is little wonder that the governments' approach to the question of waiting lists for elective surgery was basically the same - denying that under the federal-state agreement, the commonwealth government underfunded the hospitals by $1.1 billion per year, shifting the responsibility back to the States.
Who is right and who is wrong is not the question. Perhaps both levels of government are at fault. But one thing is certain - our health is too important to play a game of pass the responsibility, even in an election year.
June 30th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Rudd and Labor, Health and Welfare, States |
3 comments
RSS
