ARCHIVE: GOVERNMENTS, PUBLIC SERVICES, CORPORATE ENTERPRISE AND CITIZEN BEHAVIOUR IN AUSTRALIA UNDER PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD

Articles and commentary on contemporary Australian public policy, political, public service, corporate performance, economy and society.

Privacy Statement, Uses and Motivation CONSTANTLY UPDATING CONTENT

A deep extended index of subjects and subtopics where the research, and search, has been done to find sites with news, articles and resources about your work, study, family, lifestyle, interests, hobbies, entertainment, beliefs, and more

The specific category pages of the Mosaic Portal

the latest news about your work, profession, hobby or interests and lots of other relevant stuff?

Eliminate the tiresome irrelevancies of a general web search by using the specific categories of the Mosaic Portal and let the Mosaic Portal bring it to you

IMPORTANT every portal page uses scripting to update content. So turn your active content on.

More news >>

Powered by Newsfeed Maker

Dirty Energy and Health

THE FAILURE OF AUSTRALIA'S GOVERNMENT IN HOSPITAL POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

"The head of the Australian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) has urged the public not to blame staff for the tragic events at Royal North Shore Hospital this week. Services at the hospital on Sydney's north shore have come under the spotlight this week, after a pregnant woman miscarried in the emergency department toilets after waiting for treatment for two hours. Dr Andrew Singer, president of ACEM, said such tragedies were caused by overcrowding in hospital emergency departments, not the actions of staff. "When emergency departments are overcrowded to the stage that even patients who need a bed urgently cannot be accommodated in a timely manner, unfortunately events like this inevitably occur," Dr Singer said. "Blaming staff because they have nowhere appropriate to place a patient is not what we should be doing." Dr Singer called for more hospital beds to speed up the treatment of patients. He said emergency departments should reduce their reliance on junior staff and inadequately trained temporary staff, saying the practice "limits the ability for emergency departments to provide the best care possible". "There are a lot of dedicated staff in emergency departments who are very frustrated by the conditions they are working under," he said. "Don't blame the workers when the system itself is the problem." (Source: "Don't blame staff for hospital crisis", September 28, 2007, The Australian newspaper, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22497117-5006784,00.html)

Other People's Views, Perceptions and Sites

The pigs are flying

Are the powers separated?
The foundation of democracy is the doctrine of the separation of powers. The Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. There is no public service in the Australian Constitution. The question is, have the governments of the nation corrupted, or corroded, the doctrine? On balance it might appear they have.

John O'Sullivan was working in the office of federal Minister Kevin Andrews, in 2006, he was appointed from that role to the bench of the Federal Magistrates Court. He had had three years practical experience as a lawyer. The former Attorney general of NSW, Bob Debus, appointed Jacqueline Trad as a state magistrate in 2005. She was a policy adviser in his office. She took out her practicing certificate three months before appointment. In Queensland, Ann Lyons was appointed to the Supreme Court despite never having practiced as a barrister, the only experience appears to be as President of the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal. Mark Richardson went from the Law Society CEO role to a magistrate appointment. He had limited courtroom experience. Nicola Pain had been appointed by Bob Debus, in 2002, as a judge on the NSW Land and Environment Court. Her experience seems to have been in the environmental movement legal arena. She was Acting Director of the Environmental Defender's Office prior to appointment. The nation awaits the announcement, by the Australian government, of the two replacement justices for the High Court of Australia due in 2006 - 2007.

There is no implication that the above people are not eminently qualified, but there is a perception. What is the process and where is the separation?

Nothing typifies the immaturity of our parliaments, the domination of the political party system self interest over the public interest, the dangers of the current presidential style of leaders, and the collective failures of policy and action by our governments, as does water and climate policy.

Nicholas Stern made climate an economic issue for the Howard government ... click here.

CLIMATE: The debate in Australia is immature and unbalanced.

Climate change is a debate the Bush administration, in the United States, desperately seeks to avoid. For the term of his government, John Howard, has assiduously avoided populism. Not on a desire to be undemocratic, but perhaps for a more pragmatic diplomatic and economical strategic focus. Hysteria can cause more than a heated argument.

The debate on climate change in Australia largely focuses on greenhouse gases and emissions from carbon dioxide plant. The commercfial television media seem unable to deliver a balanced and in depth debate. Invariably they will look for the controversial hook. The Greens and protagonists, convinced as to their righteous knowledge and awareness will not countenance any alternative opinions and counterviews.

Many other attributes, and influences, are either never mentioned by pro-global warming politicians, environmentalists, journalists (print and electronic) and the fear mongerers who spread doom, such as water vapour in the lower atmosphere, particles in the atmosphere (other than carbon), the shape and density of clouds, the state of the oceans, solar radiation and the vegetable storage base impact the temperature of the planet. It suits Australian Labor Party politicians, Anthony Albanese and music celebrity turned politician Peter Garrett, to cloud issues, demigrate doubters and adopt populist perspectives, arguments and theories without allowing an open and deep debate to flourish. To do so would move the labor, greens and flakey presentations, and messages, from largely hysterical, unscientific cant to factually based informative substance.

They, and others concentrate on carbon dioxide and fossil fuel burning, which does create pollution and assist diseases. However carbon dioxide only occupies a small part of the gases in the atmosphere overall. It is a sscondary greenhouse gas. Water vapour is the largest component. Greenhouse ases are a small part of the structure of the planet and its atmosphere and land and water masses.

Nor will they talk of the average annual surface air temperature of the planet which is circa 14.3 degrees celsius. It should be hotter higher up if greenhouse gases were a culprit. One hundred and fifty years ago the temperature was around 13.6 degrees celsius. The satellite measurement of temperature in the upper atmosphere is somewhat lower. There is evidence that the world is warming but we do not know why. Sea leevls rise as continental ice sheets melt. Volcanoes cause dust and massive changes in the structure of the earth and atmosphere. There is no talk of the earth's orobit around the sun. There is no clear evidence that what we are experiencing in Australia's drought is unusual or never before experienced. Maybe we were not there when it happened last. Most of the journalists writing in the media today were definitely not there and many are semi literate in the science and in many other things. This is a complex system in which we live yet political, media and self interested message creators want to simplify everything.

Perhaps the factor that is most relevant, and glossed over is that citizens are not passive observers in this matter. We are active. People, business, community and others change things well beyond the horizon of the politicians and the media and the self opinionated experts and idealistic and ideological participants. The United Nations tried to crate an international convention and typically one of the most ignorant and self opinionated nations on eartrh, the USA, blocked any implementation. Australia followed suit. Was this spoiling? I do not know. Is there rational debate progressing. No. In Australia we are the last to react because firstly our governments do not want to upset partisan interests, the participants in things want to limit access and participation by outsiders and we are to some extent an immature, inexperienced and under educated, nation at many levels of our society and particularly so in business. This means our learning curve is steep. We as a society are now, even minimally, looking at the consequences of our actions and decisions.

One thing we must not do is turn this into a morality debate. The faith believers point the finger and acll anyone who diasgrees a moral vandal. This is one reason why the Greens party in Australia has little representation of value in parliaments. It is the party of hysteria, and moral crusades, and should be discounted until the members learn to moderate, negotiate and compromise on sound facts rather than ideological principles as their driver. A new threat arises to rational investment it is called "ethical investing". Are we focusing on determining and mandating moral behaviour of companies? That would be an uphill battle in most, if not all, cases. Companies do not meet the same ethical, or moral principles, we see in society at large.

We must pursue this debate adn analysis, conversation and policy framework development, implementation and modification methodically. We must draw on sound scientific principles and research. Until Kevin Rudd demonstrates that the labor party can do this his contribution will be dismissable or only controversially included. Peter Garrett has not demonstrated the capacity for mature and balanced debate yet. His contribution is in the vein of the World Wildlife Fund. One framed with moral overtones and condemnation. If we tried to argue demand side restraint or a mix of technologies including nuclear,

Given the maturity, the quality and substance of debate I am at best a skeptical environmentalist. Being an external critic my opinions are dismissed and my thoughts are irrelevant to politicians particularly labor party politicians who at the best of times are not prone to fullsome interaction. They are quite immature and myopic as to the nature of influence and the worthiness or breadth of contribution and source. The starting point for debate on climate change in Australia has not been facts and ideas it has been alarmist interpretation and moralistic finger pointing. Climate change produces extreme events or does it? There si veidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased the world surface temperature. However the actual sensitivity to carbon dioxide has changed little. The data we are given is skewed. These temperature increases may well be due to increased levels of water vapour in the atmosphere. Are statisticians double counting perhaps? What are the impacts of medium to high emmissions? The reopresentation of the drought by politicians, media and interested parties, is an example of how far we can deviate from fact and the diversity of views. What we need now is a calming andrational leadership in business, government and academia. We are a far way from getting that unless we appoint someone of the calibre of Sir William Deane, to arbitrate and guide. That is unlikely in this politically charged climate.

WATER

Water is Australia's most public, and prominent, policy failure of all of Australia's governments, since federation.

Under the Australian Constitution the state governmets are responsible for water. There is no more glaring example (other than every other type of infrastructure) of state government, and public service ineptitude, than the issue of water. For almopst a decade Labor Party governments have failed to think and act in the public interest. The people of every state must now endure the burden of punishment for their incompetence. Punishment! When it is their arrogance and inmcompetence in office! What a cheek these useless, and perhaps worthless to public value, politicians and bureaucrats have

Today 29th December 2006, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Peter McGuaran, proposed that the Commonwealath take over the management of water, particularly where major river systems cross the borders. Mr. McGauran accused the states of failing in their constitutional duty. This is not idle politicking and pointing the finger, this is fact. The governments of the past and the current incumbents of many years, the labor party, have been derelict. The issue of water has been evident as a critical priority for the past seven years and all state and territory governments have failed to develop appropriate policies and actions. Industry has even be more reprehensible in their waste. They use drinking water to cool coal fired power stations, to slosh around petrochemical plants to detect petrol leaks, radiator repair companies flush radiators with clean drinking wtare and there many other examples of extreme waste in industry processes. The cotton and rice farms, an industry Australia should not be in, consune gigalitres of the precious resource whilst our river systems suffocate and die. These are not good corporate citizens. Enter any term into Google such as "industry wastes water in Australia", "industry use of drinking water in Australia" and you might expect to find heaps of information. There is very little. Industry lobbysists are effective and there is no national study into how much water industry is using and why they are not using recycled water.

There is a concerted, and sustained effort, to hide the staitistics and the examples. The big corporations subtly, or sometimes blatantly, threaten governments that they will move to a place where the government is more prone to giving them benefits or less vigilant. Industry threatens with the "crystal ball gaze" about loss of jobs. The cost to industry to retool and reengineer for better practice is great. Naturally all will argue that a focus on saving water consumption is preferable to investment that is costly. There is some merit. Australian businessman Mr. Pratt offered to spend millions on developing solutions if his investment was matched. One study demonstrated the enormous potential. Among other things Mr. Pratt wanted to pipe water and to cover the canals. His entreaty fell on deaf ears. It is this polite indifference, and disregard, for external contribution that deters quality candiadtes from enetring parliament adn saddles the nation with the state and territory with mediocrity. There are a number of exceptions, but none of them are in leadership positions. The Council of Australian Governments' record demonstrates this point quite adequately in the following extract.

"An independent assessment in 2001 stated that progress in allocating water for the environment in an adaptive management framework is less than satisfactory in a number of jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions have not been able to provide evidence of ecological outcomes of delivering water for the environment for a number of reasons, including:
slow and sometimes absent progress in implementation of key reform programs
poorly developed tools for demonstrating ecological outcomes
long time lags between implementation and measurable outcomes
under-funded or non-existent programs for assessing ecological outcomes.
Source: Jones, G Whittington, J McKay, J Arthington, A Lawrence, I Cartwright, S and Cullen, P 2001, Independent assessment of jurisdictional reports on the environmental achievements of the COAG Water Reforms, Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra, 16 Nov 2005

"No jurisdiction has provided environmental water allocations for all of its river systems. While most jurisdictions have made some progress (NSW, VIC, WA, QLD, ACT, SA), considerably more needs to be done; for example, the unregulated systems of NSW, more than half the rivers of QLD, the River Murray in all States, significant parts of VIC and SA, and all of TAS and NT. Source: Jones, G Whittington, J McKay, J Arthington, A Lawrence, I Cartwright, S and Cullen, P 2001, Independent assessment of jurisdictional reports on the environmental achievements of the COAG Water Reforms, Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra, 16 Nov 2005, link as above, http://freshwater.canberra.edu.au.

"That's why the days of complacency about water have got to end. We've got to be on the front foot. We cannot be solely reliant on surface water resources which are climate dependent. We have to recognise that we must put in place the water our cities need. Now, we can afford to do so, and the point that the Prime Minister and I have been making repeatedly is that urban water is a very profitable business. That's why these water utilities pay such big dividends to their government owners. There's been a failure to invest, which has suited state governments and some local governments because they have pocketed the cash, but now they've got to spend it. There is plenty of money in the system for water. Money is not the problem. What's missing has been leadership and determination from the states." (Source: Malcolm Turnbull, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 7.30 report, broadcast 26 September 2006)"

Now these governments are panicked.

Victoria both government and the spokesperson of a particular corporate water utility lead the way in stupidity. Queensland is as profligerate in its waste, and inept, in policy and action.

Yet we cannot hold governments to account when the very people who elect them fail to participate in their own democracy. The average Australian is a ignoramus when it comes to politics and valuing their democracy. They disengage. When something causes their lives to be impacted they all clamour loudly and stridently. Suddenly they all have opinions, most of them unfounded or gleaned from tabloids, radio shock jocks and shalllow, allarmist current affairs productions put out by Australia's mediocre, commercial television producers and programmers.

The average citizen's only participation is (some do not bother) to turn up and vote every so often. The key members of the political parties, particularly the unions, like it that way. They do not want their cosy control and clubby atmosphere altered by spirited participation and debate. The average citizen is impervious.

"The average Australian uses around 100,000 tonnes of water in a lifetime � far more than is in keeping with the continent�s natural aridity and episodicity. Creating a society whose water use is attuned to the natural cycles represents a huge challenge to our awareness, ability to share knowledge and our behaviour, akin to any of the great social and attitudinal changes of the past century. Contemporary science is handicapped by its relative inability to engage the wider society in an effective discourse leading to the uptake of new knowledge. Much of what we discover is not widely shared, and suspicion and mistrust of science are growing." Souce: Australian Academy of Science and Engineering

Other than in political circles, debate is left largely to a few institutions and a handful of organisations who claim the issue as their province limiting the community participation to being "spoken at". This is the style of politics and governance, we are spoken at. We are not invited to become involved. We can write submissions to parliamentaary committees and enquiries but the governments of Australia in most cases shelve these in the libraries of the peoples' houses. They imply in these papers a desire for participation and interaction but it must be on their terms. Participation in democracy is deliberately made uninviting and one must persist often with recrimination and even abuse. We have few champions against the overbearing hypocrisy and mendacity of our modern Australian governments.

Extract: "Auditors-general who avoid topics which fall within their mandate, just because they are contentious, fail the community. They ought to make lawful comment on matters which concern parliament and the public. And in most of Australia�s nine jurisdictions, auditors are the only appointed public officers who are empowered to make such a contribution. If they absent themselves, the topic is left to elected officers, politicians, whose views are often tainted by partisanship and too frequently by hypocrisy." Source: Democratic Audit of Australia � March 2005 POLiTICAL FINANCE & GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING WORKSHOP � 25 February 2006 The Auditor-General�s Role in Politics, Tony Harris, Former New South Wales Auditor-General

The state governments, all run by the Labor Party, have simply ignored the Auditors General reports on infrastructure. Instead abuse, and denigratuio, is the style of these governmments. Senior Ministers do not sully their hands. Back benchers, of the type that infest the Victorian labor government use parliamentary privilege within this "coward's castle". Lacking the intellectual fire power to contribute substance in parliament many are consumed with minutae and inane irrelevancies that add no value for the salary and benefits they are paid. Here is an example of the quality of analysis, and contribution, of one of the members of the Victorian parliament.

" Extract Victorian parliament August 22, 2006: Liberal Party: Clayton candidate, Mr LEIGHTON (Preston) � I have been reading a political blog written by Kevin R. Beck, who has some loopy ideas. He has made inane and racist comments about the member for Clayton, and much of his criticism of the member for Clayton is repeated word for word in a letter on page 8 of the Monash Journal of Monday, 21 August 2006. This letter has in fact plagiarised Beck�s blog, which is gross dishonesty...."

The expression of opinion is not invited. Reform is glacial Potential partnerships between the states and the Commonwealth are fractured with arochial politics, self interest and egotistical "pissing up a wall" antics. The state governments' collective responses to this grave social and economic problem will be dealt with by restrictions, fines "Mandatory Water RestrictionsLevel 3 mandatory water restrictions now apply across Sydney, Illawarra and ... The restrictions apply to all Sydney Water customers including residents, ... www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/WaterRestrictions/" (Google)

"Melbourne Water : Water : Water Storages : Water StoragesRestriction stages are triggered when the amount of water in our storages falls ... Melbourne will move to Stage 3 water restrictions from Monday 1 January. ... www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water/water_storages/water_storages.asp" (Google)

"Qld Water Commission : Level 4 restrictions start 1 NovemberLevel 4 water restrictions come into effect tomorrow with the Queensland Water Commission asking business, industry and government agencies to do more to ... www.qwc.qld.gov.au/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=41" (Google)

"ACTEW - Water Conservation: Information pertaining to water restrictions in the ACT. ... Permanent Water Conservation Measures and Temporary Water Restrictions are mandatory. ... www.actew.com.au/conservation/default.aspx"(Google)

Drought Response and Water Restrictions - SA WaterClick here to find out if you are covered by water restrictions or permanent water ... Level 3 water restrictions on the way click here for details ... www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Environment/WaterRestrictionsConservationMeasures/" (Google)

and of course these will be accompanied by threats. Out of the closet will come the little corporate autocrat.

Friday 29 December 2006, a smirking water utility spokesperson explained with muted glee how they could restrict the water flow to conusmers by closing the valve that feeds the mains supply to the house. This is the autocratic style of the middle executive in Australian corporations when they smell power and influence. Gros stupidity in stoking fear and emotional response. The Victorian government was unavailable for comment.

"Vic water wasters to face shower bans, December 29, 2006 - 5:59AM, Ser under tough new water bans. Stage three restrictions, beginning on New Years Day, will enable water authorities to cut water pressure to wasteful homes, News Limited reports. Under the drastic move, offending householders would not have enough water to shower." (Source Sydney Morning Herald)

This would follow the usual fines and warnings which are the state governments' primary weapon in addressing public policy issues. The spin doctors will begin the campaign to tell us that it is the cosnujmer who is primarily to blame. The media will follow the stpry and look for the serila waster and out them to the world. The charge wil lead by the mediocre current affairs programmes of Channel Nine, Seven and Ten across Australia. Poe faced presenters will dramatise and concoct feigned outrage.

"New laws that come into force in the new year will allow Melbourne water authorities to punish households that flout water saving rules. Stage three water restrictions will apply in Melbourne from Monday. People who do not comply can be hit with fines of more than $420, and water authorities will also be able to restrict the supply to serial offenders. The head of South East Water, Dennis Cavagna says repeat offenders will have their water reduced to a trickle. "It is a very a harsh measure, I wouldn't like to have my water restricted because it means it's nearly impossible to have a shower, you can have a cup of tea but it's a very restricted flow," he said." (Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, News on Line)

Why bother engaging with government, and the policy implementers, when they have directly failed to do the job fro which they are employed? Public service departmental heads have been silent on this issue. Perhaps they have been gagged by their political masters? The decision makers have failed to undertake research and development, build infrastructure and to create solutions decades ago. They are fundamentally inept and invariably turn to thuggish, and punitive, solutions. To actually build infrastucture in Australia would indeed be a novel idea. A wily person might patent the concept of "politician thinking and acting in the public good and interest with attendant drawings".

The Minister for Water in Victoria Australia, the Honourable John Thwaites, announced, in April 2007, that water charges would rise between 8% and 20& depending upon where the water was being delivered and the infrastructure value. For decades the government of the state, as with the governemnts of all Australian jurisdictions, have neglected building dams any form of water infrastructure. We are in crisis and these failures of our administration pompously pronounce without, any acceptance of dereliction of duty or accountability. They see an opportunity to gather revenue. We have no system of bringing our politicians to account. Since the major parties control the candidates and electoral processes they ensure their survival at minimum personal cost. They are cannibals in the politicals esne that they will eat their own if their personal survival is threatened. One wonders what they may come up with to overcome the perfect storm enveloping them?

Articles and Sources on Australian Governance Standards

Unless othewise attributed, all material below is authored by Kevin R Beck

(2006) The twilight career of Kim Beazley
For Kevin Rudd's dashing entry to the federal labor party parliamentary leadership go to the 2007 federal election site

The leader of the Australian Labor party in the federal parliament is Kim Beazley. He seems to be oblivious to the proposition that he has a lame duck front bench, since two of his shadow ministerial members have lost labor pre-selection for the 2007 federal election. Since the party members do not think they are worth their salt why does he think that the people of the nation should have to put up with lower standards and competencies? Kim Beazley cannot, under even the best conditions, deliver a labor win against John Howard except by the liberals making a massive number of blunders. It is indeed a disgrace that Beazley might assume that voters are ignorant and he may assume the office of Prime Minister, based, not on his ability and that of his colleagues, but on the failure of the incumbent government. Kim Beazley is inable to clearly articulate any topic. He dissembles and waffles losing his audeince in a rambling wind bag delivery style. His is a convoluted leadership of inconsistency and empty thetoric. Theories, and words, rather than a blue print by whihc the nation may go forward.

The Kim Beazley's policies (which apparently are not the labor party's, are not that flash that they attract huge support in the broad community. The party rarely conveys them. They stick them on a web site in the vein hope that somone may care to look at them.

Such arrogance to call them Beazley's policies. Why are they not the collective policies of the labor party members? Why have the other parliamentary members if they cannot think up some to add to the mix? Why not have aa Rudd policy, a Gillard policy? The Beazley approach to government, lies in the "Caesar" model. It is an insult to democracy and representation. This truth will hit Mr. Beazley in 2007 and it will hit the party. The Beazley office starethists, the office staff and the faithful supporters behave as if they are in a fortress under siege. They do not reply to correspondence, do not seek out meetings byond their own cosntituents and do not canvass broad or external opinions. They are besotted with a style of omnipotence eschewing any external interaction that does not suit their view of the world and the future. This is in stark contrast to the consrevative government of John Howrad, where Ministers and their staff seek out broad input even if it is not in keeping with their own politics or beliefs. They appear ready to change their policies, and decisions, if convinced.

The dilemma for the labor party is that many parliamentary members, and party officials, want him removed as leader but they do not seem to see their options clearly. The party will do much better when they elect Julia Gillard as the first female leader of the opposition, in 2007, and ask Kim Beazley to retire from federal politics along with a large number of current parliamentary members. His interests and those of his supporters should not be placed above the public interest as they are now. His career interests are not synonymous with the public interest as Mr. Beazley appears to believe and would have the people believe this also.

Water, a critical resource, is a focus of public policy in 2006 in Australia. The state governments of Australia have been derelict in the nation over decades. They have failed to maintain and build infrastructure. They have preferred to take the dividends from the utilities into their coffers to be squandered. They will not build dams, will not cover the canals and will not build pipelines. We consume the greater amount of our water in regional areas and we lose about 70% of that in evaporation. The governments are obsessed with surplus, risk averse and anti-capital works investment. Public policy is something akin to political policy. No matter how much advice they receive they ignorantly continue with their own objectives. They will only change course if their control and retention of elected seat in the parliament is threatened.

Bibliography of Climate Debate Articles

Climatologists' Toolbox

Our Changing Climate

Where to read about climate change

Climate Change - Hot Topics in Science

Democracy thrives on interaction. Citizens should not abrogate their responsibilities to participate in government, economy and society. Too many stand by as passive observers. Below are the document distribution utilities using technology designed to communicate to, and interact with, politicians, governments, public officials, executives at every level in corporations, associations, institutions, communities, interest groups and individuals across the web. The articles below change regularly and have resonance in many countries including Australia. Many focus on public policy, international relations and consumer issues along with social dilemmas and the changing nature of the world in which we live, work and play.

If this section is blank turn your active content on.

Go to Australian Public Policy Issues and Think Tank Centres

Go to Australian Issues Analysis (CIS)

Go to Australian Public Policy and Management Resources Access

Article Archives
About governments, corporations, people and events, research and ideas

More articles and commentary on government and corporate policy and action

Surpluses in government coffers across the nation have accrued from regressive taxation and the greed and ideology of Australia's myopic political and business class. Australia should have full employment. However it cannot because state governments fail in their macroeconomic policy. The opportunities for work in the rural sectors of Australia are limited. Not by the mere effect of distance and economics but by the fact that state government headquarters and bureaucracies are predominantly in places that suit the lifestyles of politicians and senior bureaucrats.

Surplus does not come from productivity. The modern political leader wants a good credit rating from self appointed international bureaus. They know it is more about media, and perception, and pandering to powerful interests than it is about the reality of innovative government and policy. Bracks. like his peers, is mired in boring and archaic beliefs that do not change, and morph, with time and circumstance. The Australian political parties sing from the same song sheetwhen it comes to economics and fiscal policy. The media in Australia, lacking the resources and support of their boards and shareholders, cannot investigate and report and challenge. The tabloids, with their 800 word columns, and myopic editorial directors, cannot inform the public about our government and their policies with any vigour or substance.

Read commentary, news, analysis and the politics of your Australian community to help inform your awareness, understanding, knowledge and ioperation of your government. You can read the major, and minor parties policies and ideas and shape your thinking about their performance in government and opposition particularly during elections.

Read the Age Newspaper in Melbourne, listen to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and the shrill voices of Australia's politicians in the federal labor party and the not for profit do gooders and you might be lead to believe that it may never rain again in Australia. Such is the hysteria and misrepresentation carried by the media and put about by the domms dayers who smell a scent of passing worry in the community. According to these calamity tellers Australia has never experienced a drought like this. The hottest October day for a 100 years! Well what caused the hottest day back then? Where was the gereenhouse effect? Where were the smelters and coal fired power stations, the cars and other monsters of the modern era? Were there just farting cows?

Australia's largest, publicly owned telecommunications company, Telstra, is an embarrassment. It is a very public example of the poor quality of management in Australian enterprise. The Chief Executive, Sol Trujillo, imported by the Board from the United States of America, has brought with him the trade mark arrogance and lack of cultural awareness of the US executive. He has managed to alienate the Australian government which is the majority shareholder and insteda of adding value to the enterprise has presided over its lowest value in its history. He has brought with him a group of loud, and similarly insensitive, over priced executives. The practice is to surround oneself with the appropriate executive types. The principle obejcetive of the appointment of Mr. Trujillo seems to be at odds with what the government and shareholders might have beleived. The Board of Telstra may have made a calculating move to forcibly bring the government to hell on its view using the tactics adopted by Mr. Trujilllo in his former positions in telecommunications in the USA. To weaken the regulator and to reinforce the Board members' individual positions and their personal objectives. Who knows?

Mr. Trujillo definitely serves the Board and its interests and these interests may not be synonymous with the shareholders' interests including those of the Australian government. The individual taxpayer seems irrelevant to the Board and Mr. Trujillo and we are treated with more than a modicum of contempt by Telstra executives at every level of the organisation. The Telstra custonmer charter is like many other companies full of motherhood and rhetoric. The Board members, and executives, have a lot to personally gain if Mr. Trujillo is successful. The shareholders seem to have little to gain other than being lucky to break even on their investment. The government should as a matter of urgency legislate the copper and infrastructure network out of Telstra to a public owned entity even if this means paying Telstra (its private shareholders) for the value. If they do not then Telstra Board and Mr. Trujillo will win the end game.

The corporate governance, and other processes, such as how tenders are won and contracts are awarded is under the spotlight and the methodologies have been questioned. They look, on the face of it, to be contracts for mates and past business associates. This is a minor irritation in the whole saga. Publicly Telstra looks less than inspiring. At the annual general meeting (August 2006) Mr. Trujillo, stated "we were taking tough medicine ...". I ponder who is taking that medicine? Certainly not the Chief Executive, Mr Trujillo, on his multi million dollar salary, certainly not his US compatriots known as the "amigos", who enjoy salaries without delivery and performance achievements. The top eight get in this public enterprise earn $AUD27,000,000,000. The people taking the medicine are the employees made redundant in a typical example of how executives of this calibre on the face of it seem to exhibit a common penchant for wasting human resources and undervaluing talent.

Also taking the medicine are the shareholders who have lost a large percentage of their investment value. Then comes the government and the Minister, Helen Coonan, to whom Trujillo and his buffoons are dishing out insults and humiliation. The CEO says that Telstra is about looking after shraholders. He and the executives have a "spin" on the usual methods. Trashng the value of the stock, willowing the talent through redundancies, and engaging in brinkmanship with the regulator and the federal government seems to be at odds with the more traditional methods. Telstra is majority owned by the Australian government and is a public utility. Telstra's cavalier attitude to public policy and regulation and insulting behaviour towards the Australian parliament is an immature display by people, board and executive, who are besotted with their own self esteem, image and self beliefs as to their value and abilities. As a result Australia's public policy and processes are suffering damage. The T3 Telstra sale is not about value of the te;co. It is about the government selling off its sahres. The offer borders on bribery and unethical pressures and offers. The prspectus seeks to buy support by a discount, excessive dividend as sweetenre and a future that is at best represented as rosy. The Minister should direct the board to resign, for its performance in supervision of loss of value (50%) of past investors sahres. Send Mr Trujillo, and the amigos, packing back to the USA The price of paying them out may be good value when compared to putting up with him and them being resident here in charge of this valuable enterprise. (Kevin R Beck)

Smart moves in 2006 initiated by federal minister Joseph Hockey

delayed, and frustrated, by Australian banks, corporate and vested interests and not the least by privacy advocates and politicians with poor technical knowledge, bloody minded political stupidity, ignorance and lots of conspiracy theories

Editorial - taking our democracy as their own property

One of the most annoying misrepresentations is the justification offered by politicians for the use of unilateral decision making power in the hands of a Minister of government and the duopoly. The risks of this can be seen every day in public policy decisions in the federal portfolios of immigration, health and in state and territory local government planning. There are numerous examples.

It is argued by the political duopoly (labor and liberal dominance) that it is important that the decision maker is accountable to the people, through the ballot box. This is a spurious piece of cant. A politician who implies that voters can get rid of a Minister at the ballot box are treating the electorate as if they are dills. The most common occasion when a Minister is removed is if they become a political liability to, or are perceived to be smarter, and therefore dangerous, to the leader's position. They in effect are athreat to the executive members of government and their supporters.

We may be able to turn the carousel and have the alternative government but the dead wood and the inneffectual almost always remain behind. We do not choose the candidates on the local ballot paper so who are the politicians trying to fool? We do not choose the Ministers of our governments. They are chosen by the leader who doles out the favours and the spoils. Talent is not a prerequisite.

The choice of candidate, and Minister, in Australias is not a decision on determining ability for there is no performance, and selection criteria, for me or anyone else to follow in selecting a candidate. One cannot simply fill out a form and put anyone in. There are onerous conditions, in favour of the organised parties, to meet. I, like other citizens, am permitted to vote on elections at whim of the ruling politial parties. I am not permitted a vote on issues of substance. In many cases I am not permitted to commuicate to members of parliament. Instead I must put up withy a screening by unelected advisers and office staff, many of whom are not capable of exercising judgement or interpretation about the ciontent which is being sent or the likely action of the sender if they are treated with contempt or dismissed. The Australian Wheat Board scandal demonstrates how unethical and often incompetent many in the political and business realms are.

Citizens are forced into the humiliation of having to go through political hacks, incompetent public servants and political staff, to be fobbed off with cant or meaningless replies (if I am lucky) or be largely ignored by the mass of members of parliaments. Some however do give citizens the time of day, but they are in the minority.

The voting system in Australia is orchestrated to deliver a two party preferred voting outcome except in rare cases where independent candidates garner greater than 50% of the primary vote. Pre-selection processes, and protection for sitting Ministers, such as blatantly orchestrated by Premier Steve Bracks, in February 2006, ensures that there is no real Ministerial accountability or performance measuerement beyond political dimensions. Their re-election to parliament, is all but guaranteed. This is farcical since the overall constituency of Australia's parliaments are not representative of electorates or peoples' needs. It is a rigged and exceptionally well managed system, of corrupted and corroded interests.

It takes a large voter swing to dislodge a sitting Minister in a safe seat. It also takes a very strong outcry, media attention, parliamentary debate and activism, to make a Minister accountable during the life of a parliament.

The Prime Minister of Australia. John Howard, has demonstrated this quite clearly. He has remodelled his code of conduct continuously since 1996 to ensure that the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries who suffer from ethical dementure, as they did in the first term in office of the Howard coalition government, does not reoccur. It is hardly an ethical code of any substance and but instead mirrors the priority of the Prime Minister. In any event most of the "naughty little boys" were resurrected after a period in purgatory. Why have a parliament when we can have leaders and Ministers who sequester all to themselves? The answer might be make it look as if we have a participative, and representative, democracy by enticing more independents to run for public office.

Australian Policy On Line

Australian Review of Public Affairs

The Melbourne Institute

Australian Productivity Commission

Global Business and Economics Review

AN OBSESSION WITH ECONOMY

The former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, famously said - "its about the economy stupid". Today in Australia the central political message and policy platform is economy. The examination of policy and its worth by the media, political and other interests and business, is through the narrow prism of economy. Kenneth Davidson, says in an editorial in Dissent, Number 23, Autumn Winter 2007, "the utility of economists depends on them serving the interests of the most powerful groups in society." He theorises that they provide soft power to reinforce particular policies. Economists can tell very complex stories and in doing so can make politicians and corporate executives feel good about their behaviour and decisions.

In the week of April 26, 2004 economists predicted, expected and theorised that the inflation graph for the quarter would rise to near the threshold that the Reserve Bank of Australia finds acceptable. It did not happen. It fell. Earlier in the year they had predicted rate rises by the central bank. They did not occur. The record performance of, and analysis by, the Australian and Productivity Commission and the Australian Departments of Treasury and Finance are not good.

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY

Gross Inefficiency and waste by Australian Government department

(September 2007) The Australian government created an umbrella department within the social services portfolio. It is called the Department of Human Services (DHS). Among its portfolio of activities it is responsible for the implementation of the government's Access Card. The government's Australian identity card under another name. A single smart card that would replace some 17 - 21 existing government cards and vouchers. The justification is to make payments efficient and transparent, reduce paperwork and increase productivity and efficiency in the public service. It would also make access to eligible, and approved, social security and otherdesc ribes the justification for the Department. The existing departments, Centrelink and Medicare, among others,were not enamoured with its creation. Particularly the senior ranks. If DHS achieves its objectives it will take control of $A100 billion of taxpayers funds making it a super agency. The governments et about trying to convince the people of Australia that the smart card was not an identity card. The Department assisted. This is not true. It is, among other things, an identity card. The Department plans to create a separate and monolithic compuetr system which contains, on line in real time, files of people, pictures and data, linked to external systems in other state and territory jurisdictions. The system stores the image pictuire and data in a format that make it capable of being used in surveillance and other activities. The government could simply upgrade the Medicare card with a chip and make it a transaction card in the same manner as for the Access Card. The Minister, Christopher Ellison, could do this now, under regulation. There is no indication that his performance in this portfolio, as for his last in Justice, will be anything other than mediocre. While he dithers the cost runs into the hundreds of millions.

The problem for the government is the identity issue and the data they now hold. The database for the current social and medical welfare system is extremely corrupted and unreliable. The population would havew to be reenrolled to make a new database. There is no need for a photo on the card.

The Access Card is such a hot political potato that the original Secretary, Ms Patricia Scott was removed from the role to be replaced by a seasoned senior bureaucrat, Ms Helen Williams AO. The Department under Ms Scott had hired external consultants, for millions of dollars whose knowledge, ability and value is can be really questioned. DHS has cost the Australian taxpayer tens of millions without return and would if allowed to proceed create a new technology system in the hundreds of millions that has questionable value and intenty. In addition DHS has cost the industry tens of millions and in its ignorance has stopped investment in smart chip technology, new machine technologies and other industry sectors. The industry has stood still waiting for a decision on the Acces Card. This also says someting abou the technological capability of the design of the card, its interaction with the computers that operate the databases and the capability fo sucha s ystem into the future. It makes a mockery of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. For these, and other reasons, it should be abolished.

Hand in hand with DHS travels the Department of Defence. It has an overarching role to work with the Australian Government Information Office (AGIMO, under Special Minister of State, gary Nairn) to implement standars within the Smart Card Framework. It has a similar group of consultants, of debateable value, who tinker in the smart card technologies. Rather than the federal, state and territory governments working together on a national plan for a consistent identity card for police, defence, public servants and employees who work in sensitive idnustries (transport, airlines, powe statons, water etc)we have a hotch potch approach. We have identity cards being produced on cheap desk printers. Country Energy (a NSW state owned enterprise) has just let a contract for a photographer to travel around NSW to their 23 locations taking pictures to insert into an identity document. This is a seriously questionable security procedure. The Department of Defence instead has decided to have its own stand alaone, desk top ystems at 32 sites across the nation. It is not the brighest way to approach national security but it is, like most agencies and the Australian government istelf, not interested in altrenative or challenging opinions and ideas. The federal bureaucracy has apparently lost a lot of its capability for coherent action across departments, intelligent and cooperative develoments and actions. It has instead become a disjointed entity captive to its own internal machinations and the quality of advice from experts, and contractors, who lack seemingly lack capacity and knowledge. This is to my mind the legacy of the leadership of the Secretary of the Prime Ministrer and Cabinet, Dr. Peter Shergold.

May 2006: Peter Costello, Australia's Treasurer, underperforms on policy, taxation and fiscal policy reforms and modernisation

The Australian government of John Howard has been lauded for its eceonomic management and yet it presides over an archaic set of economic and fiscal policies particularly taxation. Australia is uncompetitive and the taxation framework created by Prime Ministerial aspirant, Peter Costello, is not cutting edge. It is a poorly framed, cobbled together mismatch and hotchpot of undisciplined and ill considered legislative and regulatory mazes.

The supporters of the governments economic framework accept mediocrity as the acceptable foundation. There is however a clamouring chorus of credible voices and interests expressing demands for reform. I am in a quandary as to why Peter Costello, an obviously underperforming custodian of Australia's fiscal plicy would be considered for the top job based on his record as Treasurer and federal tax collector? He simply digs in and refuses to budge, instead he has an enquiry, to tel him what any competent Treasurer would already know. The system is broken and is holding back the nation. He is holding back the nation. The implication in the clamouring is that economic performance, and investment in wealth creation, could be higher than it is if a competent person held Treasury. The Australian labor party, in opposition, presents no credible policy or plan to reform the system and take the nation forward. It is a party that offers no value as it trashes about in frantic leadership crisis creation as an alternative to rational debate and policy creation. Malcolm Turnbull a liberal party member, seems to have a clearer vision as to where Australia should be heading and what reforms are needed to Peter Costello's soup kitchen mash. If John Howard was the economic guru suggested, how is it that he is silent and tolerant of this failure? Could it be that political interest over r8ides national interest and he does not want to aggravate Peter Costello's supporters who think that he will assume the mantle? The Business Council of Australia is of the same mind set regarding the urgent need for reform.

Questions of consistency and competency

The Cole enquiry into the payment of bribes to Suddam Hussein's regime for wheat shipments raises a number of questions, and issues, well beyond the pragmatics of how world trade works.

The Australian government has made security and the war against terror a platform of their superior performance in government. If that is the case why would they ignore warnings on this issue from the United Nations, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and Australian representatives, the United States Congress, Canadian Wheat Board and others? The payment of $300M contravenes the interational strategy, and complementary legislation by Australia, to track, and stop, the funding of terrorists and money laundering

The competency of the adminstration of government, Attorney General, Ministry and Department, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry and Department, Their ability to think, and investigate, independently versus a reliance on asking the perpetrators if they are doing anything illegal?

Why have legislation, in Australia, that makes the payment of bribes a criminal offence if an acceptable justification is to be a pragmatic,"that is how things are done and it is okay?"

Why have ethical codes of conduct, standards for corporations and legislation?

The role of unelected political advisers, and senior public servants, second guessing Ministers and deciding what Ministers, governemhts and the public should know.

The Foreign Minister, and Prime Minister, talk of enemies of Austraian wheat trade, when describing powerful US interests. This raises questions of the two politicians' competency in international affairs when things are not going their way. What is their real graps of diplomacy and the politics of powerful US corporates and politicians? Is there a unrealistic, and unhealthy, reliance on the personal friendship between President Bush and Prime Minister Howard, in the relationship between Australia and the USA?

What are the actual moral, and ethical codes, of the Prime Minister for his government? Minimum standards and don't get caught?

Are corruption, ignorance and stupidity the traits of modern Australian governments, public services and enterprises?

The Prime Minister, John Howard, continually refers to his government's ability to manage the economy. He uses this is as a principal flagship of his own, and his government's capacity, but what is the reality that he studiously ignores, fobs off and the public seems oblivious or about which they are apathetic?

The Prime Minister has modified, and then cast off, his code of conduct for ministers within his government and it is unlikely given that, that John Howard would counsel Mr. Abbott or even acknowledge such ministerial obligations. Similar incompetence, and lack of under understanding, exist in the federal portfolios of Immigration, and within other portfolios.

Foreign Affairs, part 1
Foreign Affairs part 2 .... PM - Australia to launch Wheat Board inquiry at UN behest ... of Foreign Affairs and Trade questioned over its knowledge of the scandal. ... Yesterday in Parliament the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, ... failures in ministerial administration go on and on with incompetence evidenced in the Australian Government, Department of Defence, Senate Inquiry into the effectiveness of Australia's Military Justice System ... Senator Hill addresses the issues of gang rape, suicide and military justice. ... within the Defence portfolio, Employment Relations and the Attorney General's public policy skills. What was the cry of the King of England regarding Sir Thomas Moore?

From: S A V E - Australia Inc
Don't give up. Get up.
Dear Friend,

This is a critical moment for Australia. As John Howard takes control of the Senate, its time to get up and tell his Government that we will hold them accountable.

Over the last nine years, John Howard's government has taken our country in a direction that many of us find very distressing. Next week John Howard's government will take control of the Senate. For the first time in a generation, a government will have absolute power. We already know that the government is planning radical changes that will fundamentally change our country. We need to show John Howard's government that it can't just do whatever it wants. Together with our friends, we have created a website to help mobilise Australians who care about where this country is going. It's called GetUp.org.au. At this critical moment, John Howard and the Coalition Senators need to know that even though the other parties can't hold them to account - we will.

Send the Coalition Senators in your state or territory this video message from ordinary Australians telling them that, from August 9, Australians are starting a movement to hold the Coalition government to account

Once you've sent your message please take a minute to let all your friends know about GetUp. Together, we can build a community of people who are going to help build a more progressive Australia.

Thanks for being part of this.
Jeremy & David & the GetUp team

The work of 'GetUp! Action for Australia' is endorsed and supported by
S A V E - Australia Inc.

Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in Australia

The NSW government, under Premier on an "L" plate, Morris Iemma, have gone cool on PPPs. The desalination plant and now Sydney's biggest port at Botany are to be built using public funds. This is arguable given that government's can borrow at rates well below that of the private sector. The risk is that the seriously inept NSW bureaucracy can organise neither PPPs nor public infrastructure and assets successfully. There is economic evaluation and no due diligence assessments to compare the options, just political expediency and typically mediocrity within Australia's largest state.

Whilst PPPs have been a staple form of funding internationally the concept of governments contracting in relationships with private sector industry to develop PPPs is a relatively new one. Outsourcing has been a tool of divesting delivery to external contractors for many years, particularly at the local government level. There has been some contracting out to the private sector in hospitals, transport and other instrumentalities in Victoria. The federal government has engaged in similar activities in relation to services such as legal, consulting and employment.

The public sector agencies who have taken this avenue have been found to be lacking in contract framing, over sighting and accountability. The Australian government's employment services management has been substandard and the reported records of performance have been manipulated in an attempt to cover ineptitude, mismanagement and excessive costs over what a public agency might deliver. However these types of contracting out exercises are not PPP. The true nature of a public private partnership can be seen in legislative directives in countries such as Canada.

In Australia Engineers Australia have published a view on how to use PPPs effectively.

One might be lead to believe that there is a plethora of PPPs in operation. This is not the case. There are few if any success stories. They are probably misnamed also. They are not PPPs they are BOOT (build, own and transfer) contracts and not true partnerships. Those PPPs where proposed predominantly by state governments have been crafted based on poorly constructed contracts with excessive returns to attract industry participation and penalties that subject the public to extensive risk and costs. Governments have misrepresented, or omitted, to tell the full story claiming benefits in isolation of any real in depth evaluative published studies. Governments have framed these PPP contracts as if there is certainty in outcomes. The public sector appears to think it can read the future. If anything it probably models the worst scenario possible and then frames the financing around some sort of averaging, amelioration scenario. It is difficult to determine why agencies, and governments, should be so immature and inept in modern financial principles and disciplines? The Sydney tunnel is predicated on determining (predicting) a number of imponderables as if they are certainties. This is a ridiculous way to approach the development and frameworks. Instead of first creating the environment in terms of taxation and investment regulatory regimes to support innovative funding solutions states and federal governments operate in isolation of each other. The respective state or territory government apply on an individual basis to Treasury for approval to offer taxation incentives and other financing instruments. There is no federal policy, and legislation, to allow superannuation funds to participate by altering the risk legislation that governs their investments. It is feasible to ensure a secure return to the funds as well as a reasonable return to the private sector but it is as if this cooperative development between jurisdictions is beyond the comprehension of Australia's fiscal policy creators. The best the Australian government can offer is a discussion focused on transportation, rather than the broader fiscal framework and regulatory regime. PPs have been made difficult by public administration ineptitude and the self interested greed of those designing the instruments with excessive fees and charges, creating a combined recipe for poor performance, disincentive and failure.

The battle of the Australian giants
Telstra Corporation versus the Australian government

Telstra, Australia's largest corporation, is challenging the credentials, thinking, abilities and the policy innovation and credibility of the Australian government. One might wonder at their talent since they put it about, since taking office in 1996, how happy they were with the previous board and management. Telstra share value has dropped a staggering $14 billion and it has lost $5 billion in poor investments. Much of what we were told by the government and Telstra in the past was fictional. The Australian government has never been interested in contradictory opinion or reality that conflicts with its perception of how the world is.

This new intrigue will be interesting. The Howard government is well known for its responses when confronted, and above all humiliated, by being made to look like incompetent dills. Treasurer Costello and Finance Minister Minchin have been using some very rubbery numbers, regarding Telstra, in their accounts over the past seven years. This is despite almost every member of parliament being told that The situation at Telstra was not as the nation was being told.

Which is the bigger media spin machine and the most tactical? Who has the biggest egos? Sol Trujillo CEO, and the Board Members of Telstra, or Ministers, Minchin, Costello, Coonan and of course, Howard? The Australian government is not averse to using unethical practices, tactics, lies and misrepresentations and it appoints the Telstra board members. Decide for yourself or ....join in the fun....

Examining the Australian government's industrial relations policies and their ... perceived impact ...

Myths and Muslims ... Australians' perceptions ...

Australia is being taken down the toilet by political and corporate self interest ... do we care? ...

Public and Corporate Policy in the USA
The Mosaic Portal in America on DelphiForums

Australia's ally, Indonesia, and the role of the state, questions ... as to possible genocide ...

Many Australians cannot afford to buy everything ... they need ...

Educating the Stakeholders
Barriers to Brendan Nelson's Political Career Aspirations (November, 2005)

(2005) Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson has pursued an ideological objective to outlaw compulsory student union fees in Australian universities. There is absolutely no public policy value in the Australian government's pursuit of this objective. This is an internal administrative matter for universities not thuggish politicians. This legislation affects a miniscule number of Australians. It is just ignorant, interferring politicians, who have a personal vendetta and gladiatorial perception of their role. Brendan Nelson, and his cohorts, are sad, little, people for having done this and hey denigrate the power of thestate. However he, and they would be oblivious to, or dismissive, of such a proposition. The ignorant, and power driven career politicians in Australia always are. They smirk and beat their chests with peurile victories that do not enhance the nation.

These student unions fund a myriad of activities and services to students. Some of the student unions have a chequered history and some, like the University of Melbourne student union executive, have brought the whole lot into disrepute. The Melbourne University union went broke courtesy of the son of a former labor politician and his management of the student union. The student union executive entered into a multimillion ($40,000,000 I think from memory) property development deal.

There is merit in the argument that students should choose what services they want to buy. The bleating of the existing Executive bodies across the nation ring with some element of self-interest. Power and position are aphrodisiacs and study can be boring, and unrewarding in terms of ego and status, by comparison. I have been at three universities for many years between 1980 and 2004. I cannot say that the union delivered me value for the hundreds of dollars I paid them. For that matter trade unions were not much better at customer focused services. It must be the "closed shop" mentality they that these organisations breed that makes outsiders suspicious of motive and value.

The liberal party has long harboured an ideological obsession that these unions are "labor party" training grounds. It is a manic and puerile obsession hardly worthy of grown adults. However many politicians are still in puberty particularly on this issue. Liberal Senator Ciobo, says that the prospective failure to get the bill through will "put a dent in many liberal members". This is demonstrative of the maturity level in our parliaments where petty and trivial matters consume the vacuous mind. Brendan Nelson offers a sweetener to unievsrity critics, $80,000,000 over three years for the transition.

The National Party, in coalition blocking the bill, wanted to know how the facilities will be funded if fees become voluntary. They do not accept the typical shallow proposition that students will buy the services if they really want them. It is a nice theory but it conveniently ignores human nature. This is where the liberal party justifications fail on many of their policies. Thinking in cold, economic and rational logic they seem unable to comprehend that most humans do not follow logic, and particularly, utility thought. The politicians who are consumed with the student union issue attended university when student activism was at its highest. Many of them were political activists and may assume that the student of today is similarly disposed. The liberals do not have the organising skillls and structures that labor possess. Their branches and associations are disjointed and their structure is decentralised and fragmented. This tends to lead them into a rabid response against any advantage the labor party may have through its superior ability. Rather than develop these they abuse their positions of power to legislate against their perceived enemies. In doing so they degrade democracy and demonstrate the paucity of leadership quality amongst their ranks.

The Nationals are concerned that sporting facilities and amenities will disappear particularly in regional centres. They propose a simple amendment to the bill guarantee funding through the university. Stubborn resistance by the likes of the Honourable Senators who want an "all or nothing outcome" ensures that extensive time and resources are wasted. It is testament to Minister Brendan Nelson's political, and negotiation, skills that he has been unable to broker a middle position. Enter the Prime Minister John Howard, the master politician. He is full aware that Barnaby Joyce, National Senator, is being isolated by the bent members of his own party and that Senator Fielding (Family First) independent Senator is for sale at a political price. He got into the Senate on a hair margin from memory it was under 2% and it was labor's strategic stupidity, in allocating preferences to him, that put him into parliament. This genius of a strategy cost a labor senator entry into parliament. So labor now finds itself hung on its own petard and dangling in the wind.

Fielding gets his fifteen minutes of fame with the Prime Minister. The deal is cut. What could it be? Extra superannuation, perhaps, what else might be the price of his vote? This would be useful given that Fielding is a "oncer" in that he cannot win the next election for his Senate seat. Could it be a deal on RU486 the "morning after pill" which is obsessing the mind of Minister Tony Abbott and the other religious zealots infesting the parliament, who believe they are ordained to save everyone from sin and serve a nebulous deity.

Senator Ron Boswell from Queensland, Barnaby's home state is wetting himself at the prospect of telling Barnaby that his gallant stand has been for naught. Glee is written all over Boswell's road map face. In the corridor of parliament house Barnaby is showing the signs of carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Fielding and Joyce, novice guinea pigs, in the snake pit, struggling to avoid the pythons.

Minister Brendan Nelson has held endless talks with Joyce and Fielding and having nowhere to go he has to take a punt and put the legislation up. It is not his call, it is the Prime Minister's decision. However Brendan, with leadership aspirations for the top job, will put a spin on how it all comes out. This exercise has made many enemies. The Vce Chancellor of Sydney University has used the word "redneck" to decrsibe policy supporters. Universities, through their networks, and alumnies, in Australia and internationally are influential and powerful. Brendan Nelson, and the Australian government, are ferementingmany enemies for the future. It is not clear if they, or their strategists, comprehend this. The government, and Ministers, are exposed and can be attacked on many diverse fronts simultaneously. They need an efficient, innovative and visionary, bureaucracy. Instead they have shaped it into mediocrity.

The Minister is the client and that, in the case of a significant number of the Howard ministry, means that administrations are degraded. The most prominent low grade administrations are under the Ministers of Immigration, Foreign Affairs, Justice and Attorney General, Defence, Customs and Workplace Relations and Employment. The Ministers of these portfolios it could be argued, based on recorded stuff ups, keep their jobs on the political patronage of the Prime Minister, not on ability. These departments cost more, in human life, suffering, stupidity, arrogance and ignorance, and wasted monies, than the value they are purported to bring to the nation.

Brendan Nelson should pay more attention to the quality of management, performance and resource se in his multi-billion dollar department. That is likely to require skills, he and his advisers, do not possess.

Brendan Nelson is exposed, disadvantaged and at risk, in his political aspirations by many factors not the least being that his Department of Education, Training and Science (DEST) does not operate on best management theory and practice. This is a department where the senior management have a background, and experience, based on public sector management without the attendant financial and systems expertise. DEST is, in a number of significant areas of activity, archaic, and inefficient, in its practices. One senior public servant from another department told me that DEST is considered a soft touch, like "taking candy from a baby." The operation of DEST, highlighted in many of its internal review documents, over recent years, stands in stark contrast to the Australian Public Service Commission's claims for the Australian public service rhetoric.

If the Commonwealth Auditor General were to conduct an efficiency audit DEST is likely to fail on many counts.

The first is on integrity. People, who should know better, at DEST engage in hypocrisy. The Department ran a two-hour hypothetical in August 2005, where the most senior executives pontificated with with the famous QC, Geoffrey Robertson, about the "code of public service practice and ethics."

The Public Service Act 1999 (the PSA 1999), which came into effect on 5 December 1999, sets out the Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct, and the APS Values. Together, the APS Code of Conduct and the APS Values set out a clear statement of the principles and standards of behaviour for all APS employees; across Australia and they purportedly set out the responsibilities and accountabilities to the Australian public and to the Minister and all departmental employees are required to comply with them.

Key features of the APS Code of Conduct and Values include the need at all times to:

behave with honesty and integrity

serve with care and diligence

treat others with respect and courtesy, and without harassment

exercise discretion with sensitive information

disclose and avoid any conflict of interest

use resources appropriately

avoid the improper use of inside information or one�s status to gain (or seek to gain) a benefit or advantage for self or any other person

Apparently the handbook of use of Commonwealth assets, put out by DEST Information Technology Security, and references therein to the Criminal Code are irrelevancies. For I have seen pornography being distributed within the National Office email system by senior staff who treated it as a joke. One wonders how advanced the IT systems are for tracking offensive material, and mirror storing, of the pornography. I naturally reported its existence to my two supervisors, and to staff working near me. They were disinterested. One may well gag on the hypocrisy. I have discussed perceived actions of victimisation by senior managers against staff and examined the hierarchical system, "the pecking order", of authority. I have observed it over a number of weeks.

The State Office Network Review, and subsequent "invitation from management for employees to tell their views" elicited few responses. The Report content, and the feedback failure, provides a window into the human mind of thousands of employees across the organisation. The email (anonymous feedback opportunity) and telephone recording line for opinions on the Review remained empty. The last review of sorts, a few years earlier, was not acted upon as for the ones before it. Perhaps staff thought this one was just a cosmetic exercise. The normal assurances that this was not a job cutting exercise were given even though the Rpeort recommended the closure of eleven DEST regional offices. This will not occur in the electrorates of the government Ministers and liberal and national parties. It may occur in Peter Andren's independent electorate of Calare, it may also occur in labor's nominated electorates.

Honesty, openness in communication, and feedback, did not strike me a being amongst DEST's greatest achievements or badges of the modus operandi.

As for interactive communication, the philosophy, as I was so aptly reminded, on numerous occasions, is the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. It is indeed used. The communications experts created, and sold, a slogan to management, "Open for Business." "In line with our Open for Business stakeholder charter, we are pleased to welcome you to the DEST corporate website."

This was indeed an imaginative creation, removed from reality, given that DEST's structure at the time, and still is, Canberra centric and not devolved. One wonders what precisely was open for business, where? I think it was the "whole of government integrated offices" ijn which DEST found itself to be a bit player. The branches were not open for business, according to the State Office Network Review conducted in March - June 2005. The branches were not given any real business to undertake by the central National Office management. The branches across Australia have existed on a miniscule annual budget with little of any challenging decision making roles even though they are the front line in service delivery across Australia.

The classifications of the posts up until September 2005 are testament to this. By comparison the bloated head office with all its decision making, and questionable production, holds the lion's share of funds. It also has a very high executive officer to staff ratio in the National Office. The branches can operate far more effectively in the government's policy interests than the National Office and the fact that this does not occur can be dterimental the Ministers' objectives and efforts. DEST National executive officers (EL1 and above) might like to compare what private enterprise employees on the same, or lesser, salaries are required to do, and get a reality check. One interesting trait is the practice of self reinforcement of "professionalism". It reaches delusional proprtions. Conceptual development of strategy in some divisions is akin to an inexperienced youth's thinking. Simplistic notions dressed up as sophisticated approaches. It might be arguable that they are worth the salaries, they are apid under their job classifications, if there was a demonstration that they knew how to manage. The criteria for positions is often nebullous and the criteria is tranbsferred across the public service so that it becomes self replicating.

Denuding the branches of authority, and responsibility, has been a quite deliberate strategy of power control. What is striking is that such approaches, and practices, could operate in 2005. It is as if DES managers lack real world commercial, and management, experiences. These are not deemed necessary if the approaches are (a) serve the politic body and (b) divide the budget up and then just charge costs up without ongoing evaluation and comparison, internal tests and such vital financial management tools.

It demonstrates that delivery of quality serice under the best operational management model available has not be an objective of the Department's Executive for many years, if at all. Modern management theory and practice, including innovation, has escaped their purview.

There are moves afoot under the Secretary to change this by early 2006 through enacting recommendations from the State Office Network Review. Unfortunately the 2006 Business Plan, and other key documents to guide the organisation, lack substance and commercial accountability and financial reponsibility and measurement focus.

The State Office Network Review Report indicated that there was a wealth of knowledge in the network and the National Office decision makers should tap it into it. Human resource deployment and utilisation to effect talent extraction is at the bottom end of the scale, particularly out in the Branch Networks.

Decisions are made in the National Office without using sophisticated "intelligence gathering" technqiues. Their views of who are stakeholders can be challenged. They are narrow perceptions of who can, and does, exert influence or initiate action. The senior management, and staff, at National Office of DEST operate in isolation of the knowledge that they can be affected by a myriad of interests. The existenec of this paper demonstrates the ability of external people to reach into organisations. This new dimension, a broadening of the notion of what constitutes a "stakeholder" beyond the traditionally perceived or identified, can have ramifications for Ministers as they grapple with implementation of a broad reform agenda. For example the formation of the Technical Colleges places the Ministers, Department and participants, directly within the arena of state controlled vocational education and training. This new threat and competition to State Education agencies and existing Training and Further Education entities will create tension as these technical institutions come on line.

The Minister has had a win on nuclear waste disposal not merely because parliament over rode the the Northern territory government's ban on such facilities, but because this policy, and the development of uranium, is supported by behind the scenes by powerful industry and commercial interests and influence shapers. Apparently in isolation of the knowledge of this reality the Department produced an animated video attempting to justify the policy of the government, and isolate, the resistance from environmental and safety activists. It is not clear who the target audience of this trite exercise is. It is more appropriate to students at school than it is to anyone with a modicum of understanding of the issues and the industry. It is industry, and external sources, that will drive the uranium issue. DEST has undertaken no deep research on where external influences reside and what role they play. The ability of interests (overt and covert) to put spanners in the works is not well understood. This is not limited to DEST. Every public service department serving the government, ministers and public should be more aware and cognisant of, the changing dynamics. Senior public service managers, middle level staff and others, are open to greater scrutiny, political commentary and action, just as their Ministers are. The dynamics of politics is widening.

Minister Nelson's stewardship of the portfolio has been marked by controversy. Despite the Prime Minister's reassurance that there would be no $100,000 degrees:
"I can guarantee we're not going to have $100,000 university degree courses." John Howard, interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW, Melbourne, 15 October 1999.
the cost of higher education has spiralled under this government whilst funding has fallen regardless of how the government may spin the statistics and lie through clenched teeth. If the meanderings of the Prime Minister, and Ministers, as to the impacts of the government's policies are not lies, then they are very poor judges and evaluators and cannot be trusted in any regard. There are over 16 degrees costing in excess of $100,000 and they will double in number by 2007. Brendan is also challenging the status quo and the cosy environments. He thinks that there should be undergraduate teaching universities and separate postgraduate universities engaged in higher learning and education, An elite system of differentiation. With his colleague Minister Gary Hargreaves he has created Technical Colleges further challenging the notion that everyone should do a degree. This reorganisation is refreshing and delineates the quality and commitment. To cakkenge the closed world of academics invites nasty political surprises. He has reveiewed the funding model for research. The proposition of changing who gets to do research taxes the mind of the defenders of the faith in universities across the nation.

Dr. Nelson seems to have a love of tests. He is always proposing new ones for children of all ages. He wants national bench marks tests so that parents can compare how good their child is doing against others. There is some debate as to the value of such comparisons and how it affects morale. Perhaps it is the competitive nature of his education and the gladiatorial arena of politics that excites his penchant for testing? In the engine room of DEST academics, under the guidance of advisory committees are challenging literacy and causing a rift in teacher views. DEST is producing extensive, and well researched, papers unlike their colleagues in other areas of DEST. They can be quite a burden to read but if one applies ones self a lot can be learnt and debate and ideas are good. Since education is the province of the state and territory governments he is causing political angst. And so he might. The state ed