“Webdiary seems to have degenerated largely into another outlet for the views of the leftie elite … the ‘Radio National set’, whose views on most issues are entirely predictable and formulaic.”
To end the week, contributors take over. After one liners, comment from Graham Bousen, Greg Loder, Peter Gellatly and Suresh Rajan. on Max Moore-Wilton and the children overboard scandal. (See Edging towards the desk where the buck stops and PM’s man out on a shaky limb.)
Then a tart contribution from ‘Richard’ on the IVF debate (see Sperm for singles – round three) and David Davis, James Woodcock and Robert Lawton on the medical insurance crisis (see Blaming the victim, again).
To end, early reaction to Tim Dunlop’s attempt to destroy Mark Latham’s ‘Third Way” and Carmen Lawrence’s attempt to resurrect the caring left from Aaron Oakley and Paul Walter. (See The Third Way: Window dressing for capitulation and The Carmen Way.)
ONE LINERS
John Clark: On the search for a definition of ‘bleeding hearts’, Alex Downer seems to see it as bleeding obvious: ”Pseudo- intellectual bourgeois lefties”. And Mark Latham had the balls to point out those in the Libs party who have deformities: Well done Mark for a bit of pot calling the kettle aggression.
Paul Walter: After reading The Carmen Way I now clearly see my future. When I read people like you and Carmen Lawrence it’s like talking to a brick wall. What’s Left? Become a scab, look after number one and f… the lot of you?
Peter Woodforde in Canberra: Did Mark Latham suggest that Staley get kicked off his disability allowances and pushed into Newstart?
Peter Kelly: Tim Dunlop has revealed the “third way” to be simply a game of “good cop, bad cop”. One sentence summed it up. “…the third way is not an alternative to the market it claims to want to ‘knock the rough edges off’, it is merely window-dressing for it”.
***
MAX
Graham Bousen
Margo, the punter does not give two hoots about this children overboard inquiry. They have been told that on other occasions children were used as pawns, so if the Government was wrong on this one, they were right on the rest. Hence the apparent forgiveness for the fibs. It really is old news that the media keeps perpetuating with its holier than thou indignant approach – have they never fudged the facts themselves?
Sad is it may be, the punter does not give a damn.
***
Greg Loder
As a long standing public servant, albeit in the State system, I find it inconceivable that the information on the kids overboard photos did not go to the top of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (at least).
The passing on of information is basic modus operandi for public servants of all persuasions, and they are taught from day one to keep the boss informed, even about gossip! I would go as far to say that if there was a situation that involved sensitive material (as the kids overboard material was) then any public servant down the line who did not pass on the info would find themselves sitting on the very rough end of a pineapple, perhaps counting tins of jam in a container on a wharf somewhere.
Moore-Wilton, more than any of his predecessors, has brought USA-style government to the Australian public sector. His clear political stance and his “personalised” remuneration package (outside the norms) reflect a vision of a public sector which will not provide the public with the civil service it deserves.
He said over the issue with his son, “Who would want to be a senior public servant?” Unfortunately the answer is increasingly fewer because of the way in which people like he have taken the service.
Keep the blowtorch alight: To flourish our democracy needs those who serve us to be accountable, and no one does this better than the press.
***
Peter Gellatly in Canada
You say: “…it is now crystal clear that traditional public service culture – we are servants of the people not the government, we are apolitical, we give honest advice, we tell politicians the facts – has virtually collapsed under pressure from government and hand-picked department heads on short-term contracts and performance pay.”
Maybe short-term contracts and performance pay for top officials have made things worse (I’m too far away to make an assessment), but I doubt whether your idealised “traditional public service culture” ever really existed. Certainly, during my own brief 1980s involvement, I perceived the whole spectrum: from principled stance or (separately) dispassionate advice/execution, through fearful self-coercion, to outright toadyism and careerist currying of favour.
But that assertion itself reflects a personal view. The public service is, after all, comprised of individuals who hold disparate political and moral outlooks. My stickling for independence and/or “factual” analysis might be someone else’s obtuse intransigence and yet another’s interference with legitimate government policy by the unelected.
If there are firmer grounds for criticism, they might be these:
(1) ‘Protecting the Minister’s backside’, an all too well worn intra-service value aphorism, is diametrically opposed to the notion of Ministerial responsibility.
(2) Information is subject to ‘interpretation’ at each level as it passes up the chain of authority. Thus, it does not require outright dishonesty or malice for an original report from a journeyman analyst or observer to be fundamentally metamorphosed by the time it reaches a Ministerial desk. (Margo: Unless, of course, the original report has been put in writing, something allegedly no-one seemed to do on this occasion.)
(3) One of the historical attractions of the public service has been its ‘career for life’ security. This security included a reasonable prospect of plodding advancement for those who were diligent but thoroughly inoffensive, and the sanction of ‘transgressors’ (ie the independent minded, be they correct or in error) – not by sacking, but by transfer to internal oblivion.
Frankly, my expectation has been that the introduction of short term contracts for middle managers – and even for the rank and file – would improve public service independence by increasing the proportion of self-reliant candidates, ie those who would rather quit or be sacked than knuckle under. After all, pressure from above is less successfully applied when it is vigorously resisted by its targets.
However, base as things may generally appear, this Senate Enquiry demonstrates – as have earlier reported snippets concerning the “overboard” affair – that principled individuals who know the identity of their true employer are still to be found below the hallowed pinnacle of the public sector. Whatever their nominal service rank, they are the ones who deservedly carry the public’s trust.
***
Suresh Rajan in Perth
Congratulations for highlighting the important issue in this whole sorry saga: Who exactly is running the defence of this country? Max Moore-Wilton seems to have achieved a level of control that defies the classic definition of the need for separation of Administration and Policy.
We now have a totally politicised bureaucracy that takes their orders from a Prime Minister keen only to have his political will imposed on the people of the nation. So what happened to the separation of the military from the government? Are we any different to a number of military regimes that have the control of the defences in the hands of the Prime Minister and his cronies?
The Four Corners programme exposed the line of command that went from the Navy Frigate to the Tampa straight through to the Prime Minister’s Office. We now have to concern ourselves about where this leads to. The chain of command issue has to be examined critically.
Already we have seen the interception of the phone calls to the Tampa. Is this the start of something far more sinister being perpetrated on us, the unsuspecting people of Australia? And before anyone starts accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist, take a deep breath and start thinking about where this can lead? Will Prime Minister assume control over some of our other essential services?
***
IVF
Richard
I am a new contributor, although I’ve followed Webdiary for some time. Because of the position I hold for the time being, I’d like to be known simply as “Richard”.
It is a pity that Webdiary seems to have degenerated largely into another outlet for the views of the leftie elite – what I’d call the ‘Radio National set’, whose views on most issues are entirely predictable and formulaic. A bit boring really, all that whingeing in unison!
Is the ‘everyone has a right to a baby’ issue passe now? If not, I’d like briefly to pose an open question or two to the woman in Melbourne whose Court proceedings sparked the current debate, and all women like her who want to reproduce without male involvement, except in the minimal mechanical way necessitated by the technology:
If you do succeed in your desire, and the resulting child is a son, what will you tell him about his expected role in family life when he grows up? Will you tell him that his opportunities for real involvement in a loving family of his own have significantly reduced and are continuing to do so, as women increasingly make the choice you made?
What do you think the consequences will be for the society he will experience of a substantial proportion of males being alienated from deep involvement in family life?
What do you think will be the effect on his chances of living a happy life, or for that matter of people generally experiencing a safe and secure society?
Are these issues perhaps ones that governments, and society as a whole, are entitled, perhaps even have a duty, to take into account when considering the uses of reproductive technology?
Or perhaps I’ve simply missed the point here. Perhaps this is simply a single step in a broader agenda. Is perhaps the next ‘right’ women will demand of science and society that of choosing the gender of their children, so as to eliminate the problem altogether?
***
MEDICAL INSURANCE WOES
David Davis in New York
I can confirm there is a medical crisis going on via direct experience. My mother was involved in an accident recently in Brisbane and had to go to hospital to be operated on within hours. She was still drowsy from anaesthetic as I spoke to her a few hours ago.
We certainly had more things to be concerned about than insurance or politics, but she did make the comment that she was turned away from the first hospital because of the professional indemnity insurance crisis. Understandably, she did not seem impressed by that aspect.
In terms of medical outcome I am sure she is in the best hands now. She also says that where she is now is better because of recovery and rehabilitation facilities. As a son that is the main thing but I have made a BIG TIME mental note about this.
The reality is my mother was rejected from a top hospital when she was in pain, in a crisis, in an ambulance. Why? Over an insurance issue! Not her insurance (she is in top cover) but the DOCTOR’S insurance. Who is to blame for such a situation developing? How can it get to such a ridiculous stage?
You mentioned the New Zealand scheme. I am not so sure about that either. I have a friend who is an Australian doctor over there (in the ski season) and he thinks the New Zealand system promotes a lack of concern for safety and is unfair on victims. He strongly supports the current system in Australia, with modifications. We should be careful about removing blame from the system in Australia. The “duty of care” is fundamental and ought not be removed lightly. Be very wary of the NZ model.
I may be offering two conflicting anecdotes, but the one involving my mother is as close to home as it can get. In her case I can confidently say it had zero negative outcomes in a technical medical sense, but it leaves me with an uneasy feeling. More than that, it leaves me angry. Insurance shouldn’t come into a decision when people are in need of help. Call me naive, call me old fashioned, but most of all call me NORMAL and reasonable.
We shouldn’t run away from blame. Blame exits. People get things wrong. Every one likes to blame the lawyers. Some of my best friends are lawyers (hahaha) BUT don’t blame them for operating within a legal framework. Who develops the legal framework? The courts and the legislators. I say blame the legislators, blame the government. Only they can correct a broken system. How unfortunate we cannot sue them for THEIR negligence.
This is a debacle. For my mother it didnt have serious consequences but for others I fear it may have.
***
James Woodcock
I could not agree with you more regarding the NZ no-fault accident compensation scheme. Readers may like to go to the NZ scheme’s website for a definition of the basic principles, www.acc.org.nz. Although not originally included, ‘medical misadventure’ and sexual assault crimes are now covered, and The NZ government has recently pulled Workers Comp back into the general no-fault system.
PS: I am not a New Zealander!
***
Robert Lawton in Adelaide
Working as I do in the world of worker’s compensation, the wrap you give to the NZ accident comp scheme is perhaps a bit too big.
Schemes that emphasise a continued ‘pay packet’ each week of incapacity for work and pay medical costs rather than a pot of gold and the end of a legal process require real effort by governments to avoid creating lifetime welfare dependence. This has been the bane of the NZ system.
The key is the rehabilitation process: The creation of a profession which is prepared to be unpopular with both claimants and employers, and which states its goal to the whole of society: getting injured people well AND back to productive work.
***
THE THIRD WAY
Dr Aaron Oakley
Why is it that people with little understanding of economics like Tim Dunlop feel free to give economic advice? Perhaps he should also be telling brain surgeons how to do their jobs.
He asserts that “far from being the beneficiaries of ‘free trade’, the economies of East Asia owe any success they’ve had to an increase in international trade made possible by and coupled with strong government control”. This myth was debunked by my editor, Gerry Jackson, some time ago. See Singapore and industry policy: another interventionist failure at newaus and The truth about Asia’s growth rates at newaus
Perhaps Mr Dunlop could tell us where Mr Jackson has erred. I won’t be holding my breath. My experience is that the Tim Dunlops of our world fall silent when challenged by the genuinely economic literate.
Clearly, Dunlop has simply chosen economic thought that reinforces his prejudices, and cobbled it all together in his long-winded article.
***
Paul Walter in Adelaide
I don’t think you like Mark Latham, Tim Dunlop. I too was taken aback by Latham’s comments on share ownership last week, as Labor’s persistent perseverance with its flirtation with neo-liberalism frustrates me, too. But I think the real reason you dislike him is because he has,in effect, ‘crossed’ you over the boat-people.
I thought you press people would have latched onto the ugly farce occurring at Port Pirie at this time, as a foreign shipping line attempts to dictate labour policy to the working people of this country with the connivance of John Anderson. A little bit of solidarity and support for these people whose livelihoods are under such dire threat from the media, Labor, Greens and Democrats may have restored a little confidence in the masses of ordinary people in this country.
These, feeling threatened by neo-liberalism, have retreated from embracing large numbers of new arrivals coming here for fear of further disempowerment. Ordinary people know from long, hard experience what Tim Dunlop is talking about; they know all about ‘reform’ and ‘freeing up the market’ and all the other twaddle neo-liberals crap on about; what that stuff is REALLY worth!
So, a little support from the right quarters for an issue close to their hearts may have convinced them to be less cautious on the boat-people issue, confident that if the occasion arose there would be adequate defenders of sufficient quality to also help them protect own their interests when, invariably, they were threatened again by the Howardists. Never mind.