shannonsays.com

Brendan Nelson's Values

Our Education Minister Brendan Nelson wants to see some "essentially Australian" values introduced into our schools – "understanding, tolerance, inclusion and responsibility, care, compassion, reaching out to others, doing your best, pursuing and protecting the common good, treating all people fairly, enterprise, respectfulness, fidelity, comradeship and endurance." And if people don't want to "accept and embrace" those values, he says, "they ought to clear off."

What to make of this.... Cameron thinks that Nelson is "way out of line"

"That isn't what this country is about. That isn't what democracy is about. The minute that you have one group of people forcing their values or beliefs on another group of people, you don't have a democracy any more - you have a form of fascism."

I don't completely disagree.

But I do reckon that people living here should "accept" our values in the sense of obeying by the laws that embody them – we demand that of all Australians.  Now that doesn't mean that they have to agree with them. Any Australian is entitled to object to any of our values, our laws or our institutions, and they even have the right to try to change them, provided they do so within the confines of the law.

However, forcing our "values"on people, whether they are immigrants or not, would be a futile exercise at best, and potentially dangerous and divisive at worst.  Particularly when Nelson's and his values smell more like something out of the 1950's than contemporary Australia.  But I don't find anything wrong or offensive in asking immigrants to gain a wider understanding of Australian Culture and history.

Putting that argument aside, it's interesting that value debate has entered the Australian political arena.  We are used to it happening in the United States, where their whole political system and decision making is centered around sphere of values, but it never really happens like that in Australia.  Mark Latham tried to focus on values during last years Federal Election (remember the "Ladder of Opportunity") but was steamrolled John Howard's economic agenda.

I wonder what our values would have been if Latham had been elected?

"Business as Usual"?

 "We have just got to react calmly and continue with our business as much as possible as normal."

That was Tony Blair in response to the recent attacks in London.

But from what I have been reading it seems that it is anything but "business as usual" in London, and it is far from "business as usual" or calm here in Australia.

In the last week we have been inundated with ideas and plans on how our Governments and authorities intend to respond, including increased number of CCTV cameras in our capital cities, random bag searches on public transport, a National ID card,  questioning students who borrow "terrorism books" from libraries, and we'll probably even hold a national security convention.

That doesn't send a message that it is "business as usual" does it?

It really says that we should suspect everyone, (and everyone should suspect us) as being a potential terrorist, until they can prove otherwise.

Now I understand that people are nervous, and that we expect our politicians and leaders to implement measures that protect our well being and safety.  But it appears to me that in the space of a week our politicians have latched onto this nervousness and fear and are talking about a stack of measures almost just for the sake of doing something... anything. 

But many of these so-called "security measures" have the potential to do nothing more than further eroding the levels of trust we have in one another.  And they are particularly dangerous here in Melbourne, where we have such a diverse mix of cultures and ethnicity's.

We'll end up looking at each other with sideways glances and increased suspicion, hardly a healthy way of living together, and hardly business as usual.
 

The Three Amigos: Howard, Bush & Blair

Tony Blair limped home to a third consecutive election victory this week.  So after what was a torrid campaign, we might ask did he lie, did he mislead, and did he take Britain to war in Iraq under false pretenses and without legal sanction?

And who cares?  Does it matter?  Even if he did, it didn't stop him or his Government being re-elected.  Sure his political reputation might have suffered a little, but he's no different  from John Howard and George W, the other two amigos's who took their countries to war in Iraq.  The other two leaders who were criticised over their involvement in Iraq.  The other two leaders who were re-elected by their people all the same.

So what's the message here? 

It seems that if you are managing healthy economy that allows most people to prosper, buggar all else matters.  Politically, you can do what you like.  All three men seem to know through gut feel, prosperity beats principle every day of the week in a modern democracy.

Where are all the Australian Entrepreneurs?

An excellent question is posed by Stephen Mayne in the weeks Reader, about why Australian has so few successful young companies:

"Australia is a relatively young country, so why is it that so many of our biggest and best companies are so old?  A quick look at the top 20 Australian public companies reveals lots of old incumbent players like Coles Myer, the Big Four Banks, Telstra, BHP, AMP and Foster's- all of which have been around for decades- and hardly any new ones."

That is a very true observation; Australia doesn't have any new corporate champions coming through. 

I reckon that we (Australians, our Governments and other regulators) have made it too hard for all of our budding entrepreneurs to shake off the bad smell left behind by the rouges of the 1980's like Alan Bond, Christopher Skase and Jack Elliott.    We don't like corporate risk takers in this country any more.  We are adverse to risk, and don't have a culture that readily accepts that failure is all part of the game, part of trying, part of learning.

And of course we have turned chopping down "tall poppies" into a national sport.  A sport at which we (shamefully) excel.

In the US if you go broke having "a go" you don't seem to cope the same level of condemnation as you do here in Australia.  They have a far greater tolerance for things like bankruptcy and business failure.So is it any wonder that the US has produced billionaires from booming companies like Yahoo, Google, Dell and eBay.  And we have... well, not much.  Except for a few infrastructure companies with Government contracts, Child Care centres that rely on Government subsidies and airlines and telco's that make bucks because they operate in cosy little duopolies.

Add to that the barriers for entry into many of our growth areas are too high, and the level of Government support and encouragement for our genuinely innovative risk takers and innovators is too low. 

You are better off just getting a nice, secure job with one of the big, old, unoriginal companies.

Breaking Election Pledges- breach of contract?

And politicians wonder why we don't trust them....

Let's say that  you or I made someone an "absolutely rock-solid ironclad commitment[s]", to deliver something such as the election pledge by the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to maintain the Medicare safety net.  And then that person accepts our offer and gives us something as consideration, (like a vote!) in return, but we fail to deliver on our promise, what would happen?

We would be carted of to court and sued for breach of contract, that's what.  Especially when the terms of the contract where delivered with such a clear guarantee.

But when the Government came out this week and did a u-turn on thier election pledge, all they had to do was shrug their shoulders, issue an apology, and we all have to get on with it.  Stiff.

Given the circumstance of the projected expediture blow-out the policy needed to be tweaked.  And this isn't the first time that politician has been caught saying and doing anything to get elected, and then once in power changing their mind.  And why wouldn't they?  There is no form of recourse for us until the next election (still three and a half years away), so they can do what they like.  Of course it sucks, it is wrong, and is totally inconsistent with what would happen to you or I if we behaved the same way in our business dealings.  But that is the way it it.

As an aside thought, I reakon the whole Safety Net idea was poor policy to begin with, but not one to be defeated easily, Tresurer Peter Costello had this to say on AM during the week:

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: Older Australians are high users of the Medicare Safety Net, and that is obviously blowing out from around $440 million to $1 billion. Hasn't the government completely miscalculated the cost of the Medicare Safety Net?

PETER COSTELLO: No we haven't. We've actually put down in our estimates reasonable anticipation of those costs. But since you're on the question, let me remind you of this. With the population aging, with the draw down on services four times higher for over 65s, the policy that was put forward at the last election, the so called Medicare Gold policy – free health care – must have been the most irresponsible policy ever announced in Australian history. Fortunately nobody ever had to hang around to see its implementation.

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: But Labor also said at the time that the Medicare Safety Net would blow out to around $1 billion and it has done. What will you do to rein it in?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I've said now, in the last three questions, the answer in Australia is to get our health services on to a sustainable basis.

In other words, if you think this is bad policy, you should have seen Labor’s.

Nothing though on how the doctored Medicare Safety Net will still cost twice the original estimate. Nothing on how the clumsy idea of a Safety Net wouldn’t even be needed if Medicare worked properly – or if levels of bulk billing were maintained.

But like I said.  Stiff.