There beith a man as high as a tree
He cometh of natur, a valens of three
He walkd thro the for'st, trivalently
What thou its named, d'nt asketh me!
Friday, July 16, 2004
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Democracy Still Under Threat - "Oral briefings only for Haermeyer"
This stinks. Like a big fat dead whale that has blown up in the middle of a city street and coated the footpath and buildings in decaying blubber...
Oral briefings only for Haermeyer - www.theage.com.au
Apparently there was never any written communication about police corruption and gangland killings between Victoria Police and the Police Minister. None.
I can't believe this. It's just another case of political head in the sand to avoid the difficult questions that might come later, and is a real threat to democracy.
Our parliament is the heart of our democracy, and accountability to the parliament is paramount if our democracy is to work well. The ability of a minister to say that only verbal discussions were held is not acceptable. Not a single note, file, memo, or even an email.
Unfortunately, this kind of response is becoming much more common in modern politics. While I agree that being responsible for an entire department (or two, three in the Victorian Government) is a big ask, it doesn't change the principle of the minister of the day being the responsible person. And the ability to say 'I don't know' or 'We didn't write that down' just doesn't cut it.
Haermeyer and Bracks are not the only ones to do this, and are just continuing in a long line of similar ducking and weaving to avoid any tricky issues, most notably members of the Howard Government around a range of issues.
Being a responsible citizen in a modern democracy is hard enough. We deal with both information overload and a lack of information concurrently, while trying to sift through the junk to determine who to vote for. And I take my vote seriously.
But when ministers and the government go out of their way to deliberately not know something, then what hope for our democracy. I need my government to take responsibility for its actions, no matter how minor or insignificant they might think it is. They are the ones in power, and they owe that to their citizens.
Oral briefings only for Haermeyer - www.theage.com.au
Apparently there was never any written communication about police corruption and gangland killings between Victoria Police and the Police Minister. None.
I can't believe this. It's just another case of political head in the sand to avoid the difficult questions that might come later, and is a real threat to democracy.
Our parliament is the heart of our democracy, and accountability to the parliament is paramount if our democracy is to work well. The ability of a minister to say that only verbal discussions were held is not acceptable. Not a single note, file, memo, or even an email.
Unfortunately, this kind of response is becoming much more common in modern politics. While I agree that being responsible for an entire department (or two, three in the Victorian Government) is a big ask, it doesn't change the principle of the minister of the day being the responsible person. And the ability to say 'I don't know' or 'We didn't write that down' just doesn't cut it.
Haermeyer and Bracks are not the only ones to do this, and are just continuing in a long line of similar ducking and weaving to avoid any tricky issues, most notably members of the Howard Government around a range of issues.
Being a responsible citizen in a modern democracy is hard enough. We deal with both information overload and a lack of information concurrently, while trying to sift through the junk to determine who to vote for. And I take my vote seriously.
But when ministers and the government go out of their way to deliberately not know something, then what hope for our democracy. I need my government to take responsibility for its actions, no matter how minor or insignificant they might think it is. They are the ones in power, and they owe that to their citizens.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead!! - Harradine Retires
The Australian political landscape took a turn for the better today, with Senator Brian Harradine, the independent Senator for Tasmania announced his retirement.
Harradine formally retires - Breaking News - http://www.theage.com.au
I once described Senator Harradine as a "boil on the neck of Australian democracy", and a quick lesson in Australian Politics will explain why.
There are less than 500,000 people living in Tasmania, and almost 100,000 of these are under fifteen. This leaves less than 400,000 people of voting age in Tasmania. In a half-Senate election in Tasmania, to secure a seat in the Senate a candidate needs less than 60,000 votes. This is even less should preferences become involved.
In the 1998 election (when Senator Harradine was reelected), Tasmania's enrolment was 330,121 with a quota (to win a seat) of only 44,054.
Senator Harradine received less than 25,000 first preference votes.
And during his time in the Senate, Senator Harradine has done his best to delay, alter, and limit the Government's ability to enact legislation and implement policy that it was clearly elected to do. This of course being done after being elected by significantly less than 1% of the Australian population.
Part of me accepts that this is the true value of a democratic system as robust as Australia's. That one person can fight the (good as he sees it) fight and actually make some positive gains for his community. For this, I commend Senator Harradine's efforts in ensuring a narrow band of ultra-conservative Christians were well represented during his time in office.
Unfortunately, a number of other groups within the Australian community were dealt an unjust blow by Senator Harradine's wheeling and dealing in the Senate.
IVF, Stem Cell Research, Native Title Legislation, the sale of Telstra, and the Goods & Services Tax, are just some areas where Senator Harradine has used his influence poorly.
Whether you agree or disagree with the policy positions taken, should not a Senator elected with such a small number of votes use their position in the balance of power somewhat more cautiously? I think so.
I will not miss Senator Harradine when he leaves the Senate.
Harradine formally retires - Breaking News - http://www.theage.com.au
I once described Senator Harradine as a "boil on the neck of Australian democracy", and a quick lesson in Australian Politics will explain why.
There are less than 500,000 people living in Tasmania, and almost 100,000 of these are under fifteen. This leaves less than 400,000 people of voting age in Tasmania. In a half-Senate election in Tasmania, to secure a seat in the Senate a candidate needs less than 60,000 votes. This is even less should preferences become involved.
In the 1998 election (when Senator Harradine was reelected), Tasmania's enrolment was 330,121 with a quota (to win a seat) of only 44,054.
Senator Harradine received less than 25,000 first preference votes.
And during his time in the Senate, Senator Harradine has done his best to delay, alter, and limit the Government's ability to enact legislation and implement policy that it was clearly elected to do. This of course being done after being elected by significantly less than 1% of the Australian population.
Part of me accepts that this is the true value of a democratic system as robust as Australia's. That one person can fight the (good as he sees it) fight and actually make some positive gains for his community. For this, I commend Senator Harradine's efforts in ensuring a narrow band of ultra-conservative Christians were well represented during his time in office.
Unfortunately, a number of other groups within the Australian community were dealt an unjust blow by Senator Harradine's wheeling and dealing in the Senate.
IVF, Stem Cell Research, Native Title Legislation, the sale of Telstra, and the Goods & Services Tax, are just some areas where Senator Harradine has used his influence poorly.
Whether you agree or disagree with the policy positions taken, should not a Senator elected with such a small number of votes use their position in the balance of power somewhat more cautiously? I think so.
I will not miss Senator Harradine when he leaves the Senate.
The Corruption of Democracy
Well it's about time...
Fitzgerald berates both sides of politics - www.theage.com.au
The corruption of democracy - Opinion - www.theage.com.au
As you'll see in the articles from The Age newspaper, Tony Fitzgerald has finally said what has been obvious for many years. Mr Fitzgerald writes that the ethics of government have been abandoned by both sides of politics, and that the once noble concepts of leadership and community building have been lost.
This would be clear to anybody who has ever been involved directly in the political process. It quickly becomes obvious that politics is about winner, about gaining and maintaining power, and about looking after your mates. It is not about helping to create a better society, it is not about collaboration with the community to build something greater than all of us.
Instead, the modern democracy is about making decisions based on the impact this has in the ballot box. It is about saying what people want to hear rather than making the bold decisions to build a better Australia.
Where are the nation builders? Where are the women and men in politics who can actually show that they are committed to Australia rather than to themselves. There are far too few examples of real community leaders taking a stand, running for office, and effecting change in their community for good.
However, there are plenty of examples of young men and women becoming involved with political parties, of riding the cogs of the party machine, and then being rewarded with a safe seat, a ministerial portfolio, or a senior job in the public service.
As I once heard quoted about the ALP, "there are too many people who are more interested in getting a piece of green leather under their bum than developing and implementing policy for the betterment of the nation". This of course equally applies to the Liberal Party - and I should know because I've seen both sides from the inside.
Debate in this country is stifled. Decisions are made for popularity, rather than for the good of the nation. A close eye is always fixed to the polls to see any flicker of movement. "Average Jo" is left feeling isolated from the political process, while the political elite play their power games.
To quote Mr Fitzgerald:
"Politicians mesmerised by power seem to be unconcerned that, when leaders fail to set and follow ethical standards, public trust is damaged, community expectations diminish and social divisions expand."
I couldn't have said it better myself. So I won't. Read the article.
Fitzgerald berates both sides of politics - www.theage.com.au
The corruption of democracy - Opinion - www.theage.com.au
As you'll see in the articles from The Age newspaper, Tony Fitzgerald has finally said what has been obvious for many years. Mr Fitzgerald writes that the ethics of government have been abandoned by both sides of politics, and that the once noble concepts of leadership and community building have been lost.
This would be clear to anybody who has ever been involved directly in the political process. It quickly becomes obvious that politics is about winner, about gaining and maintaining power, and about looking after your mates. It is not about helping to create a better society, it is not about collaboration with the community to build something greater than all of us.
Instead, the modern democracy is about making decisions based on the impact this has in the ballot box. It is about saying what people want to hear rather than making the bold decisions to build a better Australia.
Where are the nation builders? Where are the women and men in politics who can actually show that they are committed to Australia rather than to themselves. There are far too few examples of real community leaders taking a stand, running for office, and effecting change in their community for good.
However, there are plenty of examples of young men and women becoming involved with political parties, of riding the cogs of the party machine, and then being rewarded with a safe seat, a ministerial portfolio, or a senior job in the public service.
As I once heard quoted about the ALP, "there are too many people who are more interested in getting a piece of green leather under their bum than developing and implementing policy for the betterment of the nation". This of course equally applies to the Liberal Party - and I should know because I've seen both sides from the inside.
Debate in this country is stifled. Decisions are made for popularity, rather than for the good of the nation. A close eye is always fixed to the polls to see any flicker of movement. "Average Jo" is left feeling isolated from the political process, while the political elite play their power games.
To quote Mr Fitzgerald:
"Politicians mesmerised by power seem to be unconcerned that, when leaders fail to set and follow ethical standards, public trust is damaged, community expectations diminish and social divisions expand."
I couldn't have said it better myself. So I won't. Read the article.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
The Fight on Main Street - Melbourne 2030
The fight on Main Street - National - www.theage.com.au
I know Mordialloc well. It is a wonderful seaside village as this article suggests. There is a real community atmosphere in Mordialloc and a strong body of people who want to 'protect' it.
However, 'protection' in this sense means having absolutely no change. I'm not talking about restoring Mordialloc to it's former glory - that of a vibrant town centre that attracted visitors from far and wide for leisurely beachside holidays. Instead, I'm talking about what is essentially a run down low level shopping centre.
The potential for Mordiallioc is unbelievable. It is a natural place for people to gather (particularly in the warmer months), as evidenced by the development at Doyle's Bridge Hotel with it's fantastic outdoor cafe.
It also has the potential to regenerate a series of run down residential buildings that lie between the beachside and the retail hub. And this is partly what 'protection' of Mordialloc usually means.
The problem, as is often the case, is not development and redevelopment per se. It is not even a problem of three, four or five story developments. The problem is two fold:
1. Ridiculously Ugly Design
2. Bit-By-Bit Redevelopment
Mordialloc is a historic village - not some new fangled high tech hub. Any development should be in keeping with the traditional nature of the village atmosphere. It shouldn't include daring architectural designs - but more traditional designs that maintain the theme of a quaint, older style village.
Secondly, a little property here and a little property there being bulldozed and redeveloped causes much more angst in the community. Sympathetic redevelopments of a larger number of sites, in conjunction with master planning for the precinct is a much better approach. This is where Melbourne 2030 really lets itself down.
Council's have to respond to community demands, and are not willing to make bold decisions about their traditional centres. And when I say bold, I don't mean around 'funky' designs in traditional, older style neighbourhoods. I'm talking about land parcelling, pro-active redevelopment authorities, and wide scale implementation of reform taken out of the hands of local government bodies and into independent authorities.
In Mordialloc, everything south of Safeway and west of Main Street should be either bulldozed or redeveloped in an integrated fashion. Dodgy old residential housing should be demolished, Safeway should be demolished, but the traditional, older style shopfronts (the few that remain) should be retained and expanded.
Putting an eyesore in a quaint village is never going to work... but it seems the stock standard answer from developers, and the answer that gets the greenlight from government and VCAT.
I know Mordialloc well. It is a wonderful seaside village as this article suggests. There is a real community atmosphere in Mordialloc and a strong body of people who want to 'protect' it.
However, 'protection' in this sense means having absolutely no change. I'm not talking about restoring Mordialloc to it's former glory - that of a vibrant town centre that attracted visitors from far and wide for leisurely beachside holidays. Instead, I'm talking about what is essentially a run down low level shopping centre.
The potential for Mordiallioc is unbelievable. It is a natural place for people to gather (particularly in the warmer months), as evidenced by the development at Doyle's Bridge Hotel with it's fantastic outdoor cafe.
It also has the potential to regenerate a series of run down residential buildings that lie between the beachside and the retail hub. And this is partly what 'protection' of Mordialloc usually means.
The problem, as is often the case, is not development and redevelopment per se. It is not even a problem of three, four or five story developments. The problem is two fold:
1. Ridiculously Ugly Design
2. Bit-By-Bit Redevelopment
Mordialloc is a historic village - not some new fangled high tech hub. Any development should be in keeping with the traditional nature of the village atmosphere. It shouldn't include daring architectural designs - but more traditional designs that maintain the theme of a quaint, older style village.
Secondly, a little property here and a little property there being bulldozed and redeveloped causes much more angst in the community. Sympathetic redevelopments of a larger number of sites, in conjunction with master planning for the precinct is a much better approach. This is where Melbourne 2030 really lets itself down.
Council's have to respond to community demands, and are not willing to make bold decisions about their traditional centres. And when I say bold, I don't mean around 'funky' designs in traditional, older style neighbourhoods. I'm talking about land parcelling, pro-active redevelopment authorities, and wide scale implementation of reform taken out of the hands of local government bodies and into independent authorities.
In Mordialloc, everything south of Safeway and west of Main Street should be either bulldozed or redeveloped in an integrated fashion. Dodgy old residential housing should be demolished, Safeway should be demolished, but the traditional, older style shopfronts (the few that remain) should be retained and expanded.
Putting an eyesore in a quaint village is never going to work... but it seems the stock standard answer from developers, and the answer that gets the greenlight from government and VCAT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
