See it, Think it, ... Say it! 

The not so subtle abuse of Constitutionalism by our major political parties.

Put simply, Constitutionalism “is the political doctrine which insists that people do have private and social lives to lead, and that it is the duty of governments to protect and foster those private spheres without interfering with them.” (Maddox, G. (1996) Australian Democracy in Theory and Practice. (4th ed). Longman. p. 127)

Of course, Constitutionalism is not a problem in and of itself. The problem, as I see it, arises when one major party automatically dismisses out of hand that which another major party has put forward, regardless of its potential to protect and/or foster improvements to the private and social lives of the population generally. And if the truth be known, in the vast majority of cases this oppositional narrow mindedness is simply an attempt at points scoring born out of spite because they didn’t think of the idea first.

Why is it so?

Has anyone ever noticed that successive Governments, both Federal and State, increasingly seem to be having problems balancing the books, despite providing less public services, and/or charging us more for them.

Maybe it is an incorrect perception, but years ago in a much less technologically advanced world than we have today, providing public services seemed much more comprehensive, and one might even say, more efficient. Despite requiring a much larger manually oriented workforce to meet these earlier Government’s public services obligations, they still seemed able to not only deliver, but deliver within existing budgetary constraints.

If my perception does indeed match the reality of that time, what has changed today that makes it so difficult to provide less services with arguably better technology and fewer people required to deliver them. Could it be that perhaps successive Governments have failed to take heed of the advice provided, or learn from the mistakes of other governments around the world?

We often hear, presented as ‘fact’ or as ‘commonsense’ such statements as a leaner government is a better government, or yesterday’s Governments with their large public service were totally inefficient, and cost the tax payer far too much. Or maybe something along the lines of we should let government do what it does best, and let the private sector do what it does best. All these statements, and many others not mentioned here have the ring of truth about them, but are they?

Certainly all sides of politics have, in recent years espoused such sentiment and actively sought to cut costs through tinkering with the role and size of Government. I would ask, however, is there any evidence to support this tinkering? Are these sentiments verifiable and factual, or simple political rhetoric put forward as ‘natural’ and ‘necessary’ to survive in the increasingly connected and integrated world in which we live?

Rightly or wrongly, this perceived need to tinker with the way Government does business has seen a number of erroneous decisions made by successive Australian Governments of both political persuasions that have resulted in the provision of far less efficient, far less effective, and much more expensive services to the Australian public. Some of these erroneous decisions include:

1. Deregulating the Banking Sector — supposedly increased competition lowers costs, but in reality, likely collusion amongst the big banks have not only failed to lower prices, but also significantly increased the costs we now pay.
2. Privatising ‘Public’ Utilities such as Electricity, Gas and Water, etc. — again competition was meant to lower costs, but the opposite is currently raging all around us.
3. Non-strategic Government Outsourcing — something both the United States and the United Kingdom Governments tried unsuccessfully before Australia blindly followed down the same path. Creating job opportunities for Small to Medium Enterprises to provide ‘public services’ more cheaply and more efficiently than the Government could, and to reduce the need for/cost of public servants providing these same services. That was the intent, but the reality has been a completely different matter. Sure the private sector can provide these same services, but more cheaply? More efficiently? Unfortunately this seems to be yet another fallacy. What we now have, in the vast majority of cases, are services being provided that not only cost the public more, but provide significantly less. To be honest, I find it strange that the Media, or the University sector, etc., haven’t seen fit to undertake some sort of comparative analysis of the actual costs of outsourcing versus keeping the provision of services in Government hands. That would sure make an interesting read!
4. Compulsory Private Superannuation — gazing into their crystal balls, the Government could see the inevitable cost increases associated with Australia’s aging population. Solution, compulsory private superannuation for all. Whilst in, and of itself, the idea is not without merit, outsourcing superannuation to numerous private sector companies – and lets face it, the bottom line for these companies is providing services that realise profits – is perhaps not the best model to adopt. Superannuation companies invest people’s money, charge fees for doing so, and attempt to predict the market to not only return an income to Australians in their retirement, but also return a profit to their business and shareholders. The Government too, currently invests the people’s taxes, and other monies raised. The key difference is the Government, whilst naturally not seeking to make a loss, is more concerned with retaining sufficient funds to enable it to cover costs and meet its service obligations. Given the Government already has, in house, the necessary knowledge and investment expertise, its seems unnecessary to rely on the private sector with all its drivers and inherent risks to do what the Government could do equally well for us itself.
5. Compulsory Private Health Insurance — similar to compulsory private superannuation, the move to make private health insurance compulsory was aimed at reducing the burden of predicted increases in addressing the health costs of Australia’s aging population. And again just like superannuation, the Government chose to adopt an outsourced private sector model. It could, just as easily, have chosen to adopt a different model, one in which Australian’s health contributions were invested in improving the level of existing health resources, both physical and human, to cater for future demand. Such a model, unlike the present private sector model, would concentrate on using Australian’s contributions to the benefit of Australians alone, not splitting benefits between Australians and private sector business/shareholder profits.

Why not ask your local member, Why Is It So?

Note: The article above is attributed to A. W. Aves, 31 October 2012.

Thuggery has nothing to do with Religion, Culture, or Race.

Thugs — those who seek to harm people or influence others to harm people for their own pleasure exist in all cultures, religions, ideologies, socio-economic groupings and genders.

Conflict because of thuggery exists across, and within all societies, so to cite religion, ideology, ethnicity, gender, etc., as justification for thuggery is totally invalid and no-one should be tempted to fall into this trap. We are all human beings; no one is born superior or inferior to any other in this world. Certainly, some are born into greater privilege than others and some are unfairly treated by others — this is not, however, unique to any single society. No society that exists today is immune.

Instead of falling into the trap of blame and retribution, we should value human diversity and take the lead from Mary Parker Follett (cited in Héon, Davis, Jones-Patulli, and Damart 2014) who had this to say way back in 1924:

What people often mean by getting rid of conflict is getting rid of diversity, and it is of the utmost importance that these should not be considered the same. We may wish to abolish conflict, but we cannot get rid of diversity. We must face life as it is and understand that diversity is its most essential feature. Fear of difference is dread of life itself. It is possible to conceive of conflict as not necessarily a wasteful outbreak of incompatibilities, but a normal process by which socially valuable differences register themselves for the enrichment of all concerned.
(Héon, F., Davis, A., Jones-Patulli, J. and Damart, S (Eds) (2014)  The Essential Mary Parker Follett: Ideas we need today, p. 26)

If everyone would accept and respect diversity as part of being human, there would be no need to change, or force anyone to accept one’s own way of thinking. There would be no reason to overpower others in the name of some perceived superiority, and no reason to forget we’re all of this planet; we’re all in this life together.

Value over success

Try not to become a man of success, but rather a man of value.

(Albert Einstein)

There are essentially only two types of people in this world —

1. Those that believe in what they’re doing and always try their best at whatever they take on; and
2. Those that will tell you whatever they think you want to hear, and if they get caught out, again say whatever is necessary, regardless of its veracity, to shift the focus away from their current predicament.

Whatever the situation, the first group of people, whilst often realising their goals, seldom achieve any real power or high position within corporate and/or public sector environments.

The second group of people, however, often gain quite high positions of power and influence within the corporate and/or public sectors, but will seldom actually follow through on whatever they ‘promise’, or ‘imply’.

Acknowledgment: Whilst the first group of people are generally those that should be respected and rewarded, rather than those in the second group, in our world today, unfortunately, terrorists and other extremists usually also belong to the first group too. Equally, it is most unlikely people belonging to the second group would believe in anything, except perhaps themselves, strongly enough to actually carry out an act of terror or extremism personally.

Note: The comments above are attributed to A. W. Aves, 18 October 2016.

six