Nostradamus
There was absolutely no way known that Paula Wriedt could be kept in the ministry. It gives me absolutely no pleasure at all to write about this particular subject, because as you will know from last week’s jottings, I have suffered severe clinical depression and attempted suicide on several occasions: statistics show that this is not atypical behaviour. I don’t know the Wriedt family but Ken was an extremely able federal Minister and it is clear there is politics in the blood, which brings us back to his daughter, the former Minister.
So the great ALP State Conference of 2008 has come and gone. What did we get? From limited coverage, it appears that prominence was given to photo opportunities of the Prime Minister and the new Premier being great mates and a few minor policy announcements. The emphasis was on the visual rather than the detail and I didn’t expect much more. However, there must be a few people who are regretting that TV cameras displayed several of them looking as though they had been dead for 48 hours or thereabouts.
For at least the first 100 days, I was more than prepared to go along with the proposition that Jed Bartlett is the ALP’s “last best hope” for retaining power at the next state election. Not that I necessarily believe that a majority government is the best outcome – I want to see the best people in Parliament. However, I was made aware of distinct disquiet among some in the community and a few ALP members asking about what lies behind the imagery and public appearances. It appeared that the failure to address some critical issues and no amount of spin, photo opportunities or inspired rhetoric will quell the increasing irritation of some, although recent and rather dramatic events of a decisive nature may effect a change of view.
I will return to the local situation later but I wish to avoid the navel-gazing that is almost inevitable for the average blogger and this week’s journey traverses a different landscape. Patience is a virtue, they say and I have been waiting for the other foot to fall, as it was surely destined so to do. That it has taken me so long owes as much to the rather nasty viruses running around at present. If you’re one of the lucky ones, be very grateful because it’s not a joke. Moreover, I found myself embroiled in family matters, overseas events and a string of inquiries from acquaintances across the globe.
Let us go back to square one for a moment. I have tried to be impartial in most contributions to date and I’m not particularly keen on parroting the same line as the Mercury or other bloggers on the Tasmanian Times website. I’m forced to concede that they, either singly or collectively, know a great deal more than me about the inner workings of government. And the standard of recent contributions to TT has been most impressive to the extent that anyone who believes that Tasmanian politics lies in an idyllic state obviously requires psychological assessment, or alternatively is a member of the ruling elite.
I’m quite sure that gritty articles will be written in the press once we know more about the deliberations of State Conference and they are turned into policies. In turn, I will continue looking for the unexpected aspects of political developments but firstly, to re-cap a little recent history. You can skip a few paragraphs at this point.
In 2006, the then Premier Paul Lennon made a powerful and impassioned speech for majority ALP government, claiming that only it would deliver the goods for the state. Two years on and we have seen proof positive encapsulated in the old saw, that empty vessels make the loudest noise. I heeded the message of 2006 but voted tactically for the candidates I thought would do the best job for my electorate. Simply stated, I have never believed in uncritically voting for parliamentary candidates who have serious character defects, especially proven factional hacks, or alternatively, those with an IQ smaller than their collar size. So despite my anachronistic and idiosyncratic leanings, I managed to spread my votes around above the line and I have no regrets; even fewer now. I enjoy the challenge of the ballot paper and being creative, which in turn makes life interesting for electoral officials and scrutineers alike. There is a certain amount of vicarious pleasure in placing certain candidates at the bottom of the list, which I justify as weeding out the unworthy.
Since the election of the Bacon government, I have maintained a file of newspaper cuttings as an historical record and several items in the electronic form. At some stage, I was hoping to write a book on Labor in power in Tasmania. Not being a member of the ALP, I fully understood that it might be difficult to get official assistance but as I have previously remarked, the usual 6° of separation have been pared down to 1° in this state and it is often possible to pick up a lot of important information quite casually, except when it relates to the shadowy figures behind the power structures of government and industry. Of course, much so-called information is nothing more than malicious gossip and I tend to steer clear of personality politics. I’m not interested in who is sleeping with whom; whether they do drugs, or are drunken sots. As the former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said: “it doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white but whether it catches mice.” And, in a nutshell, that is my general attitude to politicians.
This is essentially a pragmatic view and quite divorced from my idealized view of politics and politicians, about which I will comment below. Basically you can only work with what you’ve got and the problem is not unique to Tasmania or Australia in the sense that a life in politics doesn’t usually attract the brightest and best. There have been a number of studies on the backgrounds of our pollies and strangely, there is a convergence across party lines in some respects. There are a great number of lawyers in federal politics – their name is legion, for they are many. That there are fewer in the Tasmanian Parliament is perhaps a blessing in disguise.
I pride myself on having acquaintances in the three major political parties and I include the Greens in this category for the simple reason that they have the largest number of rank-and-file members. And I also range wide in the community and listen with great interest to talkback radio and attend public meetings.
As you will recall, the Lemon’s biggest concern was a hung Parliament. I doubt very much whether that would have been in any way worse than what we have experienced in the last two years and Mr. Bartlett’s biggest problem is shaking loose the tin cans tied to the tail of his leadership. Am I disappointed with his performance so far? The answer is that the jury is still out and while I see potential in him, the ALP is not a one-man band. What worries me most it is those that sit behind him; his so-called mentors and advisors, especially one of the arguably greatest failures among past Labor leaders, whose name is bandied about in conjunction with totemic references to Jim Bacon. Then, when I finally got to see a list of elected delegates to last State Conference, I experienced an aggravated case of déjà vu – all the old faces and names from the past with little in the way of new blood. I threw my hands in the air and wondered, not for the first time, ‘Where in the hell is this state going?’
Observations from the sideline
Australia is it something of a tipping point in terms of population. People will have to work longer because they have no option, yet employers want youth and anyone over 35 faces problems unless they have skills in abundance. I’ve met far too many qualified people who are desperate for work but unfortunately have some greying hair, thereby placing them in the category of “over the hill” and unemployable. Time after time, I have read articles conducted by reputable academics, which have painstakingly pointed out that older workers/employees are more reliable and usually come with a certain amount of accumulated wisdom; are likely to be more loyal and stay the course.
However, all too often, employers take the coward’s way out and scream for more migrants, claiming skill shortages and ignoring the inexorable rise in the ranks of the unemployed. This is a national problem that should be addressed by the federal government. The failure to re-train the unemployed for available positions is a national scandal and puts more pressure on the so-called welfare system. Unless it can be clearly proven by the employer that the requisite skill is unavailable in this country, then and only then should overseas recruitment be permitted. In addition, more migrants and longer unemployment lists place greater strains on infrastructure and increase our already sprawling cities and far too many houses are being built on arable land. It is a most undesirable situation.
Return to September 2008 and the Bartlett inheritance.
In response to some of the foregoing problems, Premier Jed has astutely hung on to the education portfolio. He is aware that somewhere in the vicinity of 45% of children drop out of high school before finishing whatever they teach these days. I have been staggered at the lack of literacy and numeracy among the young and the not so young, to say nothing of strange beliefs and an abysmal knowledge of history. It is possible that mooted federal government education reforms will help to keep the young at school but the question remains why do so many leave to become dropouts, unemployed or at best casual workers?
Part of the problem is grounded in a social phenomenon. An older generation is suspicious of too much learning when they should be far more concerned about what is being taught and possibly learned. What chance has a 15-year-old in life if his parents think that he, or more likely, she has had “enough education”? Too much “book learning” is a phrase that was popular during my time when it was expected that I should leave school as early as possible. Phooey, and I think it is to the Premier’s credit that his views on education seek to optimize the individual’s potential in terms of learning and becoming a rounded and employable school-leaver.
There is a rather depressing time around October-November each year. Visiting the city or suburban shopping centres, there are many young females in an advanced state of pregnancy. Some have decided to become mothers rather than finishing education and looking at life in a broader sense but I have heard more than one anguished explanation in the form of: “I want something to cuddle” and that I find rather sad. Then there are the young men, along with the girls, who loiter with intent outside shopping malls dragging away on cigarettes as though their very lives depended upon it – while according to the best medical advice, it does.
At one stage in my life, I contemplated joining the private sector in the funeral industry but with a particular interest in the construction of cemeteries. I also applied unsuccessfully for a position with the War Graves Commission and I believe that I would have been quite useful working for that body, given my great interest in history and never having known anything other than a world at war. Some will baulk at the last statement but United Nations figures have shown that more people have died in the periods when we have been ostensibly at peace but it is a fact that our world is riven by ongoing strife and warfare and its faithful companions – poverty, misery and death. In advanced Western societies, such as Australia, we bury far too many young people; casualties of lifestyle and practices contra-indicated for long life. Quite recently the Salvation Army has launched a program to counter the horrific figures of suicide, which encompass all age groups but disproportionately include the young and the elderly – more of which anon.
Given the events of the 21st century thus far, the young could be forgiven for a certain amount of hopelessness, helplessness and alienation. For most of this century, we had a Prime Minister (and many of his ministers, most notably the irritating Bronwyn Bishop) who stated publicly that they did not believe in society – a poor man’s version of Margaret Thatcher’s famous nostrum that there is no such thing as society, just individuals making their way as best they can. And in a sense, that became a self-fulfilling prophecy, what with family breakdowns, a weakening of community institutions, growing contempt for law and order and a distinct lack of respect for politicians who languish with real estate and used car salesmen as the people we love to hate.
It is extremely unfortunate but judging by public reaction, you would be hard-pressed to find too many people that don’t believe that politicians are merely in it for themselves and overpaid, encapsulated neatly in the saying about snouts in the public trough. Such is my lack of regard for our former Prime Minister that when he finally started to talk about community, I felt like puking at the breathtaking hypocrisy, aimed at shoring up political support. It was political opportunism, bolstered by bribes to certain community groups and talk about his great concern for “battlers” which appeared as genuine as a three dollar bill. No matter that Centrelink had become a tyrannical organization and the rules and regulations rewarded those who dobbed in their neighbours for all manner of reasons, real or imagined; an attitude that is a total contradiction of that held for many years – “you don’t dob in your mates.” It all seems so long ago back when we used to say “G’day” to one another and you could leave your back door unlocked at night.
Have matters improved under Rudd? Not yet, just more enquires and reports but no easing of draconian regulations. And how we have changed over the past 30 years, especially when driven by what a friend refers to as the glassy-eyed ideologues of the feral right of the political spectrum and their willing accomplices in the form of economic rationalists and more recently, advocates of globalization – remember John Hewson? I take a passing interest in the subject and the recent spat in Georgia appears to me at least to have prompted a temporary halt in the popularity of globalization and a considerable increase in serious re-consideration of national interest. What with the pending economic crisis and the ludicrous flow-on from the subprime lending rate crisis in America to our own banks, leading to more unemployment and the threat of recession and perhaps we will learn anew what it is to be; firstly human beings; secondly Australians and for many of us Tasmanian! And would it be too much to ask that we regain some sense of cultural and social identity and links?
In my writings for Tasmanian Times, I have tried to convey my impression and belief that we should be able to look up to politicians as hard-working people who serve – they govern in the interest of the governed – we the people, if you like. Now, more than ever, that seems a childish fantasy, albeit more sophisticated than the tooth fairy or other mythical figures and ideas. As I picked my way through my holdings, wondering what on earth I could say that would be new, inspiring or uplifting, the further my heart sank into my boots. I have a very dear friend who has been a member of the Labor Party for many years but even his reassuring comments about the change in leadership both at federal and state level are beginning to concern me, for I think that the average person these days is, to quote the postmodernists and deconstructionists who enjoy the sheltered workshops of academe, either dedifferentiated or hyper-differentiated, depending on where you sit. In my days at University, I would have said that we were looking at the development of mass society, where the ties that bind are virtually nonexistent and the country ripe for a demagogue with a gift for spellbinding oratory and perhaps an extremist agenda.
I base my conclusion not only on the lack of education of the young but on the trivial and often meaningless pursuits of their elders. We all know of certain areas, where the majority live in substandard conditions and are largely subsidized by the government. It is a public disgrace that these are the areas where gaming machines exact the greatest toll. The reaction of the media over the past generation has been a constant dumbing down and the 20-second sound bite or video clip has been cut by my estimation to around 7 seconds. Several old codgers of my generation who are educated and take an interest in the world around them share my opinion that we have an indecent national obsession with sport and gambling to the exclusion of health considerations, such as dietary concerns and viewing life as a learning experience. Once again, our attention has been drawn to a virtual pandemic of obesity, increased rates of diabetes and more recently, the number of suicides of old and young alike. There is no room for complacency, nor should it be tolerated. It is only because the economic cost of these conditions has become apparent through pressure on the health services, that at long last politicians are taking some notice.
What do people believe in today? Religion is passé to the extent that academics tell us we are living in a post-Christian era and that is reinforced by multiculturalism. We have all sorts of peculiar religious practices being substituted for core beliefs and what were once regarded as crucial doctrines and compulsory requirements. While surveys show a generalised belief in the existence of a creator or God of sorts, we must face the fact that by and large Australian society is comprised of hedonists, living on instant gratification whether it be sex, junk food, rock ‘n roll or rampant consumerism, which is of course, the hallmark of our society and in the eyes of some, a measure of sophistication and greatness. Look at credit card debt, drug crimes, poor health and suicide as signs of a sickly society. And while I see a federal Prime Minister willing to look at many social problems, even a cursory glance at comments in newspapers are directed critically at his religious beliefs, rather than his belief that these problems need to be tackled and promptly. At least he has a vision of sorts for the future and that sits ill with those preoccupied with more immediate problems such as the three-year election cycle.
For those who wallow in self-indulgence and still feel intimations of their own mortality, the Internet abounds with apocalyptic websites, which tell us that world will end in 2010, 2012 or 2014, depending on whether you believe in an asteroid strike; mass landings by UFOs or Armageddon. Roll up folks; pay your money and take the chance – after all 2014 isn’t that far away. I have read the works of Nostradamus (now there’s a surprise for you) and the predictions of St. Malachy, Mother Shipton and a veritable menagerie of those who claim to have had visions of the future from medieval times to the 21st-century.
Somewhat elliptically, this brings me back to the local political situation. I hope I haven’t lost too many of you along the way. The focus on the here and now is very well developed in this state but its trajectory at times resembles an out of control missile. Although apocalyptic websites mentioned above often mention destruction in 2010, the key date would appear to be April and our chance to pass judgment on the Bartlett Labor government – because that is what it will be by then, barring further disasters. And I’m not being flippant, given the Dragon’s teeth sown by previous Premiers.
Now let us consider nailing my feet to the ground and looking at some of the problems faced by Jed following the Conference and in the lead up to the next election. The solution to the first major problem was predictable. There was absolutely no way known that Paula Wriedt could be kept in the ministry. It gives me absolutely no pleasure at all to write about this particular subject, because as you will know from last week’s jottings, I have suffered severe clinical depression and attempted suicide on several occasions: statistics show that this is not atypical behaviour. I don’t know the Wriedt family but Ken was an extremely able federal Minister and it is clear there is politics in the blood, which brings us back to his daughter, the former Minister.
As I said then and repeat now: unless you have been there, you cannot adequately describe the tortured feelings and suffering that leads to the inevitable conclusion that taking one’s own life is the only solution. Lifeline’s help number is 13 11 14 (24 hours) and the Salvation Army’s comparatively recent suicide assistance service for those contemplating the act or survivors is 1300 467 354 or 1300 HOPE LINE. The national Beyond Blue information line is 1300 22 4636. Please consider supporting these services whose the minister to its costs are low and never forget, that considering how much tax we pay, the government gets off very lightly. This is usually masked by asinine statements about the efficacy of private assistance rather than public and enables governments to weasel out of supporting these critical services.
It came as no surprise on Friday morning, when the Premier announced that he had seen State Governor Underwood and sought revocation of Minister Wriedt’s commission. And the media has had a bloody field day referring to it as a sacking but from what I can glean, the situation was untenable for the Premier. Certainly, there appeared no rancour on his part and he has publicly regretted that he had to take the step. It is roughly 6 weeks since Ms. Wriedt attempted suicide and apparently the depth of her clinical depression was/is such that she could not make any commitment to her future but asked for an extension of two weeks.
Many will argue, as some bloggers have done, that revoking her commission (and I will not tolerate use of the words dismissal or sacking) is akin to kicking someone when they are down. I am sufficiently qualified in psychology, as well as hard knocks, to know that it is early days in her treatment and a two-week extension would be as inadequate as two months and quite possibly, two years. The Wriedt family deserve sympathy and compassion from the community as a whole. What they do not need is the ceaseless prattling from a media determined to beat up the situation and keep the frenzy going. One would hope that Ms. Wriedt is getting the best possible treatment and will make a full recovery. As Premier Jed said, inter alia, she has been a very good minister and he would welcome her back when restored to health. I also think he has grounds to believe that her declamatory statement on Friday owes much to poor advice, as it reveals the depths of her depression.
With all due respect to the media, they want a story and usually one that involves sex and politics, a combustible mix at the best of times. There is considerable community support for the stricken Minister and it goes a long way to demonstrate one of my hypotheses, namely that Tasmanians are at their best, when faced by suffering. Not those sympathy is universal and there are quite a few blogs on the Mercury website that say a great deal about the fact that the writer rather than addressing the problem. Usually, I am an avid ABC listener but I don’t think the events of last week did the broadcaster any favours nor did the almost salacious lip-rolling of certain TV presenters. I’m not Derryn Hinch, thank God, but shame on them.
In my view and I am prepared to be dismissed as one of a minority (as usual) Jed Bartlett acted with propriety throughout and my estimation of him has risen significantly. I am on safer ground here: at the height of my powers, I was responsible for a large staff, larger than the Parliamentary Labor Party. I was given a job to do and that was to get the train back on the rails (a deliberate allusion) but I found that my previous experience in the supervision of half a dozen staff paled into insignificance when faced with enhanced responsibility. I inherited people who had problems with alcohol, marriage difficulties, deaths in the family and staff without leave to bury their dead. And that was quite apart from serious deficiencies in performance from graduates of our so-called finest universities and a lack of motivation, which had led almost to a herd mentality. I won’t brag about my achievements in turning things around but I would like to think that I treated my staff as human beings and accorded them respect and dignity, even when I knew that in some cases it was not reciprocated. Such is the lot of anyone managing numbers of people.
For the record I can state quite categorically that I do not know the Premier: we have never met at our paths have not crossed. However, I empathize with him in his predicament as much as I sympathize and identify with Ms. Wriedt in hers; which, of course, leads to the question of ministerial replacements. Prudence and probity demand that Bryan Green and Steve Kons are left out of the equation. At least, Mr. Green has had the grace to admit that the electorate will make a decision on his future in 2010. However, having seen his face on TV at least four times during the past week, I cannot but feel uneasy. It is another cost of the past to haunt the Premier.
Who are the contenders in a ministerial reshuffle? While it is true that the name of Lisa Singh has been raised often, it is Lin Thorp who has put in the hard yards and must surely head the list. I claim some bias in this instance as a friend whose views I respect, says that although he does not agree with her politics, she is intelligent and articulate and thereby something of a rarity. Ms. Singh is undoubtedly talented and indisputably ambitious. Her day will come, as it will for Allison Ritchie but never has the lack of talent being more exposed, when you realize that we are talking about members of the Legislative Council the same breath as the Legislative Assembly. The pool of talent is now appearing less like a shallow puddle and on closer examination, resembles a salt pan.
Precedents exist for ministers being located in the Upper House but the power lies in the Legislative Assembly. The current treasurer Michael Aird is presiding over an economy which is riding the rough waves slightly better than mainland counterparts and in a sense, it is in no small measure due to his acumen and effectiveness. Oh boy, the media dined out on Mr. Aird last week, when it was revealed that he had held a fund-raising dinner of 11 people, described by the Mercury as Tasmanian business powerbrokers. At $2000 per head, netting a gain of $22,000, a significant proportion of which will be for his re-election war chest, the treasurer was apparently well pleased by the turnout – I would not have paid two dollars to dine with any of them but then again, I’m rather choosy about the company I keep. Sorry Brendan, Michael and Greg, I would sooner have a meal with the amiable Brenton Best.
The Premier has defended fund raising dinners and stated that “it is no big deal” and all parties engage in this practice. Perhaps so, but it is likely that young Jed needed this distraction, and the attendant media attention, like a hole in the head. It constitutes another lead weight in the saddlebag, because of suspicions about money buying influence. Mr. Aird’s arrogance was not particularly helpful in the circumstances. ABC radio’s Tim Cox had a wonderful time interviewing first Mr. Aird and later in the week, the Premier. It makes for entertaining radio and podcasts worth keeping. Furthermore, there is a compelling case for public funding of elections in a completely transparent record of private political donations.
It is widely recognized in the community and the body politic that the Laborial plot to reduce the size of the Parliament and wipe out the Greens was a mistake. The Premier has apparently recognized that it was a foul-up of considerable magnitude. Whereas a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Bartlett appeared open to an expansion of numbers back to a lower house of 35 members, over the past weekend, he has claimed on TV that people are asking/suggesting that he should not countenance the step. It is at this point that I take my leave of approving the Premier’s actions. This is a very serious business and to those the query the cost of expanding the Parliament once again, it should be obvious to point out that by returning to five 7-member electorates, the government wield the axe or run a chainsaw through the ranks of the unelected decision-makers masquerading as advisers and spin doctors. Responsibility for decision-making must be returned to government and removed from shadowy powers of unelected and therefore, unaccountable, officials.
The legendary blind Freddy knows where the sticking point lies, among the short-sighted, backward-looking wannabes who never were. Their master plan is for seven 5- member electorates: some master plan – brought to you by those who are frightened witless by the thought of a bigger Green representation in Parliament. Only those who, like the legendary Odysseus, had his crew’s ears filled with wax so that they would continue to row, while he alone heard the Siren’s song, would back this approach. It diminishes the Premier to even contemplate the cost of redrawing state electoral boundaries to bring seven electorates into existence, rather than retaining the five which correspond to federal boundaries.
On this one Jed, you’ve lost me because it panders to those who whine and snivel on talkback radio about the power of so-called “greenies” who allegedly oppose all forms of development. These are the same people who allegedly represent the timber communities, as though they were a discrete entity and not a series of front groups subsidized by pulp mill interests. If you hear much talk-back radio as me, it is difficult to feel it is anything other than an orchestrated heckling from the gallery. The whole seven electorate idea caters for ignorance, not reasoned debate and smacks of listening to the mob and the ignorant. If you want to lose office, then that is one step you will rule out right now! Think of the film “A bridge too far” and therein lies a parable for the answer.
In a very real sense, l’affaire Wriedt and speculation about the size of Parliament has obscured the most important issue. The Wilkinson committee inquiring into the need for an independent body to examine corruption or malpractice in government affairs has seen a steady stream of influential figures make the case, including the DPP, Tim Ellis; Prof. Richard Herr and Sir Max Bingham. These are men who know about the problems inherent in the system. To ignore them would be unwise because of who they are but what they said.
The next biggest problem is the future of the Royal Hobart Hospital. Day in, day out, we have heard the Muppet proclaim the necessity of a “greenfield site” for a new hospital. Well, the port of Hobart and the rail yards hardly constitute a reasonable location. Furthermore, despite the special pleading of the Glenorchy mayor, a CBD site is the most obvious. And as many experts, including doctors, have stated, there is a strong desire to expand within the current city block and the Liberal health spokesman, Brett Whiteley, has been quick to jump on the bandwagon. Naturally enough, there would be some dislocation but experience elsewhere suggests that it is a viable proposition and furthermore, the funds saved would go a long way to paying the wages and salaries of doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, meeting an existing shortfall in numbers. Hopefully, the legion of managers that appear to run hospitals in their interests will be reduced to the necessary minimum. Little Ms Giddy has shown some signs of flexibility in the past few days and that is to be welcomed.
A problem that will not go away, either of its own accord or through the incompetence of the minister is the continuing lack of a coherent, cohesive, transport plan for the state, which includes rail. The fall in the price of crude oil on international markets should have meant a marked reduction at the petrol pump but prices have not come down as they should and oil companies once again are skimming profits. While I acknowledge that the Australian dollar has lost against the American currency, we are still being short-changed. I personally do not give a hoot for transport economists or the more rabid conservationists screaming about the need to abolish the motor car. We have an aging population living in a widespread city and even if cycle ways are constructed and bus lanes made exclusive, many people still have to drive. However regrettable some might consider the infernal combustion engine, the problem could be solved by more attention being paid to the use of liquefied or compressed natural gas and subsidization of any engine conversion. We should not be held to ransom by multi-national oil companies and their Australian stooges.
Lastly, I stress again that we have three young apparently competent political leaders in the form of Bartlett, Nick McKim and Will Hodgman and it makes for interesting possibly even exciting politics. Both opposition parties are beginning to strut their stuff and flex their muscles in the policy arena. Notwithstanding his immediate difficulties, Premier Bartlett would be wise to follow his instincts rather than the advice of proven failures and I hope that in saying that, I am not making attributions about his intellect that do not exist. Hearts and minds are important but equally so is the need to be seen to be taking the common good into account, rather than narrow sectional or secretive, vested interest(s). It would be a valuable exercise to download podcasts from ABC radio 936 and run focus groups as a measure of public concern with recent issues. So where are our local social researchers?
