Nostradamus
As an “accidental” Premier, Mr. Bartlett has certainly not been able to enjoy a honeymoon or even a holiday. The best analogy I can come up with is a swim in a shark pool. Without doubt, his inheritance was, as the media noted and the Premier tacitly admitted in Parliament, “a mess.” The cleaning of the Augean stables of Van Diemen’s Land is no small matter and as I have noted in earlier comments, when he looks at the serried ranks of the PLP, he has every reason to be worried, both in terms of quality and quantity. The amount of genuine talent at his disposal is very small and the indisposition of Paula Wriedt has exacerbated the problem. Sooner or later, a decision will have to be made on whether Ms. Wriedt has recovered sufficiently from depression to be able to function as a politician and a minister. It is impossible and possibly irresponsible for any commentator to know Ms. Wriedt’s state of mind and the likelihood of a lasting political comeback let alone speculate.
THIS IS the week when Premier David a.k.a. Jed Bartlett celebrates 100 days as Premier. (To be precise, the due day was 2 September). Despite the general acceptance of the notion of 100 days of “honeymoon” for a new leader, its origins are obscure and quite possibly American. Extensive searches of the Internet tell us very little but it appears that it is probably derived from US politics and suggests that the honeymoon inherent in the term means that the political leader is given an easy ride before being subjected to critical examination. Former UTAS academic Richard Herr, who thankfully still remains available as a commentator, appears to have examined the phenomenon and has traced it back to Napoleonic times in France but concludes that it was popularized by the first 100 days of US President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his “New Deal,” implemented to counter the effects of worldwide economic recession.
As an “accidental” Premier, Mr. Bartlett has certainly not been able to enjoy a honeymoon or even a holiday. The best analogy I can come up with is a swim in a shark pool. Without doubt, his inheritance was, as the media noted and the Premier tacitly admitted in Parliament, “a mess.” The cleaning of the Augean stables of Van Diemen’s Land is no small matter and as I have noted in earlier comments, when he looks at the serried ranks of the PLP, he has every reason to be worried, both in terms of quality and quantity. The amount of genuine talent at his disposal is very small and the indisposition of Paula Wriedt has exacerbated the problem. Sooner or later, a decision will have to be made on whether Ms. Wriedt has recovered sufficiently from depression to be able to function as a politician and a minister. It is impossible and possibly irresponsible for any commentator to know Ms. Wriedt’s state of mind and the likelihood of a lasting political comeback let alone speculate.
In more popular vernacular, Premier Jed has started off behind the eight-ball. For the sake of decency and humanity, I intend to comment no further on Ms. Wriedt but there is little doubt that her performance, as a minister, was better than some. However, the Premier has acknowledged the reality of the situation and the uncertainty of its outcome.
Towards the end of this article, I address a comment made by a blogger but I wish initially to focus on some facets of current Tasmanian politics. And no, I’m not going to carry on about railways and the inept minister: I have other fish to fry. I will say in passing that the location of the Brighton transport hub has finally been announced. One must ask what will that do without a functional railway system and I promise to avoid that subject for a little while yet.
Only the most one-eyed and unforgiving would deny that Premier Bartlett has inherited a string of problems. Some have claimed that he is responsible in some way for his present predicament. Looking back at his time in Parliament, I can only conclude that this is a case of him being identified with the former government and not necessarily being in any position to influence the outcome of certain decisions. It is clearly a case of the pedestrian being splashed by a passing car, although the last description I would use in relation to Jed is pedestrian but even cyclists get splashed.
It is readily understandable that the new Premier (and we will not be able to call him that for much longer) will want to bury the memory of the excesses of the last 10 years and start again with a clean slate. Calling an early election is an option vigorously canvassed by the opposition parties, who have seen and smelled blood in the water. In some respects, they should, according to my learned grandmother: “be very aware of what you ask for – you may just get it.” I don’t think that the Premier will go to an early election; rather, he wants to be seen as dealing with the mess, hosing the crud from the walls and ready to move forward with his own agenda. Going early falls into the category of a high-risk and perhaps even desperate move.
The latest opinion poll gives the ALP some hope. The Premier has been up front and visible and traveling well in the race towards 2010 but there are problems that he cannot afford to ignore. They are too many to enumerate or discuss in any detail but I decided to take a step back this week before committing myself to comment.
I do not like having to draw inferences from mainland politics into Tasmania. We are very different in many respects from the big island. However, the state has changed considerably over the last 30 years, not necessarily for the better. And I have watched those changes, sometimes bemused, other times amazed and on some occasions with incredulity, which duly prompted considerable anger. I can honestly say that I am not represented in Parliament by any party, in the sense that my values and those of our representatives coincide only marginally. I count myself as being among the alienated and marginalized, politically speaking.
It is impossible to quantify the feeling of a population when a government is removed. When Paul Keating was defeated, many thought a new golden age would arise, and for our troubles we had 11 years of unremitting grind and economic struggle under John Howard, the quintessential opportunist politician who was able to break promises and justify his actions in virtuous terms or cloaks them with righteousness. I cite but one example because it is the one I loath most – the GST that we were never going to have. There are many other difficulties that I had with the Howard government but they will keep. The point is that following Kevin Rudd’s victory last year, it appeared to me (and I know I wasn’t on my own because of the number of phone calls I received from interstate friends and acquaintances) that a great weight had been lifted from the Australian people and we could look forward with confidence to a new era.
Euphoria was widely perceived – as one of my closest friends said it felt as though a great weight had been lifted from us but it is an ephemeral phenomenon. Suffice to say that I for one have been disappointed by the federal ALP government but it is markedly better than its predecessor in many respects, notwithstanding the antics of the traveling circus that calls itself the federal opposition. Some of its notables and luminaries would be more at home in an institution for the mentally impaired.
In the Australian of 28 August, the paper’s national affairs editor Mike Steketee wrote an article entitled “Voters want results, not the vision thing.” Overlooking the fact that the particular newspaper continues to mourn the departure of John Howard nearly every day, the article was interesting, insofar as he described Kevin Rudd’s policies as appealing to the middle ground normally occupied by the Liberal party. Steketee concluded that in the final analysis, results counted more for voters than high-sounding visions. (The article is available quite freely on the Australian’s homepage but you have to use the search function – or the reference is http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24251895-25072.00.html).
It is almost conventional wisdom that electors are a cynical lot, and the major nerve in the body is that connected to the hip pocket but in some respects that argument is a no-brainer. Certainly, especially in times of economic hardship, basic needs of food, warmth and shelter transcend any consideration of high ideals. It dates back to early days in the evolution of humankind, but I would argue, with certain qualifications, that to have leaders without vision in the 21st century, is to submit to the lowest common denominator and that does not necessarily bode well for the community as a whole.
As an empirical social scientist, I know that Tasmania faces a great number of problems, much more fundamental than arguments over Gunn’s pulp mill, the relocation of the Royal Hobart Hospital, the high cost of petrol and financial disadvantage. I would argue, as I mentioned earlier, that the Tasmania I knew 30 years ago has changed. People are less friendly and we can’t always sheet home the blame to pesky migrants from the Big Island or elsewhere. Attitudes have changed and we lack the connectivity of years gone by. I lay responsibility for the extreme consumerism or me too-ism at the door of the economic rationalists or dries, who since the end of the Cold War, have dominated the corridors of power and wrecked the dreams of genuine social democrats, such as myself who believe in a fair, just and equitable society. None more so perhaps than two former heads of Treasury, who having drawn public service and parliamentary pensions, proceeded to advocate and continue to do so, keeping wages to a minimum and “letting the market decide.”
These ideas have been inculcated from the US while I would scarcely describe myself as anti-American, I am repulsed and revolted by the way they treat large segments of society. Their acolytes down under have tapped into the veins of the body politic and encouraged irresponsible private spending, rampant consumerism by continually increasing credit limits and private debt, and above all, driving the selfishness of the individual. We connect less with others, being judged by what we own or drive or consume – a self-indulgent society. And in so doing, the implication is that if you are poor, disadvantaged, out of work, then the fault is entirely yours – you are to blame! Yes folks, you are to blame – it is your fault! Behind the public manifestation of this attitude by politicians and their lackeys, corporate power insidiously reinforces the message.
To some extent, Tasmania has avoided some of the worst excesses of the mainland. We tend to be more generous and it remains a matter of pride that despite lower standards of living and wages, the people of this state donate proportionately more to charities and charitable work. The ABC Giving Tree at Christmas-time is but one example and I have nothing but admiration for former ABC presenter Ric Paterson, who at times was seemingly unafraid to take risks or play a version of dirty pool to unashamedly solicit donations. And the responses have been remarkable and I know quite a number of people, some with huge egos, who make large donations with little or no publicity. As Tiny Tim observes in Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol” – “God bless them everyone.”
However, the downside of the situation is that charities are making more frequent appeals and in some cases I regret to say, I almost demand money with menaces. This should not be the case. We are heavily taxed at both state and federal level in this country and deserve better. Our leaders need to do more and be seen to be so doing.
In my book, that is not good enough in itself. I disagree with Mike Steketee because I believe that we need politicians with vision. We need to know what goals, objectives and values are important and should be pursued. But the “vision thing” is an extremely slippery concept. I have spent many years pondering the nature of politics and how we should be governed but consider the following which is available on a website maintained by social psychologists:
Good business leaders create a vision, articulate the vision, passionately own the vision, and relentlessly drive it to completion. [John Welch, American businessman, former head of General Electric]
Vision is the key to understanding leadership, and real leaders have never lost the childlike ability to dream dreams… Vision is the blazing campfire around which people with gather. It provides light, energy, warmth and unity. [Bill Newman, Australian broadcaster]
The very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision. It’s got to be a vision you articulate clearly and forcefully on every occasion. [Theodore Hesburgh, former President of the University of Notre Dame].
These statements on leadership resonate very strongly with me. Although it could hardly be said to apply in the Australian context, except for the unfortunate aboriginal population, I continue to be immensely moved by Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous speech – you know the one – “I have a dream.” However, applied to practical politics, it is important to remember that vision can have its dark side. Things are not as simple as they sound. It is abundantly clear that as much as vision is the “stuff of leadership,” so too it is the stuff of manic tirade; of schizophrenic hallucination; of grandiose delusion. In his book on the leadership secrets of Hitler and Churchill, the Cambridge historian Andrew Roberts makes this point by quoting the American journalist Heywood Broun: “Just as every conviction begins as a whim, so does every emancipator serve his apprenticeship as a crank. A fanatic is a great leader who is just entering a room.” How true and while we have been spared the excesses of fanatics, I can think of a few political leaders who were on the tipping point at both federal and state level during the past 20 or so years.
It is here that we must strive for balance. I suspect that most people would probably wince at the thought of our leaders making grand statements that are totally unrealistic. I remember all too well, Bob Hawke stating that by 1990, no child in Australia would live in poverty. Let him come to parts of Tasmania and do the rounds with the mobile soup kitchens at weekends and see feral youth, descriptions of who have a Dickensian ring about them. Spare me excuses about utopian and totally unrealizable goals. I would like to see the leaders of our Tasmanian political parties articulate a vision for the state and take into account certain matters that I have been struggling to commit to this column for some time, only to be side-tracked by other events and issues, such as railways. (Yes, I know I said I wouldn’t mention them again).
Apart from staging the bleeding obvious about matters such as quality health care for all; better treatment for the disadvantaged and noting the deplorable state of a range of state government services, I would like to see more attention paid to the homeless; someone with courage to tackle the ping-pong game of responsibility played between federal and state government; and to cut through the endless and needless charade of private-public sector interaction. These games cut very little ice with me. In cities around the world, I have seen people sleeping rough, wrapping themselves in newspaper and crawling inside cardboard boxes, sewer pipes, in doorways, under railway bridges and anywhere out of the elements, while in the countryside haystacks are a luxury apartment and hedges, more temporary shelter. For every professional beggar identified and stigmatized by the media, there are countless numbers who beg because they lack options or hope. I despair because I am not often able to offer even some loose change and I wonder what that says about me as well as society.
It is a public scandal that we have a long waiting list for public housing and that requires addressing as a matter of priority. Too many fine words have been spoken with little action following in their wake. While there are (rightly so) shelters or refuges for battered women (but not the unmentionable battered men), there should be a place in all our cities and towns where a homeless person can shower; obtain a free meal and sleep in a clean bed overnight. This is necessary because some people are homeless by choice but it does not mean that they should be neglected or swept under the carpet. And I am not in any way being critical of the charities that much fine work in this area but barely a week goes by without Colony 47, Anglicare, the Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul’s, to name but a few asking for public assistance.
We have Third World conditions in a first world country and it is not confined to aboriginals and those with higher public profiles, having been discovered by the media. The New Testament assures us that the poor will always be with us but in the 21st century they are part of our greater community. And if economic conditions worldwide deteriorate, there is no guarantee that those who smugly assert that our salvation lies in a strong economic relationship with China are correct. It is only comparatively recently that the minds of some better thinkers have turned to the thought of a crash in China’s economy.
Meanwhile in our own backyard, I find I have a problem with those people who have been allocated public housing, which they then proceed to trash. We have seen far too many cases of Housing Commission premises being vandalized or torched, while awaiting renovation and new tenants. Given the overall problems associated with public housing, those who abuse it deserve the full weight of the law. I certainly would not like to see police state tactics but in public housing areas overseas, tenants sign a contract to maintain the premises in good condition and random inspection is not unknown. It is no coincidence that Metro buses do not serve these areas well and that many drivers are extremely worried about routes into “bandit country,” where they are greeted by rock-throwing not always perpetrated by angry youth. Whatever happened to the much vaunted plan to relocate members of the police force (I deplore the term police service as it is demeaning) in these areas, where they can experience firsthand the difficulties faced by people disadvantaged by circumstance? I do not expect to get an answer.
Housing and Human services should be a separate department run by a capable minister. I’m quite sure that either Allison Ritchie or Lin Thorp would be more than a reasonable choice given the paucity of talent available to Premier Bartlett. Admittedly, they are in the Legislative Council but there are precedents and that is where the Treasurer is currently located. I think it is a little too early to blood the talented Lisa Singh. A separate department requires ruthless examination of core competencies and the timeservers and hacks need to be moved on. I can’t ascribe any great wisdom to my mother but one day in an instance of inspired clarity, she observed that politicians should try spending six months living in a housing commission property on the basic wage. Not only do I agree but suggest that the idea could well be extended to any politician, state or federal, whose salaries are far beyond the reach of those who have been cynically exploited by governments as “battlers.” We are talking about the human race and the mark of a civilized society is how well it looks after its poorest and most disadvantaged. How long would a Malcolm Turnbull or any aspiring leader of any political party last over six months and how would they emerge from the experience?
Inevitably this will lead to my discussing the parasitic nature of the relationship between government and certain industries, which benefit from human misery. At some future time, I will take a closer look at gambling, which is surely as addictive as alcohol and tobacco. Long ago, I concluded that government tax revenue from those sources almost certainly guaranteed that there would be no intervention until such time as it could be proven that the costs of healthcare resulting from smoking, drinking and gambling began to outweigh revenue received. There are more restrictions now on smoking and the sale of tobacco products but only after sustained lobbying and medical proof of the damage done by the habit or more correctly, the addiction. The same could be said for alcohol but the fact remains that Australia is a nation of drinkers. The problem is to identify those at risk and by education, publicity and funded programs, take action. I enjoy a drink with the best of them but it is a serious social issue. I will but briefly mention in passing that the only time these addictions get any real publicity is when the health problems involved hit the bottom line of our captains of industry.
Recently there was a report about the cost to industry all for those who insisted on turning up for work when sick, and passing whatever they have onto others. How well I remember TV ads for a certain medication which enabled people to “soldier on” and in the last version of that particular ad, the legions of the po-faced emerged from houses into streets and off to work. It seems ages ago that I was responsible for a large staff and if anyone brought something communicable into the office, I sent them home. I recall distinctly a friend of mine returning from annual leave with a particularly virulent condition, wheezing and sneezing. We had over 600 in the office but were down to 150 in no time at all and it was a strain of influenza that was remarkably resistant and persistent. Some sufferers were caught by deadly secondary infection. I know of one death and several cases of pneumonia. These days there are no excuses for employers committing such acts of stupidity.
This is where we need vision-based leadership. Before the next election, I would like to see our three young political leaders articulate their view of the state and where it should be going. To briefly return to Jed Bartlett, he has been accused by his opponents of a series of back flips on various issues. To those people, I would say identifying a problem and changing policy and a course of action is a sign of good leadership. It is to be applauded not derided. And as I finished this article, I heard yet another tale of the failings in the medical system, with a young lad who has a perforated eardrum and has waited for corrective surgery for over three years. Quite predictably, Giddy turned up to describe the case as unfortunate and not the norm. Based on some considerable experience with medical practitioners of all stripe, I seriously question this pseudo-explanation.
No small matter of identity or ideas or what’s in a name?
Michel de Nostredame (1503 – 1566), usually Latinized to Nostradamus, was a French apothecary and reputed seer who published collections of prophecies that have since become famous world-wide. He is best known for his book Les Propheties (The Prophecies), the first edition of which appeared in 1555. Since the publication of this book, which has rarely been out of print since his death, Nostradamus has attracted an enthusiastic following who, along with the popular press, credits him with predicting many major world events.
In response to my previous blog, a comment was made by a contributor RB that he was “trying to figure out what my key message is” and that phrase formally raised for me, a question that has dogged me for many years. Nostradamus was chosen as my pen name by agreement with the Editor of Tasmanian Times, principally to avoid any publicity and maintain privacy. But also because the nickname Nostradamus was bestowed upon me by now retired QC who consulted me frequently on certain matters and believed that somehow I divined the future. Naturally enough I was flattered but my advice was soundly grounded on basic research and analysis, followed by a predictive view – the hallmark of an educated and capable social scientist. And somewhat (im)modestly, at the time I could claim a success of over 90%. I also attracted a number of other nicknames, some amusing, a few obscene and the majority eminently forgettable. And that should be enough about me.
If RB reads this week’s comment, I did try to send him an e-mail which bounced and said in part… ”the truth of the matter is that I do not have a particular line to push. I am a living anachronism, an old-fashioned social democrat with rather strong views on the distribution or rather redistribution of wealth and there I will let it rest. In point of fact, I regard my contributions to the Tasmanian Times as part of the product of an ongoing process of education and learning, which I firmly believe staves off senility.
With the understanding of the editor, and his forbearance, I will continue to campaign for vision by politicians and argue vehemently as an advocate in cases where I can be of assistance. Strange though it may seem and I am not referring to strange old black-and-white TV series, “The Twilight Zone,” people tend to find me. If my writings prompt even one reader to follow suit, then I have been successful.
