Save Our
State South Australia IncSave Our
State South Australia Inc
Dedicated to the preservation of personal freedoms, moral standards, honest responsible government and principled political behaviour for the people of South Australia
(NOTE: What has John Howard to do with the SA Government? Unfortunately, A LOT. The abysmal behaviour of the Federal Government over the past decade has permeated political life everywhere. More's the pity.)
There are those who might tell you that John Howard is the worst Prime Minister Australia has ever had, and that his leadership has resulted in a very bad government indeed. You might accuse those of that opinion of party political bias, and you might have a point in many instances.
So without being party political, let's examine some of the basis for dissatisfaction. In what ways might John Howard stand condemned?
Before we start, let's be fair and point out that the Australian Media are culpable. They are lazy, do not check their facts, publish without regard for consequences, adore scuttlebutt (almost anything lascivious will do) and report comment or opinion as if it were fact. They might also be subject to media control. After all, nearly all our media is in two hands, Murdoch and Packer. If we had a free, responsible, ethical and energetic media, many of the issues listed below would probably not arise.
Of course, however good or bad our media might be "we the people" have our responsibilities. We must be discerning, examine alternative sources of information and above all THINK before we decide - let alone before we vote.
THE strongest element of the democratic "Westminster" system is the rigid principle of Ministerial Responsibility. Ministers are expected to have such knowledge of their Department(s) that they can offer authoritative information in answer to any question within their portfolio(s). In other words, it is their responsibility to ensure Parliament is properly and truthfully informed. It is also an imperative Ministerial duty that Cabinet be apprised of all pertinent facts so that Government can make accurate judgements about which decision(s) might be in Australia's best interests. If a Minister is in any way derelict in these duties they are required to resign, or face the ignominy of being sacked. Yet in the Howard government this situation does not exist. Generally, the Prime Minister expresses complete confidence in the Minister and the people blamed are the senior public servants who during an enquiry dutifully admit of their errant ways - and they aren't sacked either! Nobody accepts responsibility, least of all the Minister involved. So nobody is responsible for our entering a war in Iraq based on completely false information. Nobody is responsible for warnings about bar and nightclub "targets" not being issued to Australian tourists prior to the Bali bombing. Nobody was responsible for the "children overboard" affair which arguably decided the last federal election. A responsible Prime Minister who actually cared about the democratic process would have put a stop to this erosion of ministerial responsibility and might even have resigned from their office if they could not stop this pernicious behaviour.
If you thought "all the way with LBJ" was bad, concerning the unnecessary Vietnam War, the kowtowing to the US over the Iraq war must astonish you. The Howard government is by all appearances desperate to permanently link our Country to the US via a Free Trade Agreement. Furthermore, foreign officials are not just allowed to make public comment about Australia's political situation, but are encouraged to do so. We have also just signed a memorandum of agreement to assist with the development of the "Son of Start Wars" missile defence program and provide facilities for US forces in Australia. Clearly Australia is destined to become the US 51st State under this regime.
We were told a lot about the Tampa affair, but not that our behaviour contravened the UN Law Of The Sea Convention 1982 and the International Convention For The Safety Of Life At Sea 1948 - (The "SOLAS" Convention) which came into force for Australia:on 6th January 1960. Similarly, the "children overboard" affair was shameful electioneering which was proved to be deliberately untruthful afterwards. The liberties taken with the truth over Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Distruction, and their purported links to terrorists after no such weapons were found, were and are completely inexcusable. The horribly expensive and discriminatory gun buy-backs were based on a total misrepresentation that they would protect Australia's population, notnotwithstanding worldwide information that such confiscations are counter-productive and actually increase criminal firearms use. Recently we have the outrageous television advertised 'spin' on Medicare where a further erosion of the principles under which Medicare was formed is described as 'Strengthening'. Only in the last day or two, Howard announced that Federal Cabinet would "re-examine" the proposed nuclear waste dump in South Australia as if this indicated his concern for our State's views on the matter. The truth is that his government's compulsory annexing of the land required has been ruled illegal by the High Court, so if the waste dump is to proceed the issue must be reexamined. Please add your own examples of such untruthfulness - there are plenty of them!
The proposed national nuclear waste dump in South Australia has been rejected. That's good. Need we add that three Liberal seats in this State would have been lost if the dump had gone ahead? Will there be a change of heart if the Liberals are re-elected?
Refugees, including refugee children, are routinely imprisoned without trial for any period convenient to the Australian Government. That government has introduced law after law granting it the power to do whatever it will and to limit the power of the Federal Courts to adjudicate on such matters. More detail is available here. The damage done to Australia's reputation for the upholding of human rights is incalculable. The antagonistic attitude to aboriginal issues adds fuel to this fire.
At last, 10000 people, many of whom had been imprisoned detained for over three years in Nauru are to be granted permanent residence. Welcome, but what a pity it took an impending election for this to happen.
Post-election reinforcement:
We are now "blessed" with the most draconian, unnecessary and frightening destruction of individual human rights Australia has yes seen in the 2005 anti-terrorism law and the new Industrial Relations legislation. Where will it all end?
Recent events have shown that the Howard government has been collecting and hoarding excess taxes so that they can then use them on publicly-funded electioneering and pre-election largess. This is no way to manage any country's finances. Nor is it in any way ethical.
Post-election continuation
Just how much of your money and mine has recently been spent on blatant party-political advertising? The blanket coverage on industrial relatons alone should embarass any principled politician. The anticipated HUGE federal budget surplus shows that far more taxes are being collected than are needed to fulfil the federal government's planned expenditures, which further suggests that was the case at the 2005 election, there will be planty available with which to bribe the eletorate next time - why else would you hoard so much money?
The apparently noble assistance given to East Timor so that it's people could be free of violence and become and independent nation is beginning to look very tainted indeed. Deliberately refraining from ratifying the international treaty which would divide the distance between the coasts of the two countries equally, and thereby give much needed oil and gas reserves to East Timor, the Howard government has succeeded in demanding total control of "Timor Gap" oil & gas reserves through a treaty direct with that country.
The Kyoto agreement which would limit our production of "greenhouse gases" remains unratified by Australia. On the contrary we have a policy which subsidises and entrenches the use of diesel fuel over renewable energy sources and continues to tolerate the burning of brown coal. In addition the Howard government accepts and applauds the clear-felling of old forests for wood-chipping because temporary employment is apparently more important than the preservation of heritage land for future generations. The so-called water agreement simply entrenches excessive water usage for any existing purpose without regard for the absurdity of using irrigation water for cotton and rice farming.
It is agreed that Mark Latham has been forthright in condemning people under parliamentary privilege, however this open confrontation is quite different from the spreading of scurrilous rumours about a person and their family members via the national media. A strong ethical leader would unreservedly condemn such behaviour and furthermore would take steps to ensure that no member of his Party was so engaged. Howard demonstrably failed this simple test. .So far as the behaviour of his team in parliament is concerned, a simple example occurred only a few days before the "winter recess". It appears that the Speaker (Niel Andrew) had interrupted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Jenny Macklin) as she sought to make a statement concerning the tabling of documents the previous day. Accordingly, she did explain immediately parliament resumed, and her explanation was immediately accepted by the Speaker.. Tony Abbott intervened. The Speaker explained. Tony Abbott persisted in weak and silly insistence that Jenny Macklin had lied to the House, was derelict in her duty, etc, etc, no matter what rational explanation the Speaker offered to stop him. OK - so you and I might wonder what we pay such people for, but a strong Prime Minister would not allow such behaviour which does nothing but bring the Government into disrepute.
Apparently, no evidence or counter-argument is necessary to refute or deny an undesired accusation made by anyone. Are you fed up with denials and assertions offered without any evidence whatsoever? We electors are entitled to explanations, not dogmatic statements.
Surely the population of Australia is much comforted that if confronted by terrorists, they have their 'fridge magnets to protect them.
In a way it is perhaps just as well that the silly 'fridge magnets were issued. It did at least put the threat into perspective. The proposed Anti Terrorist legislation was, however, no joke. The behaviour towards the MV Tampa offended against International Law and our behaviour towards refugees - notice that the Howard government persists in calling them illegal immigrants - offends against international treaties and laws concerning refugees. All this presents "boat people" as foreigners of whom we should be very frightened and who are deservedly treated as less than human. The simplest investigation would have shown that what was really needed was control of people smugglers. (Interestingly, once - very belatedly - action was taken against people smugglers, the problem diminished to a trickle.)
Similarly, rather than deal with the issue of criminal misuse of firearms, gun owners have been scapegoated in two entirely unproductive gun buy-back schemes. Criminals must laugh heartily as they enjoy a greater and greater advantage as fewer and fewer people can "shoot back" and more and more citizens become unreasonably frightened of anything that resembles a firearm.
University support from the federal government has been successively cut so that fee rises were inevitable. Full fee-paying overseas students have become an imperative source of revenue for the Universities; however full fee-paying Australian students are now permitted and are equally welcome. In addition, students are now expected to "contribute" by the payment of ever-increasing HECS fees. Students can, of course take out loans to help finance their education - how kind.
At primary and high school level, there has been huge federal support for private schools and much less for public schools at a ratio of around 2:1 Australia is moving towards a situation in which education is a commodity the quality and quantity of which is determined by the wealth of the person requiring it. No modern country can afford to discard the ability of young people who happen not to be born into wealth, but the Howard government seems implacably wedded to that outmoded idea.
Medicare was designed to be a link to a universal free medical system which would ensure the physical health of all citizens without discrimination of any kind. Due to years of underfunding and the rising costs imposed in what was intended to be a free system, our public hospitals have been in crisis. The Howard government's bizarre response to this situation was not to provide money to those public hospitals but instead to subsidise private insurance in an attempt to move patients from the public into the private health sector. Not surprisingly, this illogical strategy has met with little success.
The gap between the income of our lowest paid workers and the highest has increased more sharply under the Howard governments than under any other in Australian history. Thus, while supporting extraordinarily wealthy people and many with annual incomes that would support a family for life, Australia also has an increasing number of people in poverty and homelessness. This breeds many societal problems that need never arise with a more equitable distribution of our country's assets..
If you can think of anything good or positive to say about Howard's performance, please do let us know. For the life of me, I can't find anything. No wonder people say he is Australia's worst Prime Minister.
BUT inexplicably, he WON the last election with an increased majority and gaining effective control also of the Senate!
Contact us: admin@sos-sa.org.au
How was it possible for a person who has lied so much to the Australian people there is a site dedicated to list all the lies he has told (google for johnhowardlies), who has grossly undermined our national independence in favour of that of the United States, who has led us into a totally unnecessary war, be reelected?
I asked a friend about the electorate electing liars and he said "They ALL lie". Is that the issue? Do the people of Australia have so little faith in their politicians that they would prefer to reelect the liar they know rather than choose the liar they don't know?
Is the problem simply that people are forced to vote and this has the effect that many of them vote without care or thought? That idea looks thin following the voluntary voting system in the US returning Howard's fellow liar, George Bush. Remember, too, that the destroyer of Britain's industry, Margaret Thatcher, was reelected twice, also under a voluntary voting system.
Were people so greedy that they wanted tax cuts and cash payouts ie they were bribed into voting for Howard? Well, maybe.
Was Mark Latham so inept and unlikeable that almost anyone would look better than he did? Sorry, I don't think that is right, either.
We could go on trying to find explanations of this kind without getting any closer to any reasonable explanation other than voter stupidity, which surely isn't the full explanation, either.
So what CAN we suggest?
Is it the fact that the two major parties are so similar that choosing between tham is like tossing a coin - it's just a matter of which side turns up, it's still the same coin? Let's think about that.
Both major parties are using the same economic model, are they not? They both rely on sustained economic growth to generate Australia's wealth and prosperity, don't they?
Isn't it true that the only real difference between the Coalition and the ALP is, who benefits from the wealth? The Coalition puts more money into the "big end of town" on the basis of "incentive" whereas the ALP prefers to put more wealth at the disposal of the poor, to eliminate poverty and reduce the difference between rich and poor. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Question. Is this economic model used by both the major parties, sustainable? Can Australia (or any other country for that matter) experience continued growth? Can they just grow, and grow and grow and grow and grow for ever? Without any penalty of any kind? Does this make sense to you? This website explores the problems arising from unrelenting growth here.
Contact us: admin@sos-sa.org.au