Puzzled and grumpy old man…

Why don’t I rejoice as I am supposed to at the size of the government’s surpluses? Yesterday on Journalspace I posted Look, I know I’m dumb… in which I contrasted two stories from yesterday’s Herald, one about the oddities of accounting in spending on Indigenous programs, the other on the amazing billions in the federal piggy bank. I am dumb when it comes to economics, I admit it. But why do I feel there is something distinctly odd about eleven years of quite savage cuts in all manner of things and fire sales of this or that…

For example, just taken from a quick Google around:

My, my, my…

Looks as though I will have to go in later and add a note to Literacy — Why I reject Kevin Donnelly’s educational analysis. Not that all the currently prevailing voices on schooling and education have suddenly found enlightenment, but it does seem there could be a degree of hope. This past week, for example, the ABC’s right-wing Phillip Adams, Michael Duffy, had a useful interview with Jane Caro & Chris Bonner, authors of The Stupid Country: How Australia is dismantling public education. And today in The Australian we have “FORMER Liberal Party adviser and outspoken critic of the school curriculum Kevin Donnelly…” But (yes, Virginia, you may start a sentence with “but” from time to time) when he praises Labor Party education policy and slams Julie Bishop there may be cause for concern; I do hope the Big D does not get the ear of too many on the Labor side of politics where it is not after all unprecedented to find education reactionaries. Perhaps Dr D has been reading his tea-leaves about a possible electoral outcome in, they now say, October, and jobs that may open up therewith…

See Labor ‘winning’ the education debate.

More on multiculturalism etc

Consider the following information from Year Book Australia, 2005. 

There has been a significant change in the source countries of permanent arrivals, with settlers arriving from more diverse regions of the world since the mid-1990s compared with the early-1980s (table 5.32). In 1982-83, 28% of settler arrivals to Australia were born in the United Kingdom, 9% were born in Vietnam and 7% were born in New Zealand. In 2002-03 the United Kingdom and New Zealand both contributed 13% of all settler arrivals, although in 2001-02 New Zealand-born settler arrivals contributed 18% of all settler arrivals in that year whereas settler arrivals born in the United Kingdom only contributed 10%. Settler arrivals born in China (7%), India (6%) and South Africa (5%) each contributed 5% or more of all settlers in 2002-03 compared with only 1%, 2% and 3% respectively in 1982-83 (table 5.32).

Indigenous affairs

I have just had a long conversation with my Aboriginal nephew in Queensland. I had been hoping to, in view of recent events. Naturally I asked him about those events. He doesn’t know Noel Pearson personally, though he does live not far from Pearson. What he did say, and I think it is true, is that what John Howard and Minister Mal Brough have done is not what Noel Pearson proposed. In fact my nephew said recent events are pretty disgraceful, in his view, and given the systematic slashing of all manner of Indigenous programs in the term of this government, he agrees with my suspicion that the agenda does involve an ultimate land grab, and an ideological and practical unravelling of any consideration of Indigenous Australians being in any sense a special group with special needs and a special place in our history: in short, the ultimate mainstreaming agenda — which weakens Indigenous rights as there are so few Indigenous Australians. Mining companies and developers would be salivating. Now that really is a big point of difference between Noel Pearson and the government, as whatever else Noel Pearson might advocate he has always been an advocate of the specialness of Indigenous Australians.

My nephew, I should add, is very active in promoting and supporting Indigenous business ventures, and that was what the call was actually about.

At the same time, I do commend Jim Belshaw’s latest entry on this topic. I should add that my nephew, an ex-Army man himself, would no doubt be very familiar with Norforce, but we didn’t get to talk about that.

John Howard: bullying expert extraordinaire…

[WARNING: some adult content appears in the second half of this post.]

If you thought last night’s rant was over the top, check me out on the subject in 2004 here (ex-Diary-X stored on the Big Archive). Julie Bishop’s performance last night is transcribed here.

…TONY JONES: You’re not suggesting that good retention rates or higher retention rates are a bad thing, are you? Still, you haven’t explained what this means – ‘a soulless and narrow form of national economic service’. National economic service, what does that mean?

JULIE BISHOP: The focus of Labor has been very much on the numbers only and not on the individuals. I mean, we’re talking about providing choice in schooling. The Labor Party had a policy about no new non-government schools, taking away choice from parents. They were focused on a very narrow definition of education that was strictly public education and strictly on numbers. We’re looking at choice and opportunity and that’s what the Prime Minister was discussing tonight. My point about retention rates was this: you don’t set a target, you pluck a target out of the air and say, ‘That must apply across the board’, you look at what’s best for individual students. Now some students would rather leave school at 16 and then come back to education later. The point is that they ought to have the basic skills when they leave school so that they can come back to education. It’s the quality of the education they receive, not whether they were forced to stay to complete Year 12, for example.

TONY JONES: Let’s be absolutely clear on this. Does the Government think it’s a bad idea to link education to national prosperity and productivity?

JULIE BISHOP: Not at all. Of course it’s fundamental. But the point is we’re not constrained by just a narrow focus on targets and numbers. We’re looking at the individual. We’re looking at choice and opportunity for students…

What the PM actually said last night is not at this stage on his web site, but it is in The Australian.

One reaction to the Howard/Obama stoush

This letter in today’s Sydney Morning Herald interested me.

Dear Mr Howard, I have been a registered Republican since 1964 and I am not a supporter of Barack Obama. However, you have gone way over the diplomatic line in your statements about him, and you offend our core values with your comments. My father fought on Guadalcanal defending our principles and your country. I served in the Marine Corps and was willing to pay the ultimate price for our values.

I grew up believing in our strong alliance with Australia. It irks me that you are not risking Australian lives today in Iraq (directly in the fighting) yet you believe you have a right to tell me who to vote for in my country.

Who we elect is our decision and we will base it on what we believe is best for us. If you want to apply for citizenship and you are willing and acceptable to become an American, I may listen to you; if not, butt out. You have not earned the right to tell me what to do.

I still have a deep respect for Australians; I do not respect you.

Michael Harris Norco (US)