Ding Dong, the Despot's Dead

We all tend to remember where we were and what we were doing at certain seminal moments in history. Like for instance when Princess Diana was killed, I clearly recall being in the back yard pulling out weeds when my wife came out to tell me the news. Not being particularly interested in things to do with the royal family I nodded in acknowledgement and went straight back to the gardening. Similarly when Australia II won the America's Cup in 1983, I remember being on school holidays on the Gold Coast and getting up to watch the race at the crack of dawn, never an easy thing for a teenager. 

Then, 40 years later to the day, sitting in the office on an otherwise non-descript Tuesday afternoon when one of my co-workers turned to me and passed on the announcement that after almost 9 years, the ghastly reign of Dan Andrews was about to come to an end. Needless to say, I wasn't expecting this given his previous assurances that he intended to serve out his term, but as someone who has turned breaking promises and lying into an art form during his time in power, in hindsight it is probably not that surprising.

One can only speculate on his reasons for getting out now, but the circumstances surrounding his sudden departure were replete with the sort of reprehensible traits which categorised his time in office. Aside from breaking a key election promise, there was the contempt shown to his fellow parliamentarians by keeping his decision secret and having them find out only shortly before his press conference. But then again, the sheer arrogance of the man meant that the government has only ever been about him and his appointed lackeys in the Premier's department, and to his mind, the rest of the ministry and party room were only ever there to be the stooges doing his bidding, or to take the fall when things go horribly wrong (remember Jenny Mikakos anyone?). 

Then, once the chaos caused by his snap decision to resign manifested itself in a grubby factional squabble, and meant that his anointed successor could have been rolled in favour of Ben Carroll, he delivered one last petulant dose of trademark Andrews bullying, hectoring and hurling profanities at his factional opponents in a party room meeting described as "nuclear" until he finally got his way. God knows why he cared so much given his stated intention of riding off into the sunset to play golf and read books, but I know for sure we will never find out. Being forthcoming and transparent was never his thing. 

As I reflect back now over Andrews' time in office and find myself flying into an apoplectic rage worthy of Basil Fawlty, it's easy to forget that not all measures taken on his watch were bad. As anyone who has tried to battle the Melbourne traffic would testify, removing a bunch of redundant level crossings was most welcome, and assisted dying laws now allow anyone with a terminal illness to end their lives with dignity and without having to endure unnecessary suffering and palliative care. And just maybe recent laws curtailing the ability of Councils and NIMBYs to reject what are otherwise eminently sensible housing developments will in time help to ameliorate the current housing shortage and enable our young people to be able to afford their own home.

However these things pale in comparison with things like the reckless financial spending, the appalling state of the health system, the falling standard of living of Victorians relative to the rest of the country, and last but not least, the ham-fisted and overly-oppressive manner in which the Andrews government handled the COVID pandemic.

The irritating thing is that many of these things we have had to endure and the state Victoria finds itself today arose as a direct result of the autocratic, arrogant and secretive way in which Andrews ran his government, and could easily have been averted with a greater commitment to transparency, consensus and ministerial responsibility in the normal manner of the Westminster system.

But no, Dan in his hubris always knew best, even when he patently didn't. And his insufferable ego never permitted him to admit to any mis-steps, much less apologise for them. 

Taking up the offer to use the military to oversee hotel quarantine? No, stuff it, I've got a better idea, just get an untrained private security firm to do it.

Illegally signing up for an infrastructure programme promoted by the Chinese government and not tell anyone about it until I get busted? Great idea. Oh and then after I've tried to lumber the state with this shitty agreement and I go on a trip to China, I'm not going to tell you why I'm going.

Run our build projects by experts at Infrastructure Australia to see if they're really worth the enormous cost? No, what the hell would they know. And if they don't go ahead I miss out on getting the new tunnel named after me ! 

Submit myself to media interviews where Virginia Trioli or Neil Mitchell might question my decisions? The temerity of them ! No, they're blacklisted, instead I'll  just communicate by Facebook or Twitter where I can't be scrutinised.

The cost of servicing the state's debt sure become a challenge. That can't be because I spent too much can it? No, its the Reserve Bank's fault for putting up rates !

The legacies left by the appalling financial and societal management by the Andrews government over the past 9 years include a government debt dwarfing all other states and territories; the highest state taxes (small wonder over 7,000 business left Victoria in the last financial year); a generation of young people suffering mental illness caused by 291 days of lockdown; a state that now has the 2nd lowest income per household in the country and which will soon be overtaken by resource-poor South Australia; and CBD and St Kilda Road precincts blighted by endless ugly construction hoardings for projects running years over schedule. Those are some serious problems to fix, and I wish Jacinta Allan good luck in her attempt to address them. She is going to need it.

I sometimes idly speculate on the identity of Dan's political muse, the person who most informed his ideology and style. It's certainly not one of the great modern Labor leaders in Bob Hawke or Paul Keating. Hawke was well-known for empowering his ministers and making full use of the considerable talent in his party room, something that was anathema to Dan. Keating recognised the importance to the economy of a vibrant and competitive private sector, introducing policies that allowed it to thrive, whereas Dan showed little interest in private business other than as a piggy-bank to pay for his pet projects.

Or funnily enough, might it be Donald Trump? The two share many similarities in that they both have colossal egos, are terrible with money, they both screwed up on pandemic management and they repeatedly trash institutions that are vitally important to a thriving democracy, like the courts, the free press and anti-corruption bodies.

But no, I think the best fit is Erich Honecker, the sinister former Chairman of East Germany who was no doubt the inspiration for many a Bond villain. When you think about it, it makes sense. Certainly Melbourne during the pandemic came to feel like East Berlin during the Cold War, as the oppressed citizens on the wrong side of the wall looked wistfully towards the west with all its political and personal freedoms and significantly better standard of living. Leaving the regime was prohibited, and anyone trying to flee across the wall into the west was shot on sight by the Stasi. 

As a puppet state of communist Russia the government controlled the economy and most other aspects of daily life in much the same way that Victoria was run during the pandemic. And when the wall finally came down and Germany was re-unified, the western part of the country was horrified when it saw how badly the east had been run down in 45 years, much like my reaction when I saw the Melbourne CBD for the first time in 6 months when the lockdown nightmare finally ended in October 2021.

When the extent of Honecker's abuses of power became fully known, he fled to Chile to escape prosecution and eventually died there in 1994. Unfortunately that's where I think the similarities with Dan end. While his time in office has left Victoria a damaged state with serious financial difficulties, his conduct was probably not criminal. Or if it was, after the Fitzgerald inquiry in Queensland which led to the jailing of several members of parliament, governments with dirty laundry they don't wish to be aired are now are careful to limit the frame of reference of royal commissions or other inquiries.

So I think we'll just have to take satisfaction from the fact that this abhorrent individual is finally gone from public life. If there has ever been a more mean-spirited, arrogant, autocratic, sneaky, mendacious, incompetent, petulant bully to darken the door of an Australian parliament I can't readily think of one.

Good riddance, Despot Dan, and may we never see your like again.

Let's Smoke our Way Out of the Red

Following the RBA's unexpected decision to raise the cash rate this week, it was interesting to watch the reaction from the east coast Premiers at the National Cabinet meeting the next day. Our own teflon-coated Victorian leader Daniel Andrews was particularly vocal, claiming that what the RBA was doing wasn't working to bring down inflation (note: it IS working, just not as quickly as everyone would like), and citing that his main concern was for home-owning families who would struggle to make mortgage payments.

However, no-one who observed Andrews' behaviour during the dark days of the pandemic would be fooled by this apparent display of empathy, where it quickly became apparent that he possesses about as much empathy as your average cane toad. What he is really worried about is that with state government debt about to hit an eye-popping $160 billion, every 0.25% increase in the cost of debt raises the annual interest bill by $400 million, which leaves him with less taxpayer cash to waste on things like buying a netball team, giving everyone $500 for uploading a copy of their power bill, setting up a new state electricity commission and state funerals for coffee shop owners.

While Victoria represents an extreme case, it does beg the broader question of how in this suddenly alarming interest rate environment, the states are going to be able to rein in debts racked up during the pandemic. Cutting spending too much at a time when most states are dealing with atrocious health systems, falling education standards and the urgent need for extra housing probably isn't going to be an option, so they're going to need to get bold and creative about raising extra revenue. And having recently been over to the USA and seen how they're doing things there, one obvious and rich vein of revenue is there for any government with the gumption to implement it - cannabis.

Of course, there are reasons that recreational drugs like cannabis and cocaine are currently illegal in most parts of Australia. As the comedian Jim Jefferies so deftly put it, they are similar to the reasons why ownership of guns is heavily restricted here. For every 1000 people who harmlessly enjoy the odd spliff now and again or who keep guns on their property to control foxes and other pests, there is one person who will develop mental health problems or go crazy shooting people down at Port Arthur.

However, there are fairly strong arguments that run counter to this and support the case for cannabis to be made legal. First of all, cannabis has been made legal now in almost half the states in the USA and while the stories of mass shootings coming from there hit the news with depressing regularity, any negative effects of legalising cannabis in terms of increased crime, addiction or other health effects certainly haven't been newsworthy. Also the legalising of cannabis has dragged its sale out of the shadows and in places like New York you can now easily purchase your products from clean, accredited dispensaries instead of some seedy back-street dealer.

Secondly, this wouldn't be the first time a state government has legalised something that might have adverse social effects. It's hard to imagine now with the abundance of poker machine-infested pubs and incessant gambling advertisements on the TV, but many forms of gambling weren't legal not too long ago. I remember moving to Melbourne at the start of 1992, at which time there was no casino or poker machines in the state, obviously no on-line gambling and pretty much the only things to wager money on were horse and greyhound racing. Sadly the subsequent liberalisation of gambling laws has led to social problems, but as state governments have become heavily addicted to the revenue, it's very difficult to see a reversal happening any time soon. But by the same token, could any adverse societal effects from legalising cannabis be worse than what the relaxation of gambling laws have created? The evidence from overseas would suggest not.

There are plenty of good reasons to justify legalising cannabis but if you needed any more, perhaps the government could give an undertaking that any taxes raised would only be applied to a particular area which needs urgent attention, which in Victoria frankly is not building train lines between outer suburban stations but fixing the public health system. A quick look online at government revenue raised by the Colorado government (a state with roughly the same population as Victoria) since it legalised cannabis in 2014 shows that over $2.4 billion has been collected, with annual taxes raised now running at between $300-$400 million a year. Surely that would go a long way to helping attract and train nurses, fix up emergency departments and bolster the ambulance system.

However compelling the arguments though I don't see Andrews buying them. First of all, taking cannabis can be fun and make you giggle uncontrollably, and fun and laughter are two of the things that Andrews seems to hate most in life. Secondly, why go to the bother introduce a fresh stream of revenue when instead you can just hit private business (another thing he hates) with more payroll and land tax? 

I don't know what horrors he and Treasurer Pallas are proposing in the state budget in a few weeks to deal with the crippling state debt but I know its not going to be pretty. I just wish I could get hold of a nice joint to smoke to help me deal with the pain.

It's the Voice, can you Understand it?

Since getting back from Christmas holidays, its been impossible to turn on the TV or pick up a paper without being bombarded by articles or stories concerning the proposed indigenous "Voice to Parliament". Like most people I've been aware of different proposals that have been floating around for years to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution, however now it's clear that barring a major U-turn, the government is going to take a specific proposal to a referendum later this year, which prompted me to go on-line and find out more about it.

After looking in a few places to see what specific question we're being asked to decide, it looks like being some variant of the proposal on the "From the Heart" website, which broadly, is to ensure there is a body enshrined in the Constitution which would enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to provide advice to Parliament on things which affect them.

It sounds simple enough but like most proposed constitutional amendments, contains no detail on how the Voice might work beyond that, a point which the Opposition has seized on and which the Government has so far pushed back on. To be fair to the Government, when changes are proposed to the Constitution, it is fairly usual practice for good reason to not provide a lot of detail at the time, as it is the role of Parliament to then debate and pass legislation which is made pursuant to that new power. For example, if the Japanese have started raining bombs on Darwin all of a sudden you want the government to have flexibility to pass laws and take action in a hurry, not wait for some esoteric argument to play out in the High Court about the extent of the "Defence" power. 

What I was however a bit surprised about was why they look to have decided to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution, instead of just enacting legislation, as the Commonwealth already has the power dating back to 1967 to make special laws affecting Aboriginal people. I suppose putting something in the Constitution ensures the permanence of the Voice, and that it can't be legislated away like previous indigenous bodies such as ATSIC. However the problem is that referendums to change the Constitution are notoriously hard to get through.

First you have the issue caused by our unrepresentative, regressive and outdated Federal system, the farce of which was on full display during the COVID pandemic, which means that not only an absolute majority of people have to vote for the change, but also a majority of states. 10,000,000 plus NSW, Victorian and Queensland residents might approve the change, but if 2,500,000 people from WA, SA and Tasmania don't, then the whole thing is a dead duck. But aside from that, the fact is that no matter how worthy the Voice might be, there are a lot of people who just won't vote for it.

People, for instance, who are battling with cost of living pressures and who think the government should be concentrating on more pressing things like energy policy, fixing the health system and housing affordability instead of spending so much time and effort on what, to them, is a fairly remote and abstract issue.

People who live in areas where indigenous crime is a long-standing problem and who for that reason are unlikely to be in a charitable frame of mind come referendum day.

Recent migrants who are facing their own challenges fitting in to their new country and either don't have knowledge of or aren't all that interested in Australian history, and are therefore less likely to understand the context of how the Voice has come about.

Then there are people who after 3 years of the COVID pandemic are thoroughly sick of the government interfering in their lives and for that reason will be less inclined than usual to support something the government wants.

Recognising the possibility that the referendum will be rejected, Albanese has left the door open for the Voice to be subsequently legislated, but this strikes me as politically untenable. If you've just had the voters reject something by referendum, how do you then turn around and say, we're going to ignore what you want and enact it anyway? So if as now seems likely, the Government does decide to put the Voice to a referendum, their one shot in the locker is to try and bring the voters with them.

Which brings me to the question of the Voice's merits. Everyone will have an opinion on this and mine is I would like to be able to support it. I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that having their lands over-run 250 years ago by a technologically superior civilisation had devastating consequences for indigenous Australian which has led ultimately to an entrenched cycle of disadvantage relative to the European settlers. 

To the extent that the Voice takes heed of what the leaders of those communities say and enables government to take positive steps to break that cycle and improve the lot of indigenous Australians, then that has to be a good thing. The problem though with many a sensible or well-meaning initiative is that once it reaches the political sewer of Canberra, it either gets knocked on the head completely (remember the emissions trading scheme anyone?), gets warped into something it was never intended to be (NDIS), or the execution of it gets completely messed up (Robodebt, which was meant to clean up welfare fraud but wound up being an unmitigated disaster).

Right on cue the political wrangling has started with the Nationals opposing it, the Liberals yet to declare their position, and the Greens likely to oppose it because it doesn't go far enough. In view of this and with the polling tight, it's unclear what will happen in the months ahead other than the Government has got its work cut out trying to promote the "Yes" case and also stop the proposal being bastardised in the process. 

Unlike Dutton I don't expect full enabling legislation to be presented ahead of the referendum but I do have some concerns about how the referendum process will play out in the months ahead, and that the Voice might become something it was never supposed to be, or lead to other unintended consequences. 

Therefore, with apologies to John Farnham for appropriating his lyrics for this blog title, to assist with everyone's understanding I don't think it's unreasonable for the Government to answer some key questions, including:

• What sort of issues the Voice will provide advice to Parliament on: there are the obvious ones of course, but if taken literally, the wording of the referendum question could mean the Voice will have a say on every piece of legislation brought before Parliament, because as citizens of Australia, ipso facto every law "affects them". I am sure that is not the intention but it is something that needs to be made clear.
• To what extent is it intended Parliament must have regard to the Voice, and how will any limitations on its powers be enshrined in legislation: the Government has been at pains to stress that it is an advisory body only, however in the future if the Greens or another party on the extreme left ever got the balance of power in the House of Representatives, there is the risk that the Voice may be strengthened to become a de facto unelected third chamber of Parliament with real power. Having been locked in my house by Brett Sutton for the best part of a year during the pandemic, I for one have a violent objection to unelected officials or bodies being given significant powers by the government, and so it's important to know this can't happen.
• Given the failure of other indigenous representative bodies in the past such as ATSIC, what practical measures is the government intending to take to make sure the Voice doesn't go the same way: this is even more critical seeing the Voice will be a permanent fixture of the Constitution and it would be a shameful outcome if it failed and sat forever in the Constitution as an indictment on Australia's inability to reconcile with its First Nations people.  
• What will this mean for the 96% of Australians who aren't indigenous: I raise this because increasingly these days, its impossible to attend any event no matter how mundane or catch a plane without having to sit through "welcome to country" rituals of varying complexity or paying respects to the traditional owners of the land. I find this irksome for 2 reasons, one is that a tedious legal seminar on something like the reform of State property taxes has nothing to do with indigenous affairs, and the second is that it smacks of the shallow tokenism people or organisations increasingly adopt in the Digital Age as a substitute for doing something meaningful and involving genuine self-sacrifice to support a cause. My concern is that rather than focus on the difficult problems the Voice is meant to try and solve for indigenous people, it is used as a pretext by the "woke" brigade as a means of imposing more and more observances and requirements on the rest of us, which will not only have zero effect on improving things for indigenous people but will instead just create more division.

As the referendum is still a long way off, hopefully the answers to these and some other questions are provided, but unlike the 1967 referendum and the same-sex marriage plebiscite, I think this is going to be close run thing. To get it through, the government is going to have to work hard to properly make its case, not just bat away questions or criticism as they have done so far. 

I really hope the Government can get this right, because if the Voice does get rejected, that won't be regarded well internationally, but more critically, it would be potentially devastating for indigenous people.