This is good news. It just might be that the Bracks government is listening and bowing to community pressure.

I’ve certainly harped on from time to time about climate change on this blog. As I’ve said before it is the single most significant issue (social and environmental) the world has ever faced and the world is failing to act.

1360 scientists from 95 countries have had to reiterate their claims AGAIN, despite there being wide spread acceptance of these issues in the scientific community. Why? Because when one crack-ball, irresponsible idiot says that climate change isn’t happening or isn’t happening at the rate that it is meant to be happening the media (largely driven by the right) picks up on it and reports it widely.

Stop denying climate change, it is really irresponsible and people are already dying as a result. It may sound extreme but it is a fact.

I’ve just started on the latest edition of Quarterly Essays by John Hirst regarding the inadequacies of the Family Law Court in Australia.

I’ve only read the first section so I’m a little reluctant to pass judgement at this stage. However a couple of things are noteworthy. Firstly, that John Hirst has written it. I would loosely place him to the right of the political spectrum which would be a first for Quarterly Essays and an interesting move. This is not a criticism of QE who do a fine job and have managed to engage both the left and right quite will.

Secondly, I’m a little concerned that there are some sexist undertones to the argument. Generally the Family Law Court favours the mothers and, as Hirst has outlined, the law – or more importantly the implementation of the law – tends to discriminate against the non-custodial partner (generally the father). No doubt we have all heard of cases where Men have been discriminated against by this court and every legal institution will have its faults and make bad decisions.

The premise of the courts actions as the ‘caring court’ is that it protects the child. A fine principle I’m sure we’d all agree. This means being lenient on the custodial patent for illegally restricting access to the child by the non-custodial parent (generally the father). From what little I’ve read it would seem that there should be stronger penalties, carefully applied to the custodial parent for not granting access (often this is simply a matter of not answering the door when the father comes to pick the child up).

However the underlying assumption of Hirst’s argument (it would seem in my early reading) is that children need a male role model. This is something I flatly reject and I think this argument is inherently sexist (because mothers can’t bring up children on their own) and homophobic (because lesbians can’t bring up children which I’m sure extends to homosexuals as well).

What children need is a loving, relatively conflict free life. This comes in many shapes and sizes including single mothers and same-sex partners.

The ‘sphere and the media have been discussing issues of federalism and centralism, so I thought I’d weigh in on the debate.

It was all triggered by Howard’s comment that Australia didn’t need the states. Noteworthy contributions on the discussion come from John Quiggin and Troppo Armadillo.

I’ve stated before with regards to both Universities and Industrial Relations, I’m a centralist and believe (albeit reluctantly) that the federal government should have control over both of these issues. This is based on my belief that I prefer a two-tier system with a Central government and Local governments, with constitutionally enshrined rights (currently, they are simply a product of state legislation) and redistribution the separation of powers outlined in section 51 of the Constitution so that Local governments had constitutionally designated responsibilities and roles. It would also mean a reconstruction of out parliament and voting systems to ensure checks and balances so that minority and regional interests are represented.

John Quiggin is quite critical of what he terms ‘regional government’ which is what Howard is arguing for. It seems hard to criticise a bloke like John (all round nice guy and clearly very bright). I don’t necessarily want to do that but it seems to be that John is critical of a very specific form of ‘regional government’ I’d like to have a more detailed response from him. Firstly, I’d suggest that 20 regional councils are a bad idea, but 50 to 100 perhaps, or ever 200 to 300 aren’t and may go some way towards overcoming these problems (currently there are over 600 Local governments in Australia).

Secondly, he makes no mention of the parliamentary and constitutional changes. While John is concerned about an uneven distribution of power to the metropolitan regions, I’d suggest that this is an excellent opportunity to address some power imbalances.

In a system such as this with a regionally focussed distribution of power and resources there are always going to be arguments about how democratic they are. Should a small regional government have as much power and resources as the large urban ones? What about equity of access and universal service provision? Should the number of votes allocated to a regional government be equal so as to have regional equity or should it be weighted according to population so there is equity in numbers? I’d lean towards the regional equity.

With anything like this, checks and balances need to rectify power imbalances and this should be a founding principle of these sorts of distributions. Hence regional equity which is somewhat enshrined in our current constitution. In my mind this is more democratic is about more than voting, it’s also about access to power and the ability to influence.

In addition, I’d argue that this sort of decentralised model would improve service delivery as the councils would be small enough to be locally adjusted which would place communities in greater control of their own destinies – something I never seem to shut up about. State governments are simply too big to do this at the moment.

Finally, I’d like to mention the role of time and history. The Senate was set up as the ‘State’s House’ where state governments were given a voice and the opportunity to block legislation. Today, the states are completely irrelevant in the Senate but it continues to provide a valuable check and balance (up until July 1 when it becomes a rubber stamp). Over time its role has changed. The development of any new system will be problematic to some extent and its end result will only ever be known after time and this role will continue to evolve. This needs to be taken into account in these discussions.

When I’m ‘between books’ I sometimes pick up my copy of Our Word is Our Weapon: Selected writings of Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos. It’s not the sort of book you can really just sit down and read as it is far too dense but it’s good to pick up on occasion and read a couple of the writings. So I thought I’d share with you what would appear to be a bit of humour on behalf of Marcos.

Instructions on how to be named man of the year
1. Carefully combine a technocrat, a repentant oppositionist, a sham businessman, a union bully, a landowner, a builder, an alchemist in computation arts, a “brilliant” intellectual, a television, a radio, and an official party. Set this mixture aside in a jar and label it “Modernity.”
2. Take an agricultural worker, a peasant with no land, an unemployed person, an industrial worker, a teacher without a school, a dissatisfied housewife, an applicant for housing and services, a touch of honest press, a student, a homosexual, a member of the opposition regime. Divide these up as much as possible. Set them aside in a jar and label them “anti-Mexico.”
3. Take an indigenous Mexican. Take away the crafts and take a picture of her. Put her crafts and the photo in a jar and set aside. Label it “Tradition.”
4. Put the indigenous Mexican in another jar, set it aside, and label it “Dispensable.” Once must not forget to disinfect oneself after this last operation.
5. Now open a store and hang a huge sign that says, “Mexico 1994-2000: Huge End-of-the-Century Sale.”
6. Smile for the camera. Make sure the makeup covers the dark circles under the eyes caused by the many nightmares the process has caused.

I’ve never been a big fan of ‘I told you so’. However, if I remember correctly, I think I posted on the way the Bracks government’s increased stringency with regards to speeding was just a money grabber and that the reduced number of fatalities on the road was, quite literally, a coincidence. All the evidence would suggest that improving road quality (a much more expensive and non-revenue generating measure) is actually a more effective way of reducing the road toll.

This Easter’s road toll would appear to back this statement because, as a state, we have slowed down and it still proved to be a horrific weekend on our roads.

An unusual topic for me to cover but something worth mentioning anyway.

These people have no shame: “Several local Liberal branches will urge Mr Costello at the party’s state council meeting this weekend to cut the top marginal income tax rate from 47 to 30 cents in the dollar, a cost to revenue of up to $12 billion a year.”

I just don’t know where to begin!

For those of you who don’t know, “Rainbow” was a credible childrens TV show from the 70′s and 80′s. This clip was actually broadcast and watched by millions.

Check it out here.

From the PR Watch newsletter:

Australian journalist Neil Chenoweth has revealed that Rupert Murdoch “sidestepped stamp duty of $A53 million [U.S.$41.3m] and capital gains tax of up to $A1.2 billion [U.S.$936m] by moving control of his ultimate family company, Kayarem, to the Caribbean and listing it on the Bermuda Stock Exchange (BSE) a week before News Corporation was reincorporated in the United States last November. Documents filed with the BSE show that listing Kayarem in the tax haven allowed the Murdoch family to obtain a tax benefit when it sold its controlling interest in the Queensland Press group to News Corp.” In 2001, Chenoweth’s book Virtual Murdoch was published in the UK and as Rupert Murdoch: The Untold Story of the World’s Greatest Media Wizard in the U.S. in November 2002.

SOURCE: Australian Financial Review, March 23, 2005

I don’t think I can really add much to the debate around Refugees except to express my disgust at the way we are incarcerating innocent people.

The recently announced “removal pending bridging visa” is the tiniest of concessions. It is excellent that these people, who have been incarcerated for over 3 years, will now be allowed out into the community. However I can’t a imagine life that was constantly under threat of being deported at the whim of the Department of Immigration (Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs).

It also indicates to me that the Department doesn’t consider these people a threat. If they did then they wouldn’t be allowed out into the community. Wasn’t this one of the defenses of mandatory detention?