By Kyran O’Dwyer
We are now three and a half years into the worst attempt at government the IPA has ever launched. At any level, it has become easy to be distracted by the incessant noise, whilst losing track of the major issues.
We now have a band of miscreants who are so enamoured of their own voices, they no longer tolerate any criticism of their utterances. We now have a band of miscreants whose incompetence borders on the criminal. We now have a band of miscreants whose wilful ignorance of the reality of those they claim to represent borders on the negligent. We now have a band of miscreants whose sense of self entitlement borders on the corrupt.
In the absence of any scrutiny, oversight or governance, they cannot be accused of incompetence, criminality, wilful ignorance, negligence or corruption. They have made the rules.
And the rules don’t matter. Well, not to them.
In the off chance that anyone wishes to challenge them, or their utterances or edicts, rest assured the challenger will be subjected to the most forensic and personal scrutiny by their enforcers.
Not the police, or Border Farce, or the AFP. They don’t have enough power, yet, to be able to regulate the behaviour of those they claim to protect.
The media. The ultimate enforcer. Name and shame. Make the conversation about the critic, not the criticism. Make the issue about the personality, not the substance. No need for gathering evidence, laying charges and costly trials. Slur, innuendo and inference will do just fine.
Noise, noise, noise. Avoid the substance, at all costs.
From the Merriam Webster dictionary:
The Multiple Meanings of anarchy
“Anarchy exemplifies how words may have similar yet distinctive meanings. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early 16th century, meant simply “absence of government,” albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the 19th century in reference to a Utopian society that had no government. The establishment of these two senses of anarchy did not stop the word from being applied outside the realm of government with the broadened meaning “a state of confusion or disorder.” The existence of definitions that are in semantic conflict does not imply that one (or more) of them is wrong; it simply shows that multi-sense words like anarchy mean different things in different contexts. Another example of a sense-shifting word relating to government is aristocracy. When first used in English, this word carried the sole meaning “government by the best individuals.” It may still be used in such a fashion, but more commonly, it is encountered in the extended sense “the aggregate of those believed to be superior.”
The IPA government extols the virtues of the ‘absence of government’ theorem, with the threat of ‘civil disorder’. The ‘market’ should be the ultimate arbiter. Any dissent is of no consequence. If the media is not subject to any oversight, other than ‘self governance’, they can be unleashed anytime and anywhere. The prospect of any resultant ‘civil disorder’ is either minimized or negated.
The rules don’t matter. We should only have enough rules to hold the loopholes together.
The number of times – just in the past few months – that we have seen the disparity in the application of rules beggars belief. A politician should be excused for transgressions against their rules, on the basis ‘It was merely an oversight’. Whilst any ‘welfare’ claimant can, and, apparently, should be accused of a transgression against their rules and be demanded to produce evidence to the contrary.
Our ‘Big Four’ accounting firms, subject only to the oversight of two industry appointed self-regulated bodies, will provide advice to the government on tax law, and provide advice to their clients on how to avoid the laws they have proposed.
Our ‘Big Four’ banks, currently subject to no more oversight than APRA, will provide advice to the government as to why other financial institutions should not get the benefit of ‘the guarantee’, going back to the GFC.
Our environment is in trouble too. Therefore, we need to defund science and deprive scientists of any voice. Silence the scientists and fund the abusers of the environment.
Our children are in trouble too. Do we educate them through Gonski, or simply say we can’t afford it? Or do we avail our children of services to enable their parents to do both of their jobs? Parent and provider.
Once upon a time, we had NDIS, NBN, Medicare, minimum working wage, minimum working conditions.
We now have domestic violence (DV) as a major problem. Economically. That is the only language our government understands. We have a current Minister for Women that has actually retreated from the last Minister for Women’s strong position on hating DV, whilst defunding all of the services that would support the victims of those very crimes.
We no longer tolerate the notion of equality. Whether it be colour, gender, religion, sexuality. No matter, it doesn’t matter.
One of the most egregious of recent transgressions is the signing of OPCAT, only in the sense that it is the ultimate ‘fire sale’ of our soul.
“Attorney-General George Brandis said the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) would be ratified by the end of this year.”
By the end of this year, we will ratify a treaty that aims to address issues such as ‘Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’.
Let’s be perfectly clear about this.
In 1948-1949, “Doc” Evatt was one of the authors of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ through the UN. FFS, it’s 2017. The best we’ve got is Brandy, ratifying an agreement, subject to exclusions, of a concept that was not only agreed to nearly sixty years ago, but was co-authored by an emissary of the Australian government.
“The aim is not to shame, it is not to engage in an act of moral vanity, it is to cooperate in a mutual endeavour to bring about a tangible improvement to the treatment of people in detention.
The ratification of the treaty would not affect the Manus Island offshore processing centre because Papua New Guinea has not ratified the same treaty.
The Government of Nauru ratified the treaty in 2013.”
My contention is that the rules only apply to some. And only apply under certain circumstances. And, worst of all, if you can afford ‘good’ advice, they won’t apply to you.
Our IPA government is on a hiding to hell. Who cares?
Until such time as governance and government are restored, we remain in their image.
Unions can no longer call a general strike, without observing the rules. There is a place for civil disobedience, however. It was demonstrated last week.
Most Australians are perfectly aware of the issues that they face on a daily basis.
March in March? Feck, yes (In Australian, “f*ck, yeah”). If enough of us turn out, we might make a difference. A Utopian society does not require rules. Any Utopian society would be based on respect and dignity, for one and all. These anarchists rely on a ‘state of confusion or disorder’ to justify their absence of rules.
I’m no fan of aristocracy. But democracy should not deprive us of “government by the best individuals”.
(I tried fitting this into a sign to march with. My bad).