A Democratic World Government

Tension mounts in many lands as political systems fail to bring order, with oppression and protests, guns and bombs, cruelty and terror, crime and murder. Is it at all likely that real political solutions will mature in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Currently reported troubles in Thailand and South Africa and the failure to resolve the Israel/Palestinian crisis are other prominent cases of political failure. What is the answer to a world full of problems, with the failure of democracy to take its rightful control of the world?
While there is no doubt that much good work is being done by the UN, it is also clear that the world situation demands some drastic change to enable and the UN as a world government to bring order out of chaos wherever it exists in the world.
The Israel/Palestinian situation has defied the efforts of various American presidents, who have been thwarted by strong internal opposition. Likewise the efforts of various European powers have been stymied by America’s veto Power in the Security Council.
The Security Council is a relic of the Cold War, along with its power of veto for the founding members. But it is high time that the nations of the world joined together to create a suitable form of democratic world government, which properly constructed, could dispense with the old Security Council. That would mean giving each nation voting rights in the Assembly to match the size of its population, (not too daunting a problem), giving all nations a voice but a varied voting power. (Further on, the large nation’s votes might be divided amongst multiple representatives.)
The Assembly’s executive functions would soon be determined by vote, and the present power of sovereign nations to ignore world opinion on abuses of individual rights etc. could not hold out against the authority of the UN Assembly and its police force. Fair, strong government would remove excuses for war, and any reason for the possession of destructive armaments. The future is just ahead of us. Reach for the stars!

Election Hysteria

As the elections inexorably approach, we can see all the warts of the party system, even more clearly. On the 730 report, Kerry O'Brien gets aggressive and rude to the PM. Then Rudd's ‘warm’ response becomes a big talking point, judged by some to mean he is out of control! But Leunig’s cartoon is a jeering response. Do we want our politicians, elected by the people, to just be doormats for any Tom, Dick or Harry?

Again, a change in policy by a party government is criticised as a ‘back flip’, without substantive consideration as to whether it is justified or not. Brumby rethinks ‘suspended sentencing’ – a policy of the opposition, and the opposition becomes upset. Which is the first priority, the interest of a political party or the public interest that is constantly hindered by the shenanigans of the political parties, as they grasp for power?

Again, the mining resource tax will add to the federal pre-election bun-fight, controlled by emotions rather than facts. To the claim of some that the resources tax on mining will drive mining offshore, it has been pointed out that that will not happen unless the mineral resources themselves go offshore!
Thank goodness there are still some sensible people around!

Will ballots in parliament eliminate some, or even all, of this rubbish? You bet! The people will be in charge. How, you say?

With parliament controlled by electronic ballot, all MPs will be independent and have the power to together elect, and sometimes sack, each and every minister, including the Prime Minister although the PM, being already elected as the most respected member of parliament, will not be likely to ever be a target.

And all MPs themselves will be under the regular, direct scrutiny of their constituents in public meetings, as they caucus to examine together the best way to tackle each issue.The net result of this is that controversial issues will be thrashed out at the local level and the representation of the electorate in parliament will substantially reflect considered public opinion.

In parliament the electronic ballot will enable precise polling of every variation of opinion during debate and thus enable the real public (educated) view to reach conclusions with substantial (unarguable) majorities, which might well vary constitutionally where a decision once made cannot be amended - e.g.war. In that kind of decision the constitution might demand a 90% majority!

Stable, intelligent decision-making in our democracy can be confidently anticipated from converting the operation of all our parliaments to electronic secret voting.

Share markets chaos

Friends
Today we have bad news on the share market front. Two adverse situations
could be working together here to create chaos. In Greece, the
government and people have fallen down on the job. And despite the large
Euro loan on offer, Greek government deficits are set to worsen, while
there are wild public protests against government attempts to bring
order and chaos. The public is not ready and willing for additional
taxes and cuts to public services, which might gradually resolve the
problem.
At home, we are looking at a new era of share trading at lightning
speeds, by high-speed Internet, using algorithms, mathematical formulae
which simulate a human being making financial share trading decisions,
the difference being that with the high-speed computers and Internet,
the decisions can be multiplied in fractions of a second. Share market
regulators are obviously at a loss to be able to comprehend the problems
occurring and take satisfactory action. It makes one think again of the
old Greek quote: “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
These complex situations obviously present horrendous problems for
government to maintain order in society, while human intellectual
ability and financial activity escalate at an enormous rate. Can our
government system, which was settled in the horse and buggy age of 1901,
cope satisfactorily with these problems, in a manner conducive to peace
and harmony in the world today?
When our manner of government and constitution were set in 1901, three
months was allowed for certain actions of the Senate, because senators
coming from Perth and Brisbane were coming by sailing ship! What a
contrast to present day flights by plane! We have a big problem ahead of
us to bring our government style and operation up to operational speed,
in line with the complexity of modern technology and social practices..
In the face of such problems, it has been said that when a crisis
occurs, change will be made. However, history demonstrates that when
crisis occurs changes can be made, but they are rarely for the better,
and often much worse. Crises are not capable of producing intelligent
change to complex situations.
In Britain, we have an interesting but tricky situation with the Liberal
Democrats in a minority situation, but with the power to do deals with
the other parties. The electoral system is antique with
first-past-the-post voting, which has produced the present situation.
Will one of the parties accede to the Liberal Democrat wish for
electoral reform.
What might happen? Would Britain be likely to adopt preferential voting,
as we have in the House of Representatives, or perhaps a ‘proportional
representational’ system, as we have in the Senate, with large multiple
electorates? Either of these changes would profoundly change the face of
British politics.

Henry tax review

The critical reception of the government’s response to the Henry tax review highlights once more the inherent popular dissatisfaction with, and distrust of, government by rival political management teams—left and right, see-saw government.
Especially in an election year the rivalry between our major political parties produces unhelpful public and business angst, not entirely free of bitterness.
Problems are endemic and decisions to resolve them have to be made at each level of government in the context of a struggle for power.
Publically, opinions are myriad, but there is no way for them to bear on the ultimate decisions, to give assurance to various interests in the community that at least the process is fair—which of course it isn’t to the people at large.
Can party governments, with the pressures of vested interests, ever provide fairness of legislation, to give the whole community confidence in government, in today’s climate of problems? The incumbent having the major power to decide the whole range of issues of foreign ownership, business and workplace interests, tax and public services, poverty and distribution of wealth, hospitals and health, law and order, high housing costs and excessive private debt causing family problems and bankruptcies, etc.etc— not to mention the rising problems of aging population, climate change, future resource exhaustion, population explosion and Islamic Shariah law, isn’t it patently obvious that only a non-partisan parliament of independent MPs, drawing on the effective involvement and wisdom of a participating people, will be able to rally the people to face the future with confidence. Only parliamentary voting by ballot can do this.
Citizens must have the opportunity to be involved on the fringe of government, as economic, social and political problems crowd our future.

Switzerland, that so-stable country, has answered the problem by giving access to the community to achieve legislation for neglected issues by their process of public petition for Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR), while New Zealand has adopted a similar CIR provision, effectively providing a plebiscite, which can powerfully influence government , but falls short of mandating law.

Islam and Dress Sense

Last night on ABC1 Emma Alberici interviewed a Muslim woman clad in a
burka, only gradually allowing her eyes to be seen. Her primary reason
for wearing the burka was that as a child, and in her teens, she was
sexually harassed. Her husband said that it was her choice.

France proposes a new law banning the face covering burka as intimidatory to others. Perhaps they
also need a law to ban sexual harassment!

In a democratic society, minority groups’ concerns are entitled to be
heard—'the love of democracy is the love of others'. Thus the arrival of
substantial numbers of Muslims, with a wide spectrum of beliefs
challenges the strength and wisdom of our society—of us as a people—of
our democracy.

When freedom (of dress) becomes license, as it has, we have a serious problem. Laws
can be made, but they are only successful if society's values and
principles do in fact support them. As a door-to-door salesman once, I was advised that one's mode of dress
should be good but not such as to draw undue attention. I am sure that
was a good rule - for both male and female - in any age.

Government can only make really good laws for a better society if there
is a much greater opportunity for popular participation in public
affairs. I believe that, in community face to face discussion, our best
values and principles will prevail, leading to better representation and
good (parliamentary) government, away from conflict, to a consensus
which strongly represents us at our best—a real democracy—where ‘the
love of others’ prevails.

Islam and Freedom of Speech

THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS TO THEM. (Extract from email)

Pictures from London -- this is beyond scary...
Pictures of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during their recent 'Religion of Peace Demonstration.'
Makes you wonder doesn't it...can you imagine having a Christian demonstration against Islam in downtown Baghdad !

These were the placards:
‘Slay those that don't believe in Islam.
Europe, you will pay. Demolition is on its way will stop
Butcher those who mock Islam
Islam will dominate the world
Behead those who insult Islam
Freedom go to hell
Europe take some lessons from 9/11
Europe, you will pay 9/11 is on its way]
Be prepared for the real Holocaust
Massacre those who insult Islam’

I don’t think we want to insult Islam any more than they should insult Christianity. We think of the gentleness of Jesus, in whom we believe, who said on the Cross, “Father forgive them they don’t know what they do”.


Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over!

Immigration and the Boat People

‘Getup’ describes Australia’s suspension of processing of the boat people as a return to the ‘Howard years’ with refugees’ frustration and rejection, (www.getup.org.au/).

But many here resent the problem. And the exclusion of the public from active participation in politics means that party governments live in fear of the public reaction at the next election. Moral leadership in government is thus made difficult and fear dictates decisions which can be cruel, instead of compassionate.

Engraved upon the pedestal of the American Statue of Liberty is a poem by Emma Lazarus, ‘The New Colossus’, (http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm) from which comes the quote: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. In those days refugees were offered freedom, not wealth, and they built America—and Australia—as we are today. New countries were then able to offer large potential for economic growth through massive natural wealth, (although the respective Indigenes suffered enormously).

But today, as well as the fear of persecution, world television offers the dream of a much better standard of living in Western societies. So there are two forces driving the poor of the world to emigrate. But, there are also two strands of public thinking with regard to refugees. And only one of them is compassion.

There again, increasing world population demands an urgent answer. But what is it?

Democracy shortchanged

The Age today (5/4) editorialises pathetically:
‘In our democracy, majority doesn’t always rule’, drawing attention to the fact that votes cast for parties in ‘safe’ and ‘marginal’ seats can so vary the result that often the party achieving the less overall votes gains the greater number of seats, while the role of ‘opposition’ falls to the major winner of actual votes. Is there really no way out of this crazy and socially destructive mockery of democracy?
It is patently clear Abraham Lincoln’s three specific requirements of a satisfactory democracy—‘government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people’—are far from being realised.

Stability and Minority Power

Following the American War of Independence, President Washington sent John Adams (who followed Washington’s presidentcy) as America’s first Ambassador to the English throne—a conciliatory gesture after a bitter war. As he was retiring from the audience with King George III, the King commented: ‘I pray Mr Adams that the United States will not suffer from the want of a monarchy.’ This is a knotty point for both Monarchists and Republicans to ponder. Stability primarily depends on strength with fairness, even benevolence in government, whatever its form. What success has America enjoyed?

The US White House is currently being pressured by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which wants the US administration to settle their differences ‘behind closed doors …quietly, in trust and confidence’—of course, when clever manipulation of congressmen has so far stymied the best efforts of each US administration, and the UN, to achieve a free and separate state for the Palestinians. We certainly hope Obama can be strong and pull off a settlement of this ancient tussle.

Tasmania now has a hung parliament, following an inconclusive election, due to the public’s problem with the government’s ‘unhealthy relationship’ with the all-powerful Gunn’s forestry company. In a recent public meeting, Getup reports, a timber consultant asked a pertinent question which was answered with the threatening comment, accompanied by a fist in her face: ‘don’t you ever ask a question like that in a public meeting.’ Questioned as to a complaint to the police, her reply was that next morning there was a box of matches in her letter box, with the implication that her house could easily be set on fire. What madness is this? ‘Whom God wishes to destroy He first makes mad.’ Seneca. A society ignoring God will certainly unravel.

Saving our System - CIR

Friends,
Seeing government, here and around the world, is in such a horrendous state, I think we should examine some of the current options to improve it.
The US state of Arizona, apparently has a constitutional provision that, after the government has passed a law, there is a period in which the population can object by petition. If the required number of signatures is reached, the matter must be resolved by referendum, possibly at the next election.
There are other American states, perhaps twenty or so out of the forty nine, which have adopted similar provisions, possibly with variations. It is not unusual to see car stickers – e.g. ‘Vote NO for number 5’, referring to a referendum to be held based on CIR
The notion of CIR springs from the Swiss ‘Initiative’ which has been in vogue there for many years. Considering that they have three major ethnic groups, German, French and Italian and have managed to stay calm and clear while two world wars raged around them, their government has worked very well with this very real involvement of the people.
New Zealand has also recently adopted CIR. It is usual that a matter passed by a CIR becomes law automatically - only alterable by referendum, but in this case enactment is not mandatory! Nevertheless, a government taking no notice of such a widely expressed popular viewpoint would be foolish to ignore it. Thus the power of the people through CIR can usefully constrain rash government even if it is but rarely used. CIR requires a degree of responsibility on the part of the people not to misuse its power – e.g. to cut taxes. It is recently reported that California has financial problems, with its law, (passed by CIR), preventing any increase in tax without a two thirds majority in the legislature.
One problem with CIR is that it makes no provision for discussion in local forums to deepen the peoples understanding of the issue, leaving the media to be too influential. But it does give some involvement of the people.
What do you think?

President Netanyahu’s visit to President Obama

The reports of this visit indicate that President Obama is not inclined to give Israel just what it happens to want. Good for him! This is plainly upsetting to Israel, and some of its friends in the West. Israel has become accustomed to getting whatever it wants.

At particular issue at the moment is the area of East Jerusalem which Palestine sees as essential for its eventual capital. Israel sees it as just another bit of their land, pretty much the same as any other, e.g. Tel Aviv they say— nothing special to Israel just another part of their land—but very important to the Palestinians. To Israel it is plainly ‘dog-in-the-manger’ stuff.

What is very plain is that the reasonable Palestinian desire for a sovereign state will never be possible without refusing some of the Israeli demands. It is hoped that President Obama will be able to stand fast on a just solution. That is a tall order as there are far too many ‘friends of Israel’, not only in the US, but here as well. I was startled to hear Rudd say: ‘I’ve been a friend of Israel all my life!’ Exactly, why is that?

Do the sufferings of the Palestinians from the invasion of their land sixty years ago mean nothing to us? Sure, the UN was justified in helping the Jews. But the UN has quite reasonably sought to help the Palestinians too over many years, but has been consistently blocked from doing so. Why can that be?

Unproductive conflict

Friends,
The state of the world and the incompetence of the present standard of democracy—based on competition and conflict—here and worldwide sadden me. With politicians doing to each other ‘whatever it takes’ to gain or retain power, ethics, morality go out the window. And the last resort is guns and bombs.

Leaders in conflict achieve far less than a cooperative team in our parliament would be able to do—with far less personal angst and far more positive outcomes.

Ballots in parliaments can cure all this, by opening up the decision-making processes to the people. Non-party government based on a secret-ballot system of voting in parliament will certainly be much stronger, much wiser, and longer sighted than all current democracies.

Ministers would be free to devote their full attention to their departments, having been elected thereto by their fellow members. Parliamentary debate would be free of invective, very objective, and swiftly arrive at the best solutions to difficult problems, gaining the respect of the people; including many members of the population, at various levels, who are in practical revolt against authority, requiring an escalation of laws and increased problems and responsibilities for law-enforcement agencies.

This vision awakens hope for representation by independents, chosen by the people, each in a practical partnership with constituents in regular local forums, involving significant numbers of concerned citizens, and a much better informed electorate.

The Secret Ballot Party seeks members from among responsible citizens to pursue this vision of open, sensible, and effective government. Membership is presently free. Apply by email or telephone 61 03 9800 2561.

Israel hardens stance against US demands

There are two fallacies in the above heading (The Age 18/3).
Firstly, Israel’s hard-nosed insistence that it was chosen by God to possess all of Palestine has never changed in sixty years. What has changed is that the Obama administration is putting a new pressure on them to agree to a two state solution, and

Secondly, ’Demands’ suggests that the US will be able to insist on a satisfactory solution. Let’s face it; the idea of a Palestinian sovereign state terrifies Israel. A sovereign Palestine would have an army and exclude the IDF, leaving the settlers at the mercy of the new state. But successive American presidents (and the UN) have tried their best to turn around Israel’s refusal of a two-state solution and the tide of aggressive settlement in the West Bank, to no avail. So Hilary Clinton’s claim ‘that the two nations “shared common values and a commitment to a democratic future for the world”’ is ridiculous!

The majority of Americans would certainly want to see a just solution, but why is it that ‘the most powerful democracy on earth’ can do nothing? Do these ‘shared values’ include a religious conviction that God did indeed promise the descendants of Abraham all the land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates? God's promises have never have been unconditional. So,let’s remember the times God directed their expulsion for ignoring the conditions of the promise – godliness.

The outcome of the ‘US demands’ will be informative.

‘Power but no passion’

‘Power but no passion’ Shaun Carney writes (The Age 17/3), about our fearless leader, Kevin Rudd. But power and passion are the hallmarks of those in history responsible for the most mess—and carnage—Napoleon, Hitler etc. Lesser people have to pick up the pieces and start again.

Tony Abbott, criticised on all sides over his ‘paid-parental-leave’ extravagance, insists that ‘the government’ is the main issue—i.e. the policies are not so important—the real policy being to attack, disrupt, and dislodge the government—and take power, banking on the help of a fickle electorate

Presumably, passion is all you need to win the ‘hearts and minds’.
Is it any wonder that governments never have the political capital necessary to successfully conquer the hard problems? Charismatic leaders may (temporally) win our hearts and minds, but intelligence; drive and ethics would surely be preferable qualities for leadership.. However, our present system of government does not lean that way.

In fact, although politics is a mess, and generally regarded with something like contempt—sometimes amused, sometimes angry—the ‘politics industry’, whether in media or academia, studiously avoids any question of a need for change— in contrast to every other field of human endeavour.

Democracy needs revision from time to time, to keep up with changed social and economic conditions. Well, this has always been the responsibility of the people or, shall we say, of responsible people.

Knives at School

With the government proposing random search for knives etc, the opposition cries foul, for stealing its policy. How ridiculous, and childish! Moreover, it makes plain that the parties‘competition for political success and power takes preference over the serious need for good governance. Will the politicians ever pull together, short of the country being invaded?
We live in a world with a desperate need for good governance, but the best we have come up with so far is a tainted and corrupt democracy.
The Secret Ballot Party is a call for the reformation of parliament, for a much Better Democracy, which alone can, with a significant opportunity for involvement of the people, provide the good governance we need, and can proudly show the world how strong government and ‘the fair go’ are compatible goals - (having resolved the plight of our indigenes of course). ‘The love of democracy is the love of others', refusing power for the wellbeing of all.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will finally know peace. Jimi Hendrix US rock musician & singer (1942 - 1970)

Taxation + Climate change

Taxation
In an intriguing article, Chris Middendorp (The Age 22/2/10) claims that taxation is a privilege of membership in our society, because of all the services undertaken by government to enhance our quality of life.
Despite the elaborate efforts of many to reduce their tax bill, what he says is quite true. The problem of course, boils down to this - what does the government do with the money it collects. As has been said, people would be happier about taxation if they were more confident about the way governments spend it.

Here we see the age-old problem of our dissatisfaction with our democracy. Good though it is, there is still far too much room for our politicians to push ahead with their own ideas without listening to the public point of view.
Our democracy is badly in need of revision, to enable the people at large to have some real say in government, during the period between elections, making government far more accountable - all the time.

This,of course, as we have said so many times, requires a radical revision of the voting system in parliament to make all representatives independent, and the ministers all answerable to the vote of all the members.

To indulge in a little fantasy, people might then be proud to have their tax contribution to society open to the public gaze, their contribution to society being just as honourable as large charitable donations.

Climate change
'Political power plays deliver short-sighted policy stand-offs’ (the Age 22/2 p 10). How can we get good government, with good long-term policies being embraced and implemented, while we still have the nonsense of party politics? Isn't it about time to wake up Australia, and deal with this nonsense?

Where is the trumpet blast calling us to national revival?

Our future problems – population etc.

Our future problems – population etc.
Kerry O’Brien quite reasonably tackled Kevin Rudd on the 7.30 Report tonight over the government’s acceptance of a high level of population in coming years.
There are many concerns over water sufficiency, land use and food, urban planning, schools, hospitals, and transport infrastructure, not to mention green house gases, and pressures on social cohesion, all of which raise serious questions about the wisdom of allowing the increases in population mooted -35m by 2050.
Such an increase means sustained migration levels are likely, but economic benefits can also follow, including a mitigation of skills shortages and the economic effects of population aging.
Then again we have an important role to play internationally as a leading, stable democracy, which will benefit from such increases in population.
With regard to social cohesion Rudd was able to draw attention to the number of times we have received waves of migrants from various countries but difficulties have generally vanished in the next generation. This reflects our solid social stability which manifests itself through the schooling of the young.
However, what really stands out is that there are a mammoth number of problems to be resolved in the coming years and raises the question of how these had best be faced. The style of our politics is reflected in the aggressive nature of the questioning of the Prime Minister on the 7.30 Report. The business of holding the government to account, which is the nature of our adversarial system, prompts the question: can we afford the hindrances and distractions created by having two sources of political power, in what appears to be a useless competition for the privileges of power.
We hear good reports of Singapore and its government, tackling the modern problems of youth disorientation, having long ago resolved the problem of rubbish in the streets!
What can we do to have a more efficient mode of governance, to successfully deal with the many problems looming – without conflict or resort to limiting the freedoms we hold dear. There must be a way – surely.

A Moral Issue

Saturday 20/2/10

Friends

The media today are having a ball with the shambles in our democracy. The prospect of a real democracy reminds me of the challenge that Hercules (Heracles) faced in cleaning out thirty years of dung in the Augean stables, in one day.

Strange as it may seem, the mess in our democracy can also all be swept away in one day - were we to eliminate the present system of open voting in our parliaments, which produces and supports every objectionable feature of our governmental system.

For example, ministers are answerable to the Prime Minister only. So Conroy can arrogantly refuse to disclose details of conversation with Murdoch. How come he is even talking to him. And Garrett is too busy to heed letters warning about the dangers of the rushed insulation program.


The point is that all communication should be through parliament with minsters serving and satisfying the parliament (of freely voting independents) or be sacked by vote of parliament. None of the present news furore would then occur, with all problems long settled by ministers' diligent attention to their responsibilities. And media turning from sensational stuff to in-depth analysis of the real problems. Do I really need to say more?

The rottenness at the top leaves the rest of society demoralised, and every evil unchecked.

Why do we, the people, not act to 'clean out the 'stables'? Good men are corrupted by the immorality of party politics. Where is the strong moral leadership - to put an end to it? We can't be bothered? After all, it is only necessary to agree that change must happen, and take the tiny step of membership for the New Democracy - a moral challenge if ever there was one.

Cockfighting in parliaments

Friends,
In a constructive comment on the party political scene, in this election year, Tim Colebatch (Age 16/2) has upstaged all the political commentators with his insightful comment headed: 'The Climate of division hurts us all. The cockfight mentality of Australian politics fails to deliver when hard decisions with long term effects need to be taken.' Absolutely.

Leaders with power and brains are common. So are leaders with riches and popularity. But a competent leader full of integrity and skill, coupled with sincerity, is rare indeed. (Charles Swindoll in ‘Insight for ‘Living’.)

Left to themselves, leaders so often get it wrong. Why? Because they go their own way. And we let them! Blame the system? Well, why not change it?

We forget to our hurt that democracy means 'people' share in ruling, not just politicians.
Where is the infrastructure for the practical input of the people?

William Lederer, in ‘The Anguished American’ writes, page 227: (italics amending)
‘If many of us actively discuss the subjects which trouble us, if many of us scratch and dig for ideas and solutions, then we can hope to move ahead. Even if our individual solutions are not perfect, still, the continued efforts and expressed ideas of several million citizens cannot help but have a cumulative result. The effect— and there is no doubt about this—will nourish and vitalise the nation. Such is the strength of a democracy. It is only apathy, lack of interest, and fear which can destroy us.'

Democracy means participation is a privilege and responsibility of us all. It cannot get it right, and flourish, without the care of the people.

What sort of people are we?

Do we courageously accept, or supinely avoid, the serious challenge of our time?

Our parliamentary democracy is among the best in the world, but it is badly flawed, like them all, with the inevitable corruption of institutionalised power, beyond the ability of the people to keep in check.

While there are many who care, there are very few who take action - for fear of change. Why do we, the people, passively accept being governed erratically, corruptly, by self-serving parties, instead of exercising the right of intelligent self-government through a parliament filled with independent representatives, answerable to us – alone?

Change demands vision of what should be, the courage to accept the challenge, and the integrity to accept the cost, the fear of which paralyses logical action. It has been truly said that change, even for the better, is never accomplished without difficulty.

The change required, to return government to people and parliament, is simple – a change of the voting system in parliament, to the secret ballot, to put a stop to the control of MPs votes by group interests, both in and out of parliament.

Until political power is returned to the people, the threat of politicians waging war will always be on the cards and, as Helen Thomas, veteran White House journalist says: ‘If we care about the children, the grandchildren, the future generations, we need to make sure that they do not become the cannon fodder of the future’.

Another Approach!

The Melbourne Age, 8/1, is adamant that “Military ‘shock and awe’ won’t overcome terrorism”, which clearly requires a ‘smarter approach’. The US response to terrorism in the eight years since 9/11 has proved singularly ineffective, with its destruction and carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now the exposure of Al Qaida involvement in Yemen and the growing political ambiguity in Pakistan would indicate an increasing possibility of US failure to contain the terrorist danger, let alone to succeed in punishing ‘the terrorist base’, which is basically guerrilla in its operation and not susceptible to defeat by armies. Bearing in mind the debacle of Vietnam, the obvious conclusion is that the US approach has only made its position worse, and the hope that Obama might have better success with the planned increase in troops in Afghanistan, is far from convincing.

It is not surprising that there is now considerable public doubt about the value, or the virtue, if any, in maintaining the policy of a military solution to achieve the answers sort. What is becoming odd is that our politicians, of both sides, are determined to continue military support for the US when most Australians are opposed. This is shaky ground.

Another approach is long overdue. Edward de Bono’s concept of ‘lateral thinking’ must come to the rescue!

Western democracy has not bothered to win the hearts and minds in the world. The US especially has misused its power, interfering militarily in the politics of many countries, in support of trading interests. Furthermore, and importantly, it has consistently favoured Israel and failed the Palestinians in their quest for a separate state. While many Muslims may be troubled by Islamic terrorism, there is no hope of militant jihadists losing substantial Muslim support while these things remain.

Both our democracy, and Christianity, are shamed.

God in control ?

God in Control ! ?


Friends,
I sometimes hear, from time, God is in control and I wonder how, exactly.. What about Hitler? Was he under God’s control? And what about Stalin – and Pol Pot. Eventually they were brought to book, but were not noticeably hindered in their murderous sprees.

And in our society, do sense and a cooperative spirit prevail; in our homes, on our streets, in our public institutions, and especially in our political world.
Is the Golden Rule regarded? Are our streets safe from violence? Do the ‘meek inherit’, or just get pushed around? So, is God in control, and if so in what sense?

I have sometimes answered that question by saying God rules in blessing and cursing.
A selfish, self-centred life has a payoff – the curse of a troubled spirit and bad outcomes – especially if the troubled spirit is ignored.
THOUGH the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting,
With exactness grinds He all. Longfellow

But, for those who live unselfish lives, fulfilling the needs of others less fortunate, there is a spiritual reward – as it is said ‘virtue is its own reward’. There is truth in that, the blessing of fulfilment and inner peace. But only if there is no dwelling on the thought of reward in the doing of it - and a patience which is based on an assurance which springs from the reserves from the spirit of love within, which is of God by a living faith.
We see in the carol, ‘Joy to the world’:
‘He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love.’

There is, and always will be, a cost for those who are part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, but love does not even know about, let alone count, the cost.
A safe, happy Christmas to all!

A New Slant on NO States

{My friend Charles Mollison, of the Foundation for National Revival has a somewhat different take on how to get rid of party politics. His proposal reduces electorates to five thousand with representatives all meeting in local regional assemblies. Reading between his lines, they would become the obvious choice of the people in local meetings, not personally seek office.
They would obviously have no need for airline travel, or absence from family life, and would probably be unpaid – just honoured as ‘Our Members’.
Quite a thought.
What do you think? The idea of regional parliaments (instead of state parliaments) has quite a long history, but this is a new slant!

Ballots in Parliament.

This subject must never be off the agenda, because party politics is a corruption of democracy and creates more problems than it can ever solve. Democracy, as it stands, endangers the world and all its countries with its corruption and injustice, leading inevitably to the wars which constantly afflict the world.

Party politics is about power and dominance - ‘whatever it takes’ - but democracy is about intelligence and persuasion, which cannot prevail in the absence of the sobering control of the ballot, in our parliaments.

The people must determine the issues, not political party leaders. Ballots in parliament alone will make all MPs independent and give them a sincere, intense interest in all their relationships with the constituents. This will rectify what is a most important element of public concern today - the deliberate exclusion of the people from effective access to the decision-making process. All decisions by ballot in parliament will also quickly stimulate the involvement of the people. This is why the Secret Ballot Party stands for ballots in parliament - and nothing else.

Interest Rates - the 'Cure all'!

The cosseted big-four banks rarely have a bad year – while farmers have suffered many drought years!
The Reserve Bank (RBA) is steadily setting new rates, for fear of inflation as increases in demand outstrip economic capacity, bringing pain to business, farmers and householders on mortgages.
The Western world has demonstrated its preference for consumption rather than savings which accentuates the problem for the RBA – how to keep inflation at bay.
An aging population drives concern over the future cost of pensions together with the likely inadequacy of superannuation funds to provide adequacy of funding for retirement lifestyles.
A recent suggestion demands government attention. Since savings for future retirement and aged care are unlikely to be adequate and there is the need to dampen consumer consumption, it has been suggested that this is just the time to increase the compulsory level of contribution to super funds – from, I think, around nine percent to something like twelve percent.

The Putdown

From time to time we all suffer the pain of unappreciative, uncaring, disrespectful attitudes with which we are treated.

The worst case scenario, where someone is so evilly treated that they give up on life, is so highly regrettable and shocking to us all, as in the case of the death of Brodie Rae Constance Panlock, where workplace safety laws so deplorably failed her.

That we even need workplace safety laws is a terrible indictment on our society, and the fact that they are unable to protect a young life such as hers demonstrates how feeble are ever-expanding laws to achieve acceptable levels of morality in the community.

Depleted morality is reflected where the strong lack compassion and the weak lack the inner reserves of an experience of unconditional love – the only real anchor of the soul. We all need it. We all owe it.

That which divides (or unites) us.

The Age (3rd Dec.) quotes Family first Senator, Steve Fielding, speaking in the Senate yesterday. He brilliantly summarised our country’s (and the world’s) problem, saying “The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is very difficult … because it polarises people”! Can we name an issue that does not?

The comment of Tony Abbott (The Age 2nd Dec. p 4), on his succession to the role of leader of the Federal Liberal Party is revealing. He ‘was confident few Liberal senators, if any, would split from the party’s new stance. “They owe their careers to the party and they will not lightly do that.”’ (My italics) Strong glue!

We note that the secret ballot for elections regularly, and quietly, succeeds in uniting the people behind the political parties they favour, even though they have little idea of the ultimate actions of those for whom they vote!

Just consider; the secret ballot in parliament would unite the members freely behind each specific issue worthy of majority support, being accountable, as independents, to their electorates alone.

Issues of religion have certainly manifested the divisiveness of doctrines. At present The Parliament of the World’s religions has convened in Melbourne. Are the participants here to unite behind peaceful social policies? A real synthesis of views, especially leading to the freedom of individual choice, would be very welcome.

But Jesus said: "I come not to bring peace, but … a sword". Now there’s a conundrum for the many that look for ‘peace on earth and goodwill to men’ (or is it to men of goodwill?). The cross of Jesus calls us to a life of self-denial and love for others. If that life is an offence to some, who feel condemned by it, it is because they have never known God; which explains the division of which ‘the sword’ is emblematic only. The Spirit calls us to a new freedom - a life of love ‘against which there is no law’.

Privacy Laws

A hospital visit to a neighbour proved interesting. When we got to the ward we found and an empty bed. Enquiring of the nursing staff where the patient might be we were informed that disclosure of the patient’s whereabouts was forbidden by the privacy laws. What could we do?

We were lucky. Down the corridor we examined the trinkets for sale and taking advantage of another browser we voiced our complaint about the nonsensical application of privacy laws. As we voiced our frustration an older staff member overheard and furtively murmured the name of another hospital, to which we gratefully repaired and completed our visit.

The blind obedience of the ward staff to obligatory rules and our complete inability to challenge the senseless of it, is just part of a much wider problem. No matter what our frustration and helplessness with the actions of government and the powerlessness of ‘representatives’, nothing can be done unless public anger swells to the point of exasperation and people take to the streets in protest on one troubling issue. But to deal with all our dissatisfactions we would all have to be fulltime activists!

A serving politician in the Victorian Parliament was asked the question: ‘What would happen if parliaments made all decisions by a ballot of the members?’ The terse reply – ‘It would make MPs accountable’. A young government whip once said: ‘It would make my job hard’. No, impossible!

Picture this! Each MP (after the adoption of the ballot) would have no party feathers to fly with. (I recently asked my (party) representative, if he would have been elected if he stood as an independent. He instantly acknowledged: ‘NO’!) It is quite evident that MPs would then be vulnerable (and accountable) because they would have to convene regular local meetings, and face frequent penetrating questions from the gathering of citizens. Certainly, an early question would highlight the public dissatisfaction with the excessive restrictive powers of the privacy laws, and a demand for their amelioration.

With parties excluded from parliament by the ballot, the people would be free to press for immediate action, and every MP would have the power to take personal and prompt responsibility for the woes of his/her electorate. !

A Republic? Once more!

Someone has pressed the button again. Fair enough, it had to come. But are we simply seeing a rerun of the blame game and empty clichés?

The monarchy is favoured by conservative interests and the ‘It ain't broke’ syndrome, while the republican advocates merely insist that we must have a popular election model and that a president’s powers could be well codified to protect our parliamentary system. That must be explained - in the detail that we need to know.

The desire for an elected president evolves, I suspect, from the dissatisfaction of the people with the power and confusion of party politics. But this will not be changed by an elected president who is isolated from political power.

Anyway, the need for a figure head rather smacks of introspection and nationalism, which is really getting to be dated, in view of our growing involvement with global problems, reluctant though we may be.

The world, is riddled with problems, from the top (corruption) to the bottom (poverty and despair), despite one hundred and fifty years of Western democracy, because the people are too isolated from the process, without the power to move governments to effect change, and (consequently) a diminished sense of responsibility.

John Pilger, 2009 recipient of the Sydney Peace prize, in his speech, ’Breaking the Australian Silence’ (The Age, 6/11) laments the ‘carefully calibrated illusion’ of national pride in "flags and war’" while we look at injustice with the "silence" of the uninvolved.'

I suspect that our isolation from the decision-making process is at the root of our silence, and the impression that politics has nothing to do with morality.

Palestine - fond hopes dashed.

Any fond hopes, we might have had, that Barack Obama’s America could set to rights the ‘peace process’ in Palestine, have been swiftly dashed today by Jason Katsoukis’ Analysis. (The Age 5/10, p11).

Katsoukis comments that ‘Netanyahu is emerging as the region’s most skilled political player’, ‘outfoxing Obama on settlements (they will not cease), and forcing ‘the US to adopt his own approach of emphasising improved ... security conditions’, (no doubt continued freedom of operation of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank) instead of peace talks without preconditions, as President Obama had called for, before the United Nations.

Israel has already made it clear that it will never agree to a sovereign state of Palestine - with a military capacity.

Meanwhile, President Abbas, refusing talks without a freeze of new settlements (on US advice), has been comprehensively humiliated, causing understandable Arab 'outrage'.

Israeli defiance, and American weakness, with respect to spreading settlements in the West Bank, goes far back. No US president has succeeded in attempts to persuade Israel to desist due, perhaps, to concern over the Holocaust, and the power of the Jewish lobby. Nor has the UN any useful handle on power to successfully intervene -- with its rulings ignored.

We should ask ourselves: Can the threat of ‘terrorism’ ever be resolved by force of arms, without a solution to this outstanding injustice, causing the hatred at its root?

'United we stand, divided we fall'

'United we stand, divided we fall'*. The government is now tied in knots
over its endeavour to treat the Sri Lanka asylum seekers with
compassion. It will probably have to revise its stance, to the delight
of its critics.
Clearly, our adversarial system of government is stupid.
The ballot solves elections with a minimum of fuss. Applied in
parliament, the ballot would repeat that success with all issues,
improving decisions at all levels, calming useless conflict and
eliciting respect for our government here and across the world. Just do
it.
'United we stand, divided we fall'.

*Aesop, of Aesop's Fables

Decisions, decisions!!!

Decisions, decisions, representing both the problem and the opportunity of mankind, are the unavoidable precursors to effective action, in both personal and communal life, to produce the results desired and guard against the troubles to be avoided.
That’s politics in all its dimensions, from the curse of bad decisions to the euphoria of sweet success. But, do the sufferings and the rewards descend equally on all. That too is politics. Is it good enough?

I have just finished reading Taylor Branch’s masterly coverage of the Negro search for freedom and dignity in America, from the Civil War to the march on Washington that concluded a long series of struggles against the political segregation which, along with the deeply manifested hate, lay so disastrously heavy on the Negroes, in the South especially.

But this detailed history covering some nine hundred pages also revealed the dysfunction of the separate government institutions which so effectively stood in the way of righting widespread, severe wrongs. Clearly, America is still in turmoil today, with high aims for itself and the world, but enormous dissent. Has the ‘democracy’, which she seeks to implant in the East, real credibility?

But where do we stand? We are quite different and it has been said that our Prime Minister has more power than an American President. But both are at odds with the varied manifestations of representative government – small parties and state powers. Difficulties abound and critically question the reality of the democracy so often claimed. There are many who are worried – how can the many problems of the present – and the future - be resolved in a desirable climate of peace? Our democracy needs reform. The ballot in parliament is sound but has appealed to few. Where else can we look?

A Queensland group, The Foundation for National Renewal, have conceived an entirely new basis of democratic government, in which fifty representatives of quite small electorates (5000) would meet in regional parliaments (covering 250000), which would each send a representative to the National Parliament. These representatives would rejoin their regional parliaments on the Friday of each sitting week, thus enabling cross conferencing and integrating government of all levels automatically. So, what do you think of that?
Check http://www.national-renewal.org.au/ for more detail.

Symposium again!

A VIP at the Symposium (self-defined 'Very Irish Person'), complained volubly about 'Compulsory Voting'.
1. Barry Jones explained that it is not compulsory voting, only compulsory attendance at the polling booth, (with your use of the secret vote or not being up to you). The aim is to make parliament, as much as possible, truly representative of the whole secretly-voting population. But does this democratic correctness maximise popular support of the government?
2. By a further requirement, all squares on the voting paper must be correctly completed, enabling the two leading contenders to share all transferred preferences, giving the winner over 50% of the vote, invulnerability in the Lower House, and the Prime Minister nearly dictatorial power - to the frustration of the Opposition and many of the people!
3. In other countries the percentage of people voting is often quite low. Britain, for example, has first-past-the-post voting, and government is won without preferences, and less than 50% of the vote. There the party government's rule is more flexible, except where a policy is determined by a 'three-line whip' making member conformance mandatory.
4. The real point of course is that the ruling party power derives its undemocratic power by its control of parliamentary voting in the absence of secret voting in the House. The cure is dead easy for a populace which might become inclined to take an elementary interest in the government of their country.

Democracy’s Failure

As I ‘look’ around the world, I see nothing but trouble, and the more trouble I see the more I think to myself: ‘Wouldn’t it be good if only we had democracy – instead of power politics from shire councils up. At every level, from local to global, policies and decisions are determined in the adversarial context created by the virtually unhindered acquisition of political power and consequent advantage – the so frequent failing of mankind in matching greed and a disrespect for the second commandment – ‘to love thy neighbour as thyself.’.

While experimental models abound, serious flaws prevail. Democracy suffers from the lack of a true model anywhere, in place or time. Even the Athenian democracy from whence the dream of democracy sprang, is picked over by the cynics, to ‘prove’ that it can never be achieved, so why bother. Certainly, slaves had no vote but, throughout the people generally there must have been a remarkable generosity of spirit amongst the people, even for the dream to be born, and also lived for a time.
Their decisions were simply reached in open meetings of the people, with opinions of all freely expressed, until desirable solutions became obvious, and no longer challenged. Thus the people made the rules by which they were governed. Quaker meetings today betray a similar principle of operation, reflecting the regard that they have for each other. It is apparent that mutual respect is encouraged in this context and tends towards becoming the norm in a climate of trust.

Thus the genius of theoretical democracy lies in its design that no one might dominate another. But, what has happened to sabotage the theory, to the serious disadvantage, and risk, to us all?
Principles of peaceful governance fail us from the local level, to the state, nation and the world. Leaders are treated with contumely and even their lives sometimes threatened by individuals and groups who are dissatisfied with current trends in policy. It is reported that the net is alive with threats to the life of President Obama, in ‘the world’s greatest democracy’.

At present I am reading the story of Afghan independent MP, Malalai Joya whose life is under continual threat, and before her expulsion from parliament her microphone was cut off if she dared to speak, because she would not refrain from exposing the criminality of the warlords who control Afghanistan with the support of America and its allies, including Australia.

The world is struggling uphill with mounting problems, with its peoples’ ideal of self-government wrecked on the rocky shores of ideology and religion. Democracy, which belongs to the people, is secular, standing for the public interest, the wellbeing of the people, but it has lost the battle with the self-interest of the people. Is that the way we really want it to be? There are some ‘stirrings in the tree tops’, but a national revival of the will of the people is essential.

‘Israel, US toil to break impasse.’

This Age heading (16/9) implies that both are agreed on a desired outcome. That could be true were it a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians they were seeking together. However, the ‘impasse’ referred to, concerns the basic stumbling block in the long-running attempts at peace negotiations between Israel and the leaders of the Palestinians, whose aspiration for a national identity has being steadily demolished, by the settler ‘invasion’ of the West Bank.
The article clearly indicates that: ‘Israeli president, Mr. Netanyahu, told members of the Israeli parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee that he had defied American requests to stop construction completely’. US presidents, from Ronald Reagan on, acting on behalf of an ineffective UN, have been unable to secure the necessary cooperation of Israeli governments.
Settlement continues unabated, with Israeli settlers in the West bank constantly growing in numbers supported by the IDF.
The whole tenor of the article denies the impression given by the article’s headline, which I find puzzling, to say the least. The world has waited since 1948 for this standoff to be resolved and the plight of the Palestinians to be respected.

Palestinian peace talks

The Age today (27/8) published an article: 'Truth
is the way to peace' by Jonathan Freedland from the English 'Guardian',
in which he writes: 'Peace may have stayed out of reach because for too
long we refused to confront the true causes of this war', which are more
than a century old, even then ignoring such reasons for hatred as the
favoured son dispute between Ishmael and Isaac the favoured son and
ancestor of a 'chosen' people. It is worth noting that both Judaism and
Islam have long rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah, Prince of Peace,
as well as rejecting the second commandment: 'to love thy neighbour'at.

For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.

While Palestinians, and Israelis generally, want to live in peace, the
sticking points are numerous.
Most Palestinians would accept Israel just as Israelis generally would
accept a Palestinian state, but Israel will not accept a Palestine with
any military capacity, which would seem to mean they would live under
Israeli rule - hardly a happy result for Palestinians.

On a different tack, Israel has the serious demographic problem of the
Israeli Arabs, with their large families, fearing Jewish minority
status. Israel proposes to make these Arabs swear allegiance to a Jewish
state, or have no vote. Palestinian prospects of freedom look dim.

In fact, the very strength of the Palestinian resistance, the
willingness of martyrs to die, now proves a substantial hindrance to an
honourable outcome to the peace process. Arab aggression, in war or
with rockets and suicide bombers, has solved nothing, only prolonging
the agony, with Palestinian losses, whether fighters or civilians,
always being far in excess of the enemy losses; as for example in the
recent Gaza Strip conflict, where rockets killed hundreds, but the IDF
killed some 3 1/2 thousand.

However, the major problem may turn out to be, again, that American
presidents' power to secure an answer to this problem is seriously
compromised by the strength of the Jewish lobby in America. The
Spooner cartoon accompanying the above article shows an uncertain Barack
Obama, with a huge 'rock' to roll away. The rock is labelled MIDDLE
EATERN/ ANTI - SEMITISM. That's wierd! In 1948 most of the Arab
population fled in terror to refugee camps. Is that any basis for
believing in a satisfactory answer at this stage without a truly
powerful peacemaker - and a really fair answer?

Underdogs – Part I

Football

Martin Flanagan (The Age 31/8) gives a history of the fluctuating fortunes of Melbourne’s various football teams over the last seventy five years. In all sports there are winners and losers. The question: ‘Which team will be premiers?’ occupies many minds over the football season, not least those of the players themselves, and not forgetting those who tip the weekly.
However, in competitive sports, what makes some winners, and others losers, is not easy to assess the possible outcome attracts much interest, analysis – and guesswork. For many, quite a bit is at stake, and consequently the interest of the public is presently heading for the crescendo of a close final game
Captains, coaches, and of course the players, are all important but, often teams are favoured with the support of backers, wealthy or otherwise influential, which can tip the balance with an important moral support, rescuing the team from its underdog status.

Palestine – ‘Farmers’ struggle to harvest beset by a faceless menace’ (The Age 31/8).
There are places where the unfairness of the ‘competition’ is so entrenched that the underdogs have so little chance of escape that there is virtually no hope for a reasonable future. The above story – on page eight – does not appear in the Online Age, which means that, as papers disappear, underdogs’ troubles will be less and less visible for a concerned public to see.
The fact is that there are Palestinian farmers who suffer attacks form masked settlers whose homes adjoin their farms, with crops and buildings burnt, orchards surrounded by encroaching settler homes and poisoned, without any chance of protection or redress. Put simply, the Israeli settlers do as they please, with a mere token response from the IDF (Israel Defence Force, apparently there to defend the settlers!) and no settler in danger of being punished.
The settlements, without official approval, but the effective support of the Israeli government, occupy much of the Palestinian West Bank, making it virtually impossible for there ever to be a Palestinian homeland, despite the repeated efforts of America, and others over many years to make this happen.
The Palestinians are truly underdogs - a case of a religion creating a virtually insoluble problem and democracy not finding a solution.

History

For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.

Political shambles.

'With governments like this in charge'. So runs the heading over the Age letter of 7/8 by John Gemmell,
as he fumes about government approaches to political campaign funding, stumbling water policy, public fear mongering, secrecy, and dismissal of expert opinion. (continue at http://secretballot.blogspot.com/)

Indeed, as we see the fruitless confrontation in Canberra over climate change, with personal pride being the dominant factor hindering the kind of intelligent interaction that a believer in democracy might hope for, is it any wonder that we see discouragement rampant in the community?
We are assured in the Bible that 'the powers that be are ordained by God'. Well, that leaves us in a bit of a quandary. The comment: 'Why do we do it?' rings a tiny bell somewhere. Yes, why? In fact we do do it - we vote them in and we vote them out. That's it! That's the extent of our political engagement!
Shaun Carney writes, (The Age 12/8): 'What we're seeing is the failure of the established political parties and the political system itself to generate a discussion, a revolt - anything at all - on one of the great issues of our time.' Where is the public engagement? Indeed, where is it? That is apart from the media, which does nothing to bring opposed view together where a synthesis can operate.
The same thing applies to the experts. We get scattered views but no resolution, enabling one 'expert' (The Age 13/8) such as Dr Gordon Cheyne (Dr. of what?) to assert confidently that there is no such thing as dangerous climate change.
We need a political process that resolves problems, quickly, securely, eliminating political heat (which achieves nothing at all).
Meanwhile, suggestions are made that party campaigns should be publicly funded, so the totally corrupt practice of allowing the flow of vested interest funds to the parties (cash for a chat to a minister), can be arrested. Isn't it quite ludicrous that we should even consider lavishing public money on the parties to enlarge the very campaigns they use to fight for power, while doing nothing to increase opportunities for our involvement as intelligent participants? They just don't care about political reform, do they?
Our political process needs modernising, but not in a manner that might suit the powers-that-be. As Alfred E. Smith (a former governor of New York) once said: 'All the evils of democracy can be cured by more democracy'.

Human Beings are created equal !

Human Beings are indeed created equal Vincent Zankin (The Age 7/8), but in another sense, are made equal, before the law, by the law of the land.

Thus the refusal of terrorism suspect Nayef El Sayed to stand before the magistrate, in court, constitutes a punishable charge of contempt of court - a breach of the rule of law.

Australian law prevails throughout this land with no ifs or buts. Minority views or beliefs, religious or otherwise, contrary to existing law, cannot prevail against the Australian law.
The beliefs and practises of religions are individual but, ideally, have a separate, public role to play, assisting and encouraging believers in the growth of citizen and leadership qualities, as an outcome of their faith.

Two Kinds of People

There are two kinds of people in this world - the strong and the weak. Democracy, the brainchild of the Athenians, was conceived as a way for the latter to keep the former in order.
How is it working out? It’s not.

Our media is full of the struggles of minorities for justice, or even a real hearing. This is the constant story, throughout the whole spectrum of society, both national and international. Examples are legion.
Take economics. In 2006 Nouriel Roubini was contemptuously labelled Dr. Doom for predicting in detail the process which resulted in the global financial crisis. He is now (for a brief time) famous, with David Hirst (The Age 6/8) noting his Australian visit ‘from Cassandra to super star’. His fame will, no doubt, soon be brushed aside by the ‘wisdom’ of the gung-ho ‘experts’, whose hubris caused the problem in the first place.

The work of Jimmy Carter in easing US relations with North Korea was wrecked by the aggressive George Bush, resulting in the acute nuclear weapons stand-off, which was behind the arrest of two US journalists. Now we see Bill Clinton, after a ‘soft’ independent visit to North Korea, returning with both of them.

A very real issue is that party governments of all kinds are practically impervious to the wisdom of the people amongst whom are very often those who can see the imminent danger, but live with the frustration (and helpless fury?) of being steadfastly ignored. (The policies on ‘water’ and climate change come immediately to mind.) Meanwhile the juggernaut of partisan government rolls on, arrogant, tone deaf, too weak to do what is necessary, but strong enough to juggle experimental responses to vital issues, afraid to listen.

The Godwin Grech affair is another casualty of our partisan style power structure. As a public servant, his responsibility was unquestionably to serve the new government, but the length of stay of the coalition government made him a Liberal convert with an attitude which should have disqualified him as a public servant.
(That Turnbull was willing to take advantage of his inappropriate illegal loyalties casts a long shadow over his democratic character.) None of this would have been remotely possible within a ballot parliament.

The home-birth issue is another case of threatening government dismissal of the importance of minority values. It maybe that the risks to mother and child are too great to accept. But where is the forum for all sides to be adequately heard. For a minority to lose the argument can be accepted if the process fully and fairly canvasses all the facts, without government or other dominance, and the process will permit a rerun of the issue, after an interval, if fresh facts indicate that it should be.

As I write, i have a visit from a builder. He tells me of nine months delay to get the building permits from the Council for three verandah roofs (for which he already has the deposits).

The point is that minorities make a lot of noise because they fear that without that they will never be heard. Then governments resist with more or less force out of fear.


Nothing can really be final in the affairs of the nation, other than declaring war – in which case a very large percentage free vote (90%?) ) in parliament would be essential.

We are not children, or sheep. We are not ignorant, we can think, although, by having the opportunity available to take part in active participation, we could think better and more deeply.

When will we learn that pure democracy is needed to dissipate all this fear, frustration, and anger. In view of government resistance to reasonable change, many are convinced that we should have a ‘bill of rights’ to let the courts have the government on a leash. But control could be, and should be, by the people - not the courts. Rights merely set the people against government, whereas government should be in a realistic way answerable to a confident people, with a confident voice.

Without this advance (to non-partisan government (via the ballot in parliaments), there is no chance of a successful world government. If we don’t wake up to the absolute need for change, Armageddon is a very real possibility. We are the best people to get this ball rolling, if we will only believe - and take appropriate action. Join the Secret Ballot Party - for free.
basilsmith@sfastmail.fm

Ethics etc

Dr. Lindy Edwards writes (The Age 3/ 8) ‘Ethical behaviour, it seems, is a core input for thriving economies.' In other words, community ethics must replace greed and self-interest as the foundation for economic efficiency and progress. This is not exactly surprising. The need for right living or, in other words, the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would that they should do unto you), obviously has universal application, whether in the home, at work, or, surprise surprise! - in the world of politics.
There is no doubt that private enterprise, as an important aspect of individual liberty, has an important role in the vitality of business, and society generally. But to equate greed and self-interest with 'private enterprise' is a serious mistake. They can, in no wise, be regarded as synonymous or congruent, and this misunderstanding has obviously been at the root of the recent global financial crisis, with rash investment strategies encouraged by governments, by deregulation of the financial markets.
There can be no doubt that appropriate regulation is an essential safeguard for the liberty and well-being of all, within the framework of a democracy. But parliaments are pretty much infected by partisan interests, absorbing and adopting some of their less than desirable principles and beliefs.
It is certainly clear that the behaviour in our parliaments would also benefit considerably by a more diligent understanding and application of the Golden Rule.

A Bill of Rights

.

There are many at present striving to have a Federal ‘bill of rights’ giving our courts a power of review of parliamentary decisions. This view is driven by a limited concept of democracy, seeking an alternative answer in legal provisions to control parliament, overlooking the real cause of the problem, the corruption of party politics, which messes up parliament as a clean-cut decision-making body, and precludes the people from their vital role. Ideologies and the interests of various minorities dominate parliament as a result. A better democracy requires much more ‘say’ for the people. The radical change needed to restore democracy is the adoption of the ballot in parliament for all decisions. Without this simple but far-reaching reform, the mess will continue, with a bill of rights muddying the water, solving little and contributing to a further complication of the already complicated task of government.

Where people in power are able to act with hubris, their decisions fail to reflect the wisdom of the people which the system excludes. Their decisions are essentially unsatisfactory, and deservedly at the mercy of the dissident criticism of the people, with the often urgent need for strong, sensible action repeatedly frustrated.

Antagonism towards government is a primary evidence of a failure in democracy, not proof of its health. A public company could never survive with a board in the constant, deliberate conflict of power politics, like our parliaments.

With independent representatives linking the people to a balloting parliament, which able to appoint and direct the executive, a thorough examination of important far-reaching matters would precede critical decisions, integrating the people in the decision-making process to the degree necessitated by the issues involved. A world-respected democracy would quickly ensue.

Keep God out of our democracy!

In an excellent article, Professor Carmen Lawrence (self-confessed unbeliever), writes (The Age July 2), ‘I listened with alarm as MPs lined up to claim Christian identity while seeking to justify George Bush in the attack on Iraq.’ I share her concern.

We may think that a Christian MP could guarantee honesty, Jim Wallace, CEO of the Australian Christian Lobby, has testified that a Christian MP confessed to him, with tears, how his loyalty to party interests could override and violate his conscience.

Even if religious MPs believe they have access to Superior Wisdom, history does not concur. We know now that the preemptive war in Iraq, insisted on by confessed-evangelical Christian, George Bush, was quite unjustified, almost certainly hypocritically conceived, and was mainly and wrongly supported by our government. Surely, it must lie heavily on the conscience of all its supporters.

Professor Lawrence concludes: ‘Often the very same people who bowed their heads in prayer (to “Almighty God”), were the ones who appeared least constrained by Christian charity. There’s the rub.’ If that be true there’s something radically amiss.

In any case, with this ‘mistake’ thousands of Americans died - with far more in Iraq. Who is accepting responsibility? Politicians retire and walk away apparently untroubled. Meanwhile, those who encouraged them and those who support them bear no responsibility either.

We need to realise that in a democracy we are all responsible for what government does. Avoiding this responsibility only multiplies the problems. Fair and effective democratic government needs the involvement of the people. To this end, an early revision of our parliamentary system is essential, to be based on the ballot, with party rule replaced by parliamentary government and independent representation, so that we can participate and be responsible.

Rearmament - Defence White Paper

The government’s defence White Paper has advocated rearmament, of the navy - doubling of our submarines from eight to twelve, more and bigger warships with missile capacity; and our air force with more powerful planes. Previously we reequipped our army with the latest battle tanks, ‘to deal with terror’! Will this ‘waving of the fist’ make us safer in today’s realities? Surely an aggressive attitude breeds aggression.

We might be an ever-ready partner for America, as these policies strongly suggest, but of the reverse we can not be so certain. The world’s relationships have changed.

We cannot stand tall as a military power, nor should we ever want to, but we can stand tall as a peace-loving nation advancing the cause of democracy, by reforming our own. For example, our constitution could require an eighty to ninety percent free vote in parliament before deploying any military force beyond our shores! Australians could very well vote that in—if we were asked!

Militant attitudes are very easy for government to sell to the public, fear being an easy public button to push, as seen in the ‘communist threat’, and our involvement in Vietnam (and now North Korea), and the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ with our encouragement of America’s pre-emptive strike in Iraq. How easy it is to blunder on, with hawks in our back room and fear haunting our counsels of state. Fear makes intelligent, restrained policies difficult, requiring faith in the virtue of a people-centred stance of helpful, peaceful intention.

It is encouraging that two ex prime ministers have been moved by concern at the aggressive implications of the defence white paper. Both Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating have embraced these issues from a non-partisan point of view, highlighting the importance of peaceful intention and goodwill respectively. We surely echo their concern.

Superior Merits of the Ballot parliament

It seems all are not convinced of the superior merits of a ballot parliament.
The term ‘ballot’ is taken to mean a ‘secret vote’ by all the members sitting in parliament, a democratic mode far superior to that which prevails, having far better democratic credentials. Why so?

Firstly, we are talking about political power. Who wields it - and who should?
Democracy is government BY the people, OF the people, FOR the people, which means that we, as individuals, are entitled, and have a responsibility, to participate in forming the decisions on matters of public interest and concern. But clearly this means working with others, to arrive at sensible decisions.

Issues can have long term affects on our lives and it is clearly important that facts should govern decisions. But our present system of open voting and party control in parliament results in see-saw governments with important decisions often more influenced by ideology than factual considerations.

Only by a freedom for equality of public input, at all levels, can important decisions be properly subjected to new facts, new thinking and new research.

Mission Impossible?

Can President Obama persuade the Jews and Arabs, combatants in Palestine, to ‘kiss’ and make up a quarrel that started when Hagar, Sarai’s Egyptian maid, bore Abraham a son, Ishmael. But Isaac, born subsequently to Abraham’s wife, Sarai, was deemed to be Abraham’s real heir and Ishmael was cast out.
The Israelite history in the ‘promised land’ over the centuries was chequered to say the least. That history, in the Old Testament, shows they were victors or vanquished in relation to surrounding kingdoms, as they worshipped, or ignored God. Ever longing for a Messiah, to be successful in war like David, whose kingdom extended from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, they misunderstood the nature of their true Messiah, Jesus.
False messiahs arose and challenged the Roman rule, so that the Romans fulfilled Jesus’ prophesy, destroying the temple and ejecting the Jews, who fled to many countries. Maintaining their separateness as God’s chosen people, they became offside in Russia and Europe.
The Jewish desperation for a separate state, after the Hitler’s ‘final solution’ and its Holocaust, persuaded the UN to allow the Zionists their wish to form the nation of Israel in Palestine. A wise decision?
Some six hundred thousand Palestinians deserted their homes in fear, fleeing to refuge camps around Gaza and in neighbouring states, where Muslim resentment nurtured the new guerrilla war of the suicide bomber. And now the impasse.
Israel, militarily very strong, with American arms, financial support, and by repute, nuclear weapons, cannot be defeated. Nor can they be secure against the Muslim-fed hatred and the fearless antagonism within the Arab nation, the descendants of Ishmael.
Israel, constantly threatened is scared of the threat posed by any rise in Arab power, such as the current threat posed by Pakistan’s nuclear intentions.
Meanwhile, the possibility of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank, assigned by the UN as Palestinian land, has been ‘scotched’ by orthodox-religious Jewish view the God ‘promised’ it all to Abraham and his descendants. Their many settlements have the tacit approval, and defence, of Israel’s government. This, together with the high separation wall, wandering through the West bank, even separating Palestinian villagers from their farms, and dividing families, effectively renders a separate Palestinian state unviable.
Can Obama, with the best will in the world, succeed in pursuing a separate Palestinian state? Consider the vehement response to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ‘openness’ to a two state solution – the right wing cry: ‘traitor’.
But, consider Netanyahu’s preconditions: the Palestine state ‘must be demilitarised and be unable to control its borders or airspace, and must recognise Israel as a Jewish state,’ (the Age 17/6).
And Arabs resident in Israel can only ever expect to be second-class citizens, without the vote, unless they agree Israel is a Jewish state, because Israel fears an indigenous Arab demographic victory.
Jewish minority power in America virtually ensures that Obama, with the best will in the world, cannot resolve this standoff, which ensures that the ‘war’ of Islam against the Western world could last a very long time.

Ballots IN Parliament - realistic?

My friends,
I am continually saddened by the fruitless argumentation and sterile
conflict in our government circles - (and media). Sound, constructive
decision-making is hamstrung by bitter and pointless disputation. I note
that in Britain they achieved unity of purpose in WWII with coalition
government, after a terrible start without unity. In the beginning of
the present crisis I recall there was talk of a coordinated approach but
it quickly withered through the pressures and pride of partisan
interests.

Watching the children singing with enthusiasm at Grandparents' Day,
today, and admiring their excellent work, in classrooms proclaiming the
highest life values, I came to reflect - do our leaders uphold these
values? Does our style of conflict-based democracy support these values?
Will life beyond school cherish, or dash, their enthusiasm and hope?

They certainly deserve better - much better.

Why should we continue with the present divisive, partisan style of
politics when a simple change to an electronic secret voting system in
our parliaments would quickly result in independent representation, with
ongoing, effective, popular involvement, and a growing confidence in the
possibilities of sensible government, to plan well for a secure and
sustainable future.

What do you think?

Ethnics & Branch Stacking – a part of political life

Dick Gross (The Age Comment & Debate 12th May) comments: “It is legitimate to organise to increase a group’s political power. Stacking (is) just part of political life.
“It is a story about how all tiers of government operate to secure power bases that go right to the top of the political food chain.” Speaking for himself (as a Jew) Gross says: “we, and every other grouping, need it.”

It is clear enough that migrants from non-European countries are ethnic minorities, with their consequent difficulties and frustrations. Without seeking to pillory them (Gross notes that ‘anglo’ political manipulation tends to excite less criticism) we should realise the extent to which these so common attitudes diverge from the very central principle of democracy – the right to an equality of political power for every one of us.

Throughout the ages there have been the struggles to bring societies nearer to that philosophical ideal, (which possibly echoes the Jewish injunction to ‘Love Thy Neighbour’), to the Greek recognition of the Demos (the individual people who comprise ‘the people’), through Magna Carta, the French Revolution, British parliamentary reforms, the ‘Australian Ballot’ for elections and the Swiss ‘Initiative’ (giving their people the right to initiate referenda).

But we are still stuck with our wretched ‘representative’ system, which hands power to the powerful – and entrenched conflict. And in the middle of all this we note that as long ago as 1911, English writers Belloc & Chesterton recognised that those whom parliament should rule are the main forces in our parliaments, to the detriment of the people. In this winner-take-all world minorities struggle. Is this a good enough ‘democracy’? I, and many others, think not.

Shariah Law

The video below reports that an Islamic shariah court has been allowed independence from British law - to operate in Britain.

This weak acquiessence to Muslim extremist pressure is extremely dangerous and is in absolute contradiction to democratic principle.

The law is much worse than an ass to allow this invasion of the rights of all Britons to the full protection of British law and government, from any religious dictatorial principles insidiously creeping in to Western society under cover of more moderate Islam.

It simply cannot be permitted.

Welcome to Saudi Britain

Joining the 'dots'

The Sustainability Commissioner, Dr McPhail, in tabling the Victorian State of the Environment Report, (The Age editorial, Friday Dec 5th) reveals an environment in ‘dangerous decline’, and ‘laments the failure to join the dots between issues … such as climate change and water supply’.

Similarly, ‘Planning Minister Justin McFadden dared lament the environmentally unsustainable trend to McMansions. The report observes that “community support for government leadership is needed”’.

There are plenty of others, in which the solution of one aggravates the problem in another, without adequate consideration of other associated matters.

Examples include:
1. The expansion of bio-fuel production, requiring agricultural land, when a growing world population will need ever more food.

2. Then there is the electric car which will help with the oil crisis. But have governments really got the will to develop the renewable energy needed to supply the extra electricity required, or will we simply burn more coal.
3. Last year a prize for the best and brightest Christmas lights, promoted by Melbourne commercial interests, ignoring the need to cut emissions from coal powered electricity, has passed by, virtually free of comment.

So much for government 'joining the dots'.

World government

The ideal of world government is gaining some attention, a reflection of the serious concern at the multiple conflicts in the world today. The ‘gun’ and the ‘bomb’ still hold sway, while the poorest of the world, especially their children, continue to suffer and die.

No country has yet mastered the secret of government without the corrupting control of minority interests. So what hope can there be for world democracy where the veto still rules in the Security Council? As in Ancient Greece, ‘decisions (would be) made by the many rather than the few’ in a real world democracy. A ‘pipedream’?

I have elsewhere postulated a world parliament based on a valid democracy.
It might be roughly as follows: China 1250, India 1000, USA 300, Indonesia 220, Brazil 175, Russia 150, Pakistan 140, UK 60 and, Australia 20.



If we have come some way in peacefully integrating many different cultures over the years, that owes much to our rather stable political system, largely because so many years ago we were granted the ‘fair go’ of a secret ballot for the election of our representatives.

But is that all we can do? Democracy is still weak and struggling convulsively with the several hefty world problems which cannot be avoided. Is it so impossible, to have the people govern instead of minority interests?

We ourselves need the last neglected step of democratic reform—the secret ballot to rule in our parliaments, conferring independence on all our representatives, restoring parliamentary government—by the people.

Now that would give us the world’s respect, with an image to lead the world to a genuine democracy within and among all the nations. Must it be only a ‘pipedream’?
.

A nervous electorate

A nervous electorate awaits the outcome of desperate efforts by our governments to contain the financial/job crises, while environmentalists despair of ever seeing an effective program to solve the dangers of climate change.

Meanwhile, the success of stimulus and infrastructure spending being uncertain in the short term, maybe better, maybe worse, in the longer term, Dr. Lindy Edwards, (Age Comment & Debate Tues. May 5) ponders whether Prime Minister Rudd will turn out to be ‘Hero, or villain’, depending on which point of time judgement is involved and whether success is a rain shower or failure becomes a hailstorm.

In the midst of innumerable commentators with widely varying views, and political parties at war in parliament, we have Tony Cutcliffe of the Eureka Project proclaiming our leaders need a ‘two-way flow on decisions’ (Age Business, Opinion May 6).

Cutcliffe claims: ‘most senior decision-makers (have) become isolated from the lives of ordinary Australians’…and ’rather than uniting the community to fight our biggest known threat, Australia’s key decision-makers are leading the community to division, fatalism and fear.’ We need, he says: ‘a structured conversation with Australians—with information flowing both ways’, to take advantage of ‘the highly influential knowledge and skills among staff and constituencies now consigned to irrelevance’. He has a point.

I have long maintained that ordinary people are a resource, neglected by party governments which, being engrossed with the exercise of power, have neither the time nor the will for the profitable interchange with the community which could improve the clarity of decisions and achieve a fully supportive public.

A structured involvement of the people could vastly improve the practice of government, with better decisions and a lot less public frustration. This highlights an elementary aspect of democracy which is missing—to our shame and possible peril.

Guilt, fear and hope

Fear, both real and imagined, has a cause - guilt. Fear reigns in the world today because of the multitude of wrongs. And no wonder. Amongst other things, ‘big boys’ not content with their toys are chasing still bigger and ‘better’ toys, with military robotics—to make war more safely!

Meanwhile our troops are quietly evacuating Iraq, having been in meek support of America for some years. Increasing numbers of troops are going into Afghanistan, to fight the Taliban. How respected are these ventures in the Arab world? And what is our reputation in the eyes of these people? We don’t want to lose any soldiers over there - standing up for the cause of freedom. But we have and we will. Is there an end which is worth it - and can it be achieved? Is what we are doing right?

The growth of China’s economic power is now being followed by an increase in China’s military spending. Does China threaten us? Hardly! What is the point? They like, and receive, large supplies of minerals from Australia – notably steel, coal and gas. Seemingly in fear of China, our bureaucrats have devised plans for the purchase of more dangerous aircraft and new submarines with missile capacity. This has not gone down well with China, and we should not be surprised. Personally, I am staggered! Who do we think we are? Do we think we should do this to help (encourage) America to ‘have a go’ at China? China?
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Euripides - Wikiquote

We have already gone down that path with President Bush’s pre-emptive strike on Iraq - a proper mess - and to what purpose? We know of China’s latent tension with the USA, over the old issue of Taiwan’s independence. But this issue has been bubbling away for decades with no foreseeable likelihood of escalation.

Now we are in Afghanistan - another murky spot - achieving what? The sensitivity of our presence is marked by attempts to hide our troops killing half a civilian family. In this confused land, avoiding such a tragedy is no doubt easier said than done. And winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans seems to verge on the impossible, with us carrying so much American baggage, with Iraq, Palestine and who knows what else. It is far easier to acquire guilt than their confidence, as the invader.

We must look to our ways - and sensible reform of our decision-making processes - to safeguard us from a national foolishness which would ignore the many wise injunctions of the past, leading us in fear, further and further from a healthy respect for the Golden Rule. Building on the Rock of righteousness will always be much better than the sand of pragmatism, guilt and fear. ‘Righteousness alone exalts a nation’ – the way of hope. ‘When a man's ways are pleasing to the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.’ Proverbs16:7

Free Forum Report

Free Forum Report.
I have to advise that the attempt at a free forum failed miserably on the 22nd. No one came, despite the significant interest shown in the concept beforehand. Never mind, we'll try again soon—a bit harder. On with the job of democratic reform!

To refresh; in seeking a meeting of ordinary people to discuss the issues in local forum, it was sort to initiate an important move forward in democratic reform.
The two things missing in our democracy which have permitted the slide into the dictatorial government of the party system are:
1. The open system of voting in our parliaments, which denies our representatives the freedom to function truly and fully as our representatives,
2. The absence of local forums, which must be convened by all representatives, to give a significant, effective community involvement in the decision-making process.

We thus have a stalemate. MPs think the people are not interested enough to attend. And they are right, because the people think that MPs are not interested in listening, and they are right, so what's the point—there is none.

So people are troubled and unhappy, with no power to influence important, far-reaching decisions, when the future is clearly going down the gurgler. We face the looming chaos of climate change, resource exhaustion, and world population explosion, with a monumental incompetence in the world’s democracies generally, to govern adequately, with institutionalised conflict throughout the community.

But now, massive problems of starvation and disease threaten the world’s future, with little or no prospect of competent world government to secure world order. These pressures are likely to lead to an exponential growth in world migration and a growing danger of nations seeking military solutions.

Dr Lindy Edwards, political scientist, speaking of the need to reinvent our social democracy, says: The Battle of ideas has never been more important, because where the future leads is up to us’.

So, back to the main problem—without the direct involvement of the people, we have government and people at enmity with each other. The people are encouraged by power-hungry-party-governments to be self-centred and demanding, whereas effective democratic government, in the future, will need the willing cooperation of the people to cope with decisions substantially more difficult than has been required to date.

There is thus a critical need to take the initiative in developing local forums, firstly where concerned citizens can have their ‘say’, and where ultimately, the people and their representatives can meet in friendly cooperation, to resolve the best approach to each and every problem.

We can't change a governing party's viewpoint in local forum, but the people will be able to have a very significant influence on government decisions when all the representatives become independent by a permanent move to fully balloting parliaments.

Clean Coal – An Oxymoron?

A truly apt summation! And Mr. Charlie Spears, inaugural head of Clean Coal Victoria admits as much (The Age Mon. 27/4 Business Day p3).

It is truly extraordinary how far the dream of the impossible, can persist beyond hope, when vested interests are involved, even when there are hard facts which simply deny all hope.
Paddy Manning’s G—BIZ article (p8), quotes some of those facts from Graham Brown, long time NSW coal miner, e.g.:
1. ‘Every tonne of coal burnt (creates) 2.5 to 2.7 tonnes of carbon ‘(CO2) - burying oxygen!
2. It would need to be compressed 500 times to be trucked to Cooper Basin in South Australia
3. ‘Buried one kilometre, temperature could be 65 C’ (with much increased pressure) and risk (or certainty) of leakage,
4. With regard to jobs, Brown says ‘statistics in Europe and a study by Greenpeace on the central coast of NSW show that there’s six times more jobs in the transition away from coal than there is in it.’