Julia Gillard

Rudd's Ministry after being sworn in on 3 December 2007

---

Irrespective of Rudd's failings, and we should not understate his leadership in saving Australians from the demise of the GFC; no leader deserves a factional coup d'etat.
Sudden leadership spills are unsettling to all concerned. What happened to Rudd was equivalent to a CEO being suddenly escorted from the company premises.
It was an humiliating and disrespectful act characteristic of oppressive regimes and revolutions, both uncharacteristically Australian. In the interests of good governance, probity, electorate accountability and civility, the process of leadership replacement needs review. What would have been wrong for instance with a two week notice period allowing for civil measured transition? What was the rush? We are not at war.

The process of leadership replacement where a political party can suddenly replace a Prime Minister or a State Premier without electoral involvement is undemocratic. Political parties are elected on the merit of their leader. That merit earns an electoral mandate. If that mandate is not fulfilled, it is for the electorate to judge.

Australia now has an unelected prime Minister and an unelected Premier of the country's most populous state, NSW - both appointed by the Labor Right factions. Irrespective of the personalities or gender of these two leaders, that they may be seen as factional appointments should be cause for concern by Australians that a undemocratic process and an unaccountable political group can control government at federal and state levels simultaneously. Where does the real power and control lie?

Such power must be realised, then properly curbed and restored to the people, even if such a leadership change were to be trigger a compulsory election. Until there is a general election Gillard's Government is not credible.

On the back of these two issues, Australia has its first female Prime Minister in Julia Gillard. This is an historic achievement, but it shouldn't be. What has take us so long? This is 2010 and all Australians are supposed to be equal and feminism has been fighting since the suffrage movement on the 1880s. Gender shouldn't even be a factor in a mature civilized society, just like ethnicity or age. It is an indictment on Australians that few indigenous people are in politics and that it is probably many generations away before we can celebrate an Aboriginal woman as Prime Minister.

That our socio-political mindset is so hung up on the abilities and performance of one person in the role a leader is a rather vulnerable insecure position for the electorate and the media to be in. It means that the success or failure of the entire nation hinges on the whim of one personality. In Rudd, we trusted him on his promises, but even though he was quickly distracted by the GFC and then lost focus on key issues, he didn't end up being an axe murderer, luckily. American voted for George W. Bush and look what they got - someone who condoned torture and sent Americans to invade another country!

Our dependence on one person to lead the nation poses an unnecessary 'key man' risk. It is the Government and specifically a Cabinet team of ministers who should be running the country, not Rudd, not a gang of four, not just Julia Gillard. Running a country is immensely complex. It is a shared responsibility that of course demands leadership, but for effective delivery requires layers of delegation and good governance.

Gillard would be wise to better utilise the talents of her elected representatives than trying to do everything herself like Rudd tried to do but failed. Gillard should be about leadership of the Cabinet. Gillard's Government should be about managing the national interest as directed by Cabinet. The two functions are distinctly different. Rudd' experiment with autocracy should be learnt from. He started off with a progressive approach to listening to the electorate in his 2020 Summit. Perhaps his incapacity to interpret criticism constructively saw him become insular - lessons we can all learn from.

If we consider some of our more longer serving leaders at both federal and state levels who were popular with the electorate and not divisive, we may learn from what works for Australian political stability. Deakin, Menzies, Hawke, Wran come to mind. Liberal and Labor are ideologically the same so it matters little which is in office. Listening and consultation followed by decisive action is a good start and this is one of the first indicators of Gillard's style she announced on taking the helm.

I wish her new government well. It would be reassuring for voters to think they can look forward to a long period of political stability in Australia, without the usual cycle of new leader euphoria...disappointment...complacency...anger...contempt...followed by let's give the Opposition a go.

But we must have an election soon. Until we do, Australia does not have a 'government of the people, by the people, for the people.' [Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, 19th November, 1863, Pennsylvania, USA].

Kicking the immigration-fix

The ABC reports that
Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has rejected a push for a big cut in Australia's migration intake (20 February 2009), despite "Research from Monash University demographer Bob Birrell [which] says the Government's economic rescue package will not save jobs unless the migration intake is cut by two-thirds."

The ABC describes Ms Gillard as having rejected the research, saying there is still a need for skilled migrants.

"We've made some recent changes so that we are taking skilled migrants who have jobs," she claimed, insisting that, "(...) even in today's economic circumstances there are still some parts of our nation where people are crying out for skilled labour, and we have the migration system to assist with that."

Let's see, Gillard believes that there are still some parts of the nation that desperately need skilled labour. Maybe so, but do they "still" need (as if they ever really did), an imported labor force and all its family members coming in annually at a higher rate than ever before, equivalent to the population of a small, rapidly growing city each year? And what do we do with the newly unemployed when these immigrant-demanding businesses go bust?

Politically addicted to unsustainable immigration; any excuse will do

I'm afraid that Ms Gillard sounds to me as if she is more interested in satisfying the demands of the property development and finance industry (which have driven our economy and democracy into the ground) than in serving her constituents (the broad population of Australia) and looking after our long-term welfare.

As candobetter commentator, Greg Wood, rails, "Can someone get Gillard to specify where the skills shortage is now that the resources industry and construction industry are beginning to majorly shed jobs?

Who pays for this costly habit?

While they are at it, can they also ask how increasingly unemployed and under-employed Australians are going to pay the pressure-cooked urban rentals that her lackey Government seems intent upon trying to prop up?"

Update: Immigration Minister Chris Evans 'expects' skilled immigration numbers to drop 'next year' due to the global economic crisis. See "Australia to cut skilled immigration" in the Age of 23 Feb 09

(Illustrations by Cruikshank for Oliver Twist and Fagin's school of pickpockets, circa 1837-1839.)

Rees must say 'no' to COAG's TAFE privatisation push

NSW Greens Media release: 29 October 2008

The nation's leaders are abandoning public vocational education and training without community consultation. Under a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) proposal, the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) system would be starved of funds and eventually replaced by a series of private providers, increasingly funded by fees through HECS-like loans, according to Greens NSW MP John Kaye.

Commenting on a story on page 5 of today's Sydney Morning Herald ('Push to privatise apprentice training'), Dr Kaye said: "The state premiers and the prime minister are colluding in secret to push through one of Australia's biggest privatisations since Telstra.

"More than $4 billion a year currently provided by state and federal governments to Australian TAFE colleges will be taken away and put up for competitive tender.

"Under the COAG proposal, TAFE would not have any guarantied funding. It would be forced to compete with lower quality private providers for money to pay for teachers, materials, support staff and operating costs.

"On the cusp of a global recession, Australia's trade training sector is being driven towards a voucher-based, user choice and pay model, without the consent of the voters and without fully considering the long term consequences.

"The nation's leaders are jeopardising the quality of vocational education and training on which Australia's wealth and social cohesion have largely depended.

"This is about cutting costs at the expense of losing an educated workforce. It is about driving cheap, employer-specific training that will de-skill Australia and undermine the ability of workers to innovate.

"The Rudd government is looking for a low rent boost to the numbers of 'trained' workers by sacrificing quality.

"NSW Premier Nathan Rees and his Education Minister Verity Firth must lead the charge to protect TAFE from Julia Gillard's privatisation agenda.

"They must block this proposal when COAG meets on 17 November," Dr Kaye said.

For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455

See also: "Govts planning TAFE privatisation: NSW Greens" on the ABC on 29 Oct 08, "TAFE Bulletin - Brumby's reforms will privatise our TAFEs" on Web site of Vic branch of Australian Education Union on 12 Aug 08, Australian Education Union Stop TAFE Privatisation Campaign.