Reform

Labor and Liberal MPs voted to quash a Motion by Clifford Hayes to clean up political donations in Victoria, proving their dependency on the flimsy and corrupt status quo. The Motion was defeated in the Legislative Council in May.

Sustainable Australia MP Clifford Hayes commented,

“Once again, the major parties have shown their true colours and proven they are totally dependent on Victoria’s flimsy and corrupt political donation regime.”

Reform all aspects of how we treat our ageing population. More real, boots-on-the-ground funding for in home care. In home respite options. More support for carers, and recognition of the huge amount of unpaid work they are doing every single day. Complete overhaul of how income and assets are calculated, the scrapping of the "6 month hardship" rule. Streamlining the process for calculating daily fees and admission to long term placement. Specialised support and advocacy agency within the Department of Human Services, or an independent body, to assist carers to navigate the system. Go to Tara Kostezky's Campaign

Why is this important?
Our care of our ageing population is a National scandal, and a disgrace. There is an appalling shortfall of support services for both participants and carers in the home, lack of real in home respite options, chronic lack of available services in rural areas in particular, poor acknowledgement of the Carers Recognition Act in all dealings with government departments and the health care system...the list goes on and on.

Residential Aged Care is a nightmare to navigate for carers who are already exhausted by the time the need for facility care is needed. Carers will (quite naturally, given what the current Royal Commission is bringing to light, and of which those on the ground are already completely aware) avoid placing loved ones into care until it becomes apparent there is no other option left. And by that point, they are usually completely burnt out and overwhelmed. And then: they are confronted with the financial aspects of residential placement, at the time they are least able to do so.

Government department delays, an almost deliberately dense and complex process, conflicting advice from Centrelink, government run "advocacy" services, and My Aged Care: all of these are things with which carers are all too familiar. And there are many, many older members of our community who have no advocacy at all from family or friends who best know their needs. These poor unfortunates are thrown into the system, to be churned through, stripped of their assets, and forgotten. After all, who would care?

The financing of Aged Care is unjust and uses figures which are unrealistic for the poorest members of our society to meet. Unless the person is "fully concessional", they fall into the murky category of "partial concessional". Figures of $350 *per week* are not unheard of, ABOVE the 85% of the Aged Pension. Hardship can be applied for...but only after 6 months of trying to sell whatever tiny assets that person has (usually the family home). Families are being forced to sell assets well under market value due to the urgency of needing to come up with funds immediately. Reasonable debts, such as unpaid council rates, are NOT included in the calculation of what the asset is worth. The net effect of this on a broader scale is sinple: channelling the assets of the very poorest into the hands of the profit margins of our for profit Aged Care Homes. We already have a "death tax" in this country...except of course - again - this only applies if you are poor. The wealthy can simply pay the RAD and be done with it, and when the end comes, it is returned to them, as the very name suggests: Refundable Accomodation Deposit.

The effect on a larger social level is this: the traditional passing on of wealth to the next generation becomes out of reach of those who most need it.

And what does all this pay for? Ants in the wounds of the dying. Shocking abuse of a daily basis. Burnt out and cynical staff who can no longer actually give a damn, through their own need to survive emotionally, because profit is king and proper compassionate staffing ratios are expensive to maintain. Absolute human misery and suffering.

Why should anyone care about this anyhow?

The demographics of the coming two decades show very, very clearly that we are on the brink of a tsunami of the ageing population. Directly, or indirectly, you WILL be confronted with these issues.

And because none of this is fair, or just, or right, or - most importantly - compassionate to the slightest degree.

And if you can't find it in yourself to care for those reasons, here are two more: the economic aspects of this will have long lasting implications for our economy, and none of them are good with the system we now have in place. And the second reason? You will be old one day too. What sort of care do you think will be awaiting you when you no longer have any other options left? Go to sign at the Community Campaign

I am leveling the following charge against our Australian constitutional system: Everyday Australians must follow the rules, but they cannot change them. Australians have no real say over their own system of government, at either state or federal level.
If this accusation is correct the implication is that Australians are not free, they are subjects of the Elite.

Do we need to change our Constitution? Considering that it is over a century old and not a Constitution for the ‘people’, Matthew Mitchell, in this post says “yes, we certainly do”.

I am leveling the following charge against our Australian constitutional system:

Everyday Australians must follow the rules, but they cannot change them. Australians have no real say over their own system of government, at either state or federal level.

If this accusation is correct the implication is that Australians are not free, they are subjects of the Elite.

The obvious reply is that we have the ability to have referendums. Do we really? Even if a large number of citizens wanted a significant change what is the likelihood that change would occur? I claim it is zero. Referendums must first be approved by our parliament, thus any proposal is not put directly to the people, it is first filtered and modified, and likely rejected, by our parliamentary political system. The system preserves itself, and is immune to change proposals. The only ideas that even get close to referendum are proposals that entrench the status quo (eg: replacing the titular head of state); increase or preserve the powers of one or another levels of government (eg: recognition of local government), and even if well intentioned may be undermined (eg: constitutional changes proposed as part of the republic) or seen as coming from a
favoured political group. Thus it is no wonder that referendums usually fail, Australians are perhaps quite rightly innately un-trusting of any proposal that is put to referendum, suspecting that it serves one or another vested interest.

Thus Australians are not free – they have no say over what their political system is, or how it works. They are stuck with a system set up by colonial masters and elite citizens over 100 years ago. This system can only be changed with the consent of those privileged few that control the parliament (those who Govern us, the subjects) and it is highly unlikely – impossible even – that proposals from anyone who is not a member of the political or business elite will get attended to.

It does not have to be this way! In Switzerland the People are truly sovereign – they can force a referendum on any issue they choose, if they get 100,000 signatures. And they do it regularly. Sometimes more than 12 times a year! Relevant examples include:

A referendum on Immigration Quotas (to be held in February this year)

Urban sprawl, spatial planning and development

Limits on Executive Pay

Family policy

It is claimed that this ability to change the constitution makes Switzerland a more stable country compared to countries like Australia whose constitutions are now well out of date. The fact is that Australia’s Constitution (at state and federal levels) is an undeniable mess, as Peter Olney discusses below (take for example, the ridiculous invention of a Queen of Australia).

Restore our constitution, local councils are not governments

If we are going to move to a republic, which really is a concept most Australian’s would support (if they trust the changes), then why not fix the whole constitution and perhaps introduce Swiss style direct democracy at the same time?

There was a vote to federate years ago (which was not that inclusive) but really there was no choice (for the people) of what constitution they may have. Thus no vote on this, as there were no choices! In any case, if we have at least one proposal that gives us some choice: the old or the new?

However, in this day and age, people trust grass roots movements more than proposals coming from the seats of power, or what are seen as the seats of power. Thus GetUp! campaigns have more legitimacy than government proposals for referendums on local government or anything else. So a new constitution is more likely to be trusted, and voted in, if it seen to come from the people: a People’s Constitution.

And the truth is that there are already several proposals that could form the basis of new People’s Constitution:

United People Power, #10;ralia/australia-display/an-independent-australian-constitution,4395">John Skene, Restore Australia and no doubt others also.

And perhaps this new constitution could include Indigenous people like never before and help correct some long standing injustices, such as Indigenous rights and recognition. There are also proposals to this effect such as one by UNILEX and another on Change.org.

But let us beware that in this process, there is a serious danger. It is likely that as discussion of proposals for a new constitution progresses, long brewing issues and injustices will also be highlighted. Make no mistake, there are issues that need to be discussed. They include not only Indigenous rights and recognition but also real or perceived threats to Australian values and culture from immigration and some minority groups (such as associated with the RestoreAustralia proposal).

But we must be very CAREFUL that we do not vilify immigrants who have come here under our past legal framework in good faith. If anything, or anyone, is to blame for our current situation and predicaments – it is our legal framework that may not allow sufficient democratic say on important national issues and the generations of politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats that have allowed this undemocratic system to continue for so long. In this regard I suggest we also look at Professor George William’s writing on the need for constitutional change as well as Justice Cheryl Saunders' speech on the need for a Bill or Rights.

However, there is a degree of urgency in this if we are to address pressing issues, such as growth, immigration and trade (such as signing away of our sovereignty with the TPP pact) whilst there is still time. But please let us do this with care, consideration and compassion for all who do, or may, call Australia home. Let Australians set an example of how societies can move forward peacefully – there has already been too much violence in the development of new nations like Australia and America. Time for a change!

[Ten News Sydney] Racist attack on Sydney Bus - 2/4/2013

(David Donovan and Peter Olney are acknowledged for their contribution to this article).