Sustainable atavistic antagonists of common sense

Sunday, 8 January 2012


Sustainable atavistic antagonists of common sense.

Thank you for the wonderful editorials and excellent articles of the past few days all judiciously debunking Labor's latest leftist political fetish - Social Inclusion / Justice and it's attendant trite asinities.

What a self - afflicted insult to Labor's [socialist] collective intelligence that they have a Ministry for Social  Inclusion - and have to admit they cannot define in rational terms it's raison d'etre.

It has always been so: the ahistorical, hysterical stolen generations, feel - good ideas of alternative medicine AKA anti mainstream / business / medical,

silly slogans: this is a nuclear - free zone, their absurd factions, [varying from the left to right and multiple combinations in between] the three mines policy, world starvation and Y2K catastrophies - all incapsulated by Lenin's part - prophetic useful idiots moniker.

Nothing comparably absurd can be appended to the right. Even Bob Hawke admitted that Labor voters AKA the donkey vote are the majority domain /  of the left, That is an indictment that has remained with me.

It is just that Gillard and Rudd have clearly outshone their predecessors. Badly, plainly, undeniably. By multiple, incalculable factors.

Contemplate the current leftists: their  willfull blindness [NBN]  their inversion economic irrationalism in wrecking the economy with mega - spending, their killer policies for which the minister did not pay any price, The awe - inspiring lunacy of taxing hot air, the stiltifying twirpery of their multi - disasterous immigration policy, the support of a member of their part who is under police investigation - and more!

Much, much more. Outside of the domain of this letter

So - they vary between the utopia and the catastrophic. The ethereal nonsence and merely pie - in - the - sky wishful thinking

Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Grove
East St Kilda 3183
03 9525 9299

Social Inclusion Unit fails test

The Australian 7 January 2012

In a civilised society there is an important role for the state to step in to assist people to overcome their own difficulties when they may not be able to do so on their own. Although this seems to be the intention of the government's oddly named Social Inclusion Unit, the minister and the unit itself have made a hash of explaining what the term means, how the unit works and what it has achieved. It has been found wanting in its work outcomes while it spends extravagantly on travel and other expenses.

Catholic Health Australia chief executive Martin Laverty supported the unit, but said tangible results needed to be achieved. Mark Henley from UnitingCare Wesley says the idea has not worked as well as it did under the Labour government in Britain. It begs the question from the nation's poor: what have we done to deserve this? We can understand why the Coalition has vowed to scrap the unit, just as the South Australian Labor government did, along with the Labour government in Britain. The Gillard government and the Greens remain committed to it. But what matters, to borrow a phrase from Tony Blair, is what works.

Clearly, the unit is not yet working. Social democratic governments have a philosophical instinct to show compassion. But they need more than a strategy; they need a strategy people can understand, and one that works. If the minister responsible doesn't understand it, as Mark Butler appeared not to when he inherited his portfolio, then what hope is there for the rest of us? A strategy needs to make a real difference in the lives of those it is supposed to help. Dealing with human difficulties is a core part of most ministerial portfolios. Those who suffer from serious mental illness, for example, need considerable assistance. Governments provide health, housing, education and community services. There are programs that are better performed by the private sector and through the generosity of volunteers. There will always be people who act against their own self-interests, and some who cannot help themselves. We have a duty to come to their aid. After eight research reports, many meetings and an exorbitant travel bill, the unit has not yet found the answer. The Coalition suggestion the $3.3 million saved by abolishing the unit could help fund a National Disability Insurance Scheme which could make a difference in the lives of some of the most needy is an understandable one

The right to common sense

The Australian 6 January 2012

Yesterday on these pages we proffered the unfashionable view that a law insisting a human rights compatibility statement be stapled to every piece of legislation before parliament defied common sense. After all, this is Canberra we are talking about, not Minsk, and while we can probably beat the Belarusians at most sports, when it comes to human rights violations we're not even in the game.

The first item on the notice paper when parliament resumes must be the repeal of this worthless act. Next, parliament should debate its replacements, The Common Sense Bill 2011 and its companion, The Common Sense (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill; measures that will enforce the application of prudent judgment in accord with the facts as we know them.

Regretfully, the United Nations General Assembly has yet to proclaim a Universal Declaration of Common Sense, but when it does we should be first to endorse its sentiment that disregard for everyday wisdom has resulted in foolish acts which have outraged the intelligence of mankind. As a nation we shall strive, through teaching and education, to promote respect for common sense and secure its universal recognition within the territories under our jurisdiction. We are confident our legislation will survive a High Court challenge, for while our Constitution is curiously silent on the matter the principles of implied common sense will apply.

This bill, vital as it is, will not, regretfully, cure the intractable problem of our two-speed commonsense economy. For as long as anybody can remember, there has been a wisdom deficit in Canberra, but an abundance of prudence in much of the rest of the country where the art of drivel detection is better understood.

There are other measures we might consider: content warnings could be screened before ABC TV's Insiders ("This program contains coarse logic, false premises and unwarranted interpretations that might offend rational viewers"); fitness camps for flabby thinkers; and an amendment to climate change legislation to put a tax on hot air.

The risk, however, is that by going too far we will ourselves fall foul of The Common Sense Act. And the best way to eradicate nonsense is not by government fiat, but through the contest of ideas, where feeble reasoning never prospers and two plus two always adds up to four.