cited articles John Miner

Faulkner's ideas are a good start for Labor

John Miner     Newcastle Herald, The (includes the Central Coast Herald), 14/06/2011

First, Section: News, pg. 11

OPINION & ANALYSIS

[pic + caption: STALWART: Senator John Faulkner . . . ask not what the party can do for you].

Reform will be complex but necessary, writes John Miner.

CRITICISM of the Labor's performance is inevitable after a defeat of the magnitude it experienced in NSW in March, and highly desirable.

Senator John Faulkner's comments in his Wran Lecture on June 9 should be welcomed by Labor members, and studied by voters.

I have no authority to write on behalf of the Labor Party but I can, as a former participant in political offices and as a journalist, examine Senator Faulkner's speech.

I don't accept all his views. That is the simple reason why Labor has identifiably different factions.

Still, I hesitate to disagree with him because his mind is as generous as it is sharp. He has the rare ability to put aside his personal view when called upon to serve the party as a whole.

His speech was largely a plea for others to develop a similar capacity.

It is difficult to put the public good ahead of self-interest, even harder - as Senator Faulkner said - for political party managers to risk their prestige and influence by arguing for change to a system that put them where they are.

The best organisations do it, despite the risks. Despite the risks, Labor must be among those best organisations so it can govern.

The principal complaint levelled has been an increasing reliance on management strategies rather than belief - a problem not unique to Labor, nor new. Paul Keating complained nearly 20 years ago that some advisers would not get out of bed without a focus group telling them which side.

Political techniques continue to evolve. Sally Young, of the University of Melbourne, noted in How Australia Decides (her analysis of the 2010 federal election) techniques of political news management, such as fire-breaking, kite-flying, and laundering; and techniques used by the media.

Nearly all Australians receive political information through the filter of the media.

For 46 per cent, that means television.

Newspapers, better able to report local news, are the source for only 14 per cent, and reading is increasingly an indulgence of baby boomers.

Because you are reading this, you belong to a politically attentive elite.

Senator Faulkner correctly deplores the notion of polls superseding political belief and policy, but how much polling is too much? How many focus groups are too many?

The plan that gave Jodi McKay endorsement originated not in her local area but in south-western Sydney, where a small faction believed in Nathan Rees as a future premier. In return for support for Mr Rees in Toongabbie, the left would not argue about Newcastle.

It was not a great deal for Ms McKay. She had to confront the incumbent lord mayor and state MP, but made the most of her opportunity when Bryce Gaudry forced a ballot of the National Executive of Labor and lost.

In fact, Mr Gaudry represented Newcastle for nearly 16 years but never won a preselection ballot. After Denis Nichols was swept aside in the 1988 wave of discontent with the NSW government, nobody opposed Mr Gaudry ahead of the next election, nor through several more.

Senator Faulkner points to such absence of preselections as a sign of disengagement of members.

He offered, however, a twist in the tail: "Many of the ALP's structures and rules create barriers to participation," he said, echoing the argument that Hunter MP Joel Fitzgibbon put at Labor's national rules conference in 2002. I attended that conference, where Mr Fitzgibbon's position - that demanding union membership as part of party membership hindered recruitment - was neither factional nor popular but a warning of weaknesses in Labor structures.

Debate, as Senator Faulkner said, is not disunity. In a democracy, debate is a duty. Senator Faulkner's speech left Labor with a goal: "a government that would . . . use the resources of the state in the interests of all the community, not merely the few". Reforming a complex, living, organisation will be complex, but Senator Faulkner's goal is a decent start and his commitment to engagement of the whole party a sound way to proceed.

John Miner is a member of the Labor Party and was a senior adviser to former prime minister Paul Keating.

Death for drugs but not for bombs is puzzling

Death for drugs but not for bombs is puzzling

John Miner

Newcastle Herald, The (includes the Central Coast Herald), 21/06/2006

The Federal Police seem able to choose Asian or Australian law at will, says John Miner.

Late, Section: News, pg. 9

OPINION & ANALYSIS

LAST week Abu Bakar Bashir was released from jail in Indonesia after serving two-and-a-bit years for approving bombings that took 200 lives.

Last week, the Bali Nine remained in prison in Indonesia for alleged drug smuggling. No drugs were smuggled and nobody died, but two Australians face execution by firing squad.

Asia and Australia have different cultures and different values.

Yet the Australian Federal Police felt free to expose nine Australians last year to a system of justice that differs widely from the one that the Federal Police are sworn to uphold.

Myuran Sukamaran and Andrew Chan, who face death in Indonesia, do not have the appeal of a Schapelle Corby or Michelle Leslie. They have been found guilty of planning to smuggle heroin, accused of manipulating more naive Australians.

If true, their behaviour is repellent. But the penalty for it in Australia is not death.

Others in Kerobokan are looking at 20 years' jail, far from family and friends, for little more than naivety.

Last year, Van Nguyen was executed in Singapore. His offence appeared to be born of desperation.

The Federal Parliament voted to ask for clemency. Our Prime Minister and our Governor-General asked for clemency.

Yet the Federal Police chose to expose other Australians to the same penalty.

Alexander Downer made clear in Nguyen's case that Australia will not urge other countries to change their laws, but will always seek clemency for Australians sentenced to death.

The Federal Police don't seem to be on the same page. Commissioner Keelty continues to defend exposing Australians to a penalty that the Government opposes.

It almost looks as if the AFP, because no Australian jurisdiction will impose capital punishment, is outsourcing the execution of Australian citizens to very different jurisdictions.

The powers under which the Federal Police exchange information with police in other countries are mysterious.

Their overseas excursions are governed by regulations, but what force do they have?

We know that poor economies can breed breakdown in law and order: that's why Australia has troops in the Solomons and East Timor.

If you were wrongly accused in some countries, would you get the same rights you would in NSW? Would you get the Bashir penalty or the death penalty?

The chief lesson that Australians should have learned from the enormous publicity about Ms Corby and the execution of Mr Nguyen is clear: don't deal in drugs, especially where the penalty is death.

The New Institute will look at the issues, with Pauline Wright, vice-president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, and colleague Michael Walton from the Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions, at Panthers Newcastle tonight, 6 for 6.30. Details: 4962 5088.

John Miner sits on The New Institute's committee.

Newcastle city is a magnet for the young

Newcastle city is a magnet for the young Author: John Miner Date: 12/08/2008 Words: 784 Source: NCH           Publication: Newcastle Herald Section: News Page: 9

But they won't have a voice on the council, writes John Miner. THE census of two years ago shows that 33,760 people aged 15 to 30 live in Newcastle. This hits on an essential point about Newcastle that seems not well understood even within the city itself. Newcastle is not like other cities and towns, especially those outside the capital cities. It's what demographers call a magnet city. Country towns typically lose population in the transition-to-work age group. Young people leave country towns when they finish school, to find work or to pursue further education or training. This shows in the census as a fall in population between the 15 to 19 age band and the cohort aged 20 to 24. (The census is commonly analysed in 20 age bands covering five years each, and a small 21st band of people aged 100 or more.) Newcastle is a city people move to, not from. It had 9320 15- to 19-year-olds at the 2006 census, and 12,436 residents aged 20 to 24. That's an increase of one-third when most cities suffer a decline. Inner Newcastle, on the new definition that the Bureau of Statistics used in 2006, had more than 10 per cent of its entire population aged 20 to 24. There is a pocket of Newcastle where the 15 to 24 age group reaches almost 70 per cent of the total population: around the university's main campus at Callaghan. Obviously, a major university attracts young people to a city. The effect is even more marked in cities like Armidale and Bathurst, which don't have a permanent population as big as Newcastle's but enjoy an influx of resident students every year. A university does not explain, though, why so many younger people live in inner Newcastle. That's the most densely populated part of the local government area and that itself is probably a major reason for young people to go there. While the Bureau of Statistics cites educational and employment opportunities in magnet cities employment opportunities may be more plentiful in Sydney but Newcastle still looks good to kid from, say, Quandialla or Nabiac it seems to think itself unqualified to mention their third major attraction. I call it social opportunity. Human beings are programmed to seek a partner. Even if they don't recognise it, humans aged 15 to 24 and, with luck, a few decades beyond are likely to be governed as much by their hormones as by reason and logic. What makes Newcastle so attractive to young people is that it already has a high proportion of young residents. They may say they may believe that they have come for the university, but they will be mixing with people who have come for work. They may think they are here for a job, but they will meet people who have come for the lifestyle. I don't believe most young people frequenting inner Newcastle hotels have a burning thirst. I think they are obeying their hormones, seeking like-minded people. It doesn't hurt if those like minds are cute too. Back home, they might have a service station that will do a hamburger for the kids who hang there; in Newcastle, they have not only KFC and Hungry Jack's but cafe culture at Gloria Jeans. It's not the menu that counts when you're 19, it's the getting together. Broadly speaking, 40 per cent of Newcastle's population is under 30, and 40 per cent over 40. To assume that Newcastle belongs to the older generations is, statistically, an error. It is equally a city of young people. In a recent letter to The Herald Zane Alcorn made the point that young people will not be represented on Newcastle City Council in proportion to their numbers in the population. At the 2004 local government elections, according to the Department of Local Government, most councillors elected were aged 50 to 59. In 1995, 40 to 49 was the most common group. A woman under 40 was twice as likely to miss election in 2004 if she stood for a council outside Sydney than in Sydney; a man under 40 was three times more likely to win in Sydney than elsewhere. I can't change those figures: I'm well over 40 and male. Your mission, Zane, should you accept it, is to put together your own team to deliver the civic revolution. If you haven't run for council before, the department's analysis is that you probably won't get elected this time. You have until tomorrow to nominate. John Miner is a freelance journalist and former political adviser.

Enough to make you gropeable

 

There's no doubt Kath & Kim is having a dig at Australian suburbia. But is it a good-natured parody, or something nastier?

From the time Arnold Schwarzenegger was talked about as a possible governor of California, people were recalling how badly some of his films treat women characters.

The focus of discontent was Total Recall, where Doug Quaid (Schwarzenegger) shoots his "wife", Lori (Sharon Stone), and says: "Consider that a divorce." In the one debate he contested in his campaign, when he tried to speak over Arianna Huffington, she responded: "This is the way you treat women, we know that."

So why is it that Gina Riley and Jane Turner aren't in trouble for beating up, week after week, Sharon Strzlecki on Kath & Kim?

The image presented of battered Sharon suggests that the writers, Riley and Turner, despise the character.

Michael Idato, of the Herald TV Guide, previewing the second series of Kath & Kim, described it as an affectionate send-up of suburbia. I don't argue that the program isn't funny—that's a matter of individual taste. I just think it's anything but affectionate. What is affectionate about "But you are effluent, Kim"?

Malapropisms such as that are a stock device on Kath & Kim. I appreciated this exchange from the new series: "I want monogamy," Kim says (in reference to a new kitchen fitout).

"Oh, no, Kim, that's old-fashioned," replies her mother. "You just want a veneer of monogamy."

It is very witty. It's simultaneously a commentary on a taste that prefers the appearance to the substance; on pretension; on relationships; and, for all we know, on elements of the plot to come. And there's a split second after "Oh, no" during which we are allowed to think Kath might correct Kim.

It's worthy of Benny Hill or Frankie Howerd. So was the sequence where the characters walked around with their kit off (except, on Benny Hill's show, they would have run around while Yakety Sax blared, so that their bottoms jiggled).

Kath seems obsessed with what Hamlet called "country matters" and the boundaries of attraction imposed by an ageing body—referring to pubic hair as a "welcome mat" and commending Kim's use of a chutney douche in order to conceive a girl. Her anxiety even conquers her libido temporarily.

Kim Craig has an eating disorder, arising from depression (though some might argue it's food as a substitute for sex, which, I submit, amounts to the same thing). The audience is supposed to think this mental health issue is good for a giggle. Kim's bingeing is trending towards bulimia. One hopes it will end now she's resumed relations with her husband but, as she's pregnant, I doubt it.

Still, it's Sharon who is the real butt of the writers' distaste for the characters. Sure, she throws herself into harm's way, at netball and Army Reserves, but is self-harm a better subject for a laugh than battery?

Kim despises Sharon because she is obese and without a partner. At the same time, Kim treasures her because she is obese and without a partner. Kim can always feel superior to Sharon, just as the audience can feel comfortably superior to Kath and Kim.

The men are ciphers. Kel Day is a purveyor of fine meat—a pretentious euphemism for "butcher" deserving of satire but also, I suspect, another double entendre. The Guide quoted Glenn Robbins as saying he played Kel for the drama of the character, not the comedy. What comedy? Kel's only functions are to be a foil for Kath and Kim and to purvey his fine meat to the sexually anxious Kath.

Fountain Lakes is not Absolutely Fabulous territory. All the money in the PR world enables Eddie Monsoon and Patsy Stone to have any "names" they want. Eddie's pretensions and Patsy's excesses are fair game.

The belated introduction of Prue and Trude, who have some choices, is a confession that Riley and Turner have been shooting sitting ducks in Kath & Kim.

Magda Szubanski (Sharon) told the Herald that "just because you're rich, it doesn't mean you have taste". True, but the comment allows that some wealthy people might have taste. In Kath & Kim, the suburban poor universally do not.

Szubanksi advanced a rather arrogant defence to criticism: "People who criticise it, I think, completely misread it and don't get the point."

Why should television be excused the critical standards that apply to theatre or literature? If it is received differently from the way they intended, then the writers or actors have not controlled the message. It's not the audience's fault if a joke doesn't get a laugh.

Maybe the team behind Kath & Kim didn't set out to beat the daylights out of people so uncultured they accept any pop health fad and latch onto every verbal vogue 24/7. But belting them is what they're doing.

It may be a comedy whose purpose, as Szubanski put it, is to "live in the uncomfortable area". If so, fine. But nobody can pretend that a mother insisting her daughter is shit—that was the point of the joke—represents affection.

We'll probably never know whether Jane Turner's assessment is right—that "people in the suburbs" are strong enough to take being sent up. The show's on the ABC. Kaths and Kims watch Channel Ten. Riley and Turner aren't really writing for them.

By John Miner October 25, 2003
Sydney Morning Herald

Surprises in the US Electoral College

---

 

Surprises in the US Electoral College

Author: By JOHN MINER Date: 21/11/2000 Words: 518

Publication: Newcastle Herald Section: News Page: 9

SO we all understand now how an American Presidential election works: the people of each State vote, and all of the State's delegates to the Electoral College cast their vote for the candidate chosen by the majority of those voters.

It ain't necessarily so.

According to the Office of the Federal Register, there is no federal law, nor anything in the US Constitution, that compels a delegate to the Electoral College to vote the way he or she has pledged.

Some States apply penalties to a `faithless elector'. Some impose a fine, some can substitute another elector, but it doesn't necessarily stop the vote being counted.

In 1976, an elector pledged to Gerald Ford voted for Ronald Reagan, who wasn't a candidate until 1980.

In 1988, when Michael Dukakis ran for President, an elector from West Virginia voted for him as Vice-President. The same elector voted for Vice-Presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen as President. It looks like a mistake, but the votes were counted the way they were cast.

Two States, Maine and Nebraska, don't ask their delegates to the Electoral College to vote as a bloc.

Most States conduct a State-wide ballot to choose the electors whom they will trust to vote for the State as a whole.

Maine and Nebraska ask each Congressional District (electorate) to elect one delegate for that district.

They (two for Maine and three for Nebraska) are supposed to vote as their district votes.

So Maine and Nebraska can cast split votes when the Electoral College meets. Two or three votes wouldn't normally matter. But this year ...

Historically, there is a parallel of sorts for Election 2000.

After the triumphs and tragedy of Abraham Lincoln, and the disappointment of Ulysses S. Grant's presidency, the Republican party retained the presidency by the narrowest of margins in 1876.

Samuel J. Tilden, the Democrat candidate, won 4,300,590 votes to 4,036,298 for Rutherford B. Hayes. But Republican National Chairman Zachariah Chandler understood the role of the Electoral College, and declared that Hayes was elected with 185 College votes.

Disputes over the way several States would vote in the Electoral College followed (largely concerning intimidation of black voters).

Congress referred the matter to an Electoral Commission, established for the purpose and made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats. It found for Hayes, deciding each contest by the same margin: eight votes to seven.

The candidate with the lower popular vote won by 185 to 184 in the Electoral College, exactly as the party chairman had predicted on the night of the popular ballot.

At least Hayes proved an honorable President.

One hundred and twenty-four years later, the dusty historical story seems uncannily modern. The States with disputed votes in 1876 included Louisiana, South Carolina ... and Florida.

John Miner is a former political adviser to Paul Keating.