Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who died yesterday at 93, probably did more to mould my political views than any other politician.
The ruckus over Australia's involvement in Vietnam kicked off my political awareness, but I didn't really notice Joh until after the election of the Whitlam Labor government in 1972. Politics was a lively subject of discussion during family dinners. My (late) conservative father hated Whitlam with a passion and, not surprisingly, thought Joh was pretty good. I was rather apethetic about politics before then. The contrast of styles between Whitlam and Bjelke-Petersen started my thinking about where I stood politically.
The Whitlam years were a disturbing whirlwind of radical reform for an electorate used to the stupor of two decades of conservative government. Although introducing a string of overdue reforms and landmark pieces of legislation, the benefits of the reforms weren't immediately apparent to many people. At times, the government acted like a rabble and became increasing unpopular during Whitlam's second term.
Joh came into prominence at this when he ignored the long term political convention of filling Senate vacancies with a person of the same political party. When a vacancy was created in 1974 by the death of a Labor senator, Joh nominated Albert Field as his replacement instead of the Labor's nominated candidate, Mal Colston. With this appointment, the balance of power in the Senate was destroyed and scene set for the conservative parties to delay the passing of the supply bills and force an election.
Joh's role in the fall of the Whitlam government made him a conservative hero and brought him into national prominence. Although having little formal eduction, he was an astute politician, who, with the benefit of inept Labor opposition and an outrageous electoral gerrymander, introduced a raft of conservative social and economic measures that appealed to the ultra-conservative rump that formed his constituency.
In 1977, he introduced a ban on street marches, outlawing the fundamental political right of public assembly. He meddled in the running of the police force which resulted in the resignation of Police Commissioner Ray Whitford and the appointment of the corrupt Terry Lewis.
Joh's government had an unhealthy relationship with a raft of property developers. The term 'conflict of interest' was unknown.
Joh allowed corruption to flourish, a fact that was brought to the public's attention in 1987 when the ABC's Four Corners program aired the investigative report "The Moonlight State." Joh set up a commission chaired by Tony Fitzgerald to investigate the program's allegations. Fitzgerald's report would detail endemic corruption within the state's police force and government.
The fact that Joh set up the commission begs the question whether he realised that the corruption was happening. He certainly didn't understand the concept of 'the separation of powers.' I wonder if he knew the difference between 'corruption' and 'business as usual.'
Joh was pushed out of office by his own party in late 1987.
In 1991, Joh stood trial for perjury, but was not convicted due to a hung jury. The jury's decenter happened to be a former National Party member. He was never re-tried.
Joh was a cunning, unsophisticated, politically savvy yokel who allowed corruption to flourish, and was (probably) too close to notice it. His relentless championing of development at any cost, and his ruthless silencing of discent formed the basis of my dislike of the philosophy and methods of the conservative side of politics.
Joh's immunity from the will of the voters made me realise the danger of unicameral parliaments with no constitutional safeguards regulating the size and distribution of electorates.
To summarise, I didn't like him much. (Doh!)
Already, the sickening eulogies have started. There'll be a lot of rewriting of history by conservative commentators as they wax lyrical about the man and his achievements.
Bye bye Joh. I'm sorry for your family that you've gone. But what you stood for politically, I won't miss at all.
No one should be surprised that the Medicare Safety Net is being wound back. It was doomed to fail. The safety net was a device invented by the government to aid re-election by neutralising the health policy of the ALP. Nothing more, nothing less.
Reports not long before last year's election stated that spending on the safety net was blowing out. More interestingly, it was shown that the main beneficiaries of the scheme were the wealthy. Claims collated by suburb revealed high income areas received the most benefits. Lots of cosmetic surgery paid for by the government, perhaps? So much for the safety net being a boon for the poor.
At the same time the government was trying to keep the lid on medical specialists' fees. It seems it was a dismal failure.
Doctor's fees are a bit like the housing market. There's constant demand limited only by the buyers' ability to pay. The limiting factor for housing prices are interest rates, for doctors it's the medicare / private health insurance rebates.
An important part of the limiting effect on doctors fees is that you have to pay for the service or collect the bill from the doctor before you can claim the rebate. This forces the consumer to realise the actual cost of the service. Fee increases become immediately apparent.
Medicare is reasonably effective at controlling GPs fees. Suburban GPs are now being squeezed financially because the Medicare rebate hasn't keep up with inflation.
The safety net, and the other hand, having no ceiling and a relatively low threshold, took away the only control available to limit specialists' fees, as they were already so high that the safety net was immediately effective. They could raise their fees and the government coughed up 80% of the increase.
No wonder the AMA was so vocal criticising the government.
The government had no choice but to raise the threshold. My guess is it's still too low and further surgery on the Medicare Safety Net will be needed.
Banner Designed By:
