Hansard and OpenAustralia

Wikipedia says William Cobbett [1], a noted radical and publisher, began publishing Parliamentary Debates in 1802. From 1809 Cobbett’s printer was Thomas Curson Hansard [2]. In 1812 Cobbett sold the Debates to Hansard. From 1829 the name Hansard appeared on the title page of each issue. Thus Hansard became the traditional name for the printed transcripts of parliamentary debates in all countries with a Westminster system of government [3]. As a lad I subscribed to Hansard for both Australian houses of parliament. It was heavily subsidised – down to maybe A$2 per year. But inevitably, with governments’s love for ‘user pays’, the subsidy vanished. So I cancelled my subscription and lived in ignorance of detailed parliamentary proceedings. Even when parliament became broadcast on radio and then TV, I was too busy to bother. But my interest in parliamentary debates on certain topics (e.g. medical matters, the Middle East), and speeches and question answers by certain members of parliament (e.g. my local MP) continued. So I was pleased when last Friday this Age item [4] led me to OpenAustralia [5, 6]. It’s an open-source website run by a non-partisan charity – the OpenAustralia Foundation [7]. It aims to make it easy for citizens to keep tabs on their parliament. As my Canadian cyberfriend Wordsmith blogged recently [8], I’m interested in open and accountable government – which I reckon’s essential in a true democracy. So I wish OpenAustralia every success. I think Thomas Hansard would too.

farmdoc's blog post number 417

Wikipedia calls H L Mencken, among other things, an acerbic critic of American life and culture who rather than dismiss democracy with open contempt, responded to it with a sense of amusement. Thus his quotes: ‘Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage’ and ‘Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance’. In the October 2004 Federal Election, in Victoria the right wing Family First Party polled 56,376 primary votes equating to 0.13 of a Senate quota. A deal done between Labor and several other groups to protect its third candidate backfired badly. Family First harvested preferences from groups including the Progressive Alliance, Christian Democrats, Aged and Disability Pensioners Party, Non-Custodial Parents Party, One Nation, Liberals for Forests, Australian Democrats, and DLP. And so Family First’s Steven Fielding (pictured) became a senator. After returning from a US climate change conference, last Monday Fielding said increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere might not be causing global warming; rather, solar flares could be linked to temperature change. Maybe he’s talking about this. Fielding’s apparently ignoring the consensus of the world’s climate scientists. Climate deniers have had their day. It’s a shame Fielding will be a senator until 2011. And it’s shame Mencken died in 1956. Because he would have had a field day with Fielding.

farmdoc's blog post number 399

Way back in the foggy blur of my schoolboy years, bolt upright at his desk beside me, sat my classmate and friend Demos Dimitriadis. Even at his then tender age, his olive-skinned good looks personified the Greek heritage he was so proud of. His name Demos, he said, means ‘the people’ in Greek; and his ancestors gave the precious gift of democracy to the world. Demos, the exultant young Greek Australian, was right, of course. Democracy – government by the people – is a precious gift. And a gift so fragile it must be continually cherished and nurtured. Or it will wither and die. Which is a consequence too terrible to contemplate. A major reason for my passionate involvement in Save Albert Park is the Grands Prix Act’s removal of democratic rights. It’s ironic how governments – which govern at the pleasure of the people – are so intent on eroding the full force of democracy. The latest governmental onslaught – in Victoria and Tasmania – is on planning. It’s too easy to remove democratic checks and balances in the name of expediency. How could anyone reasonably object to cutting red tape? But removing public input from planning decisions diminishes their rationality and increases the likelihood of political cronyism if not frank corruption. I wonder where Demos Dimitriadis is today. And what his ancestors would make of all this.

farmdoc's blog post number 163

I think I’m determined; you think I’m pigheaded. I think I’m fastidious; you think I’m pernickety. The difference is in the nuance, the perception, the context. Here in northern Tasmania, the Meander Dam was recently completed; and a spinoff is some irrigation pipelines of which each requires planning approval. An environmentalist lodged a planning objection because the first pipeline would have irrigated land already degraded by salination, and thus wasted precious water better used elsewhere. He lost the objection. A local member of the State Parliament, a so-called Independent and a Vietnam Veteran, labelled the objection frivolous, obstructionist and ideologically-based; and demanded the planning process be streamlined. To me this reeks of populism and even fascism. I believe the checks and balances of a modern society comprise essential public scrutiny of government decisions – to ensure those decisions are transparent and soundly-based, and the resultant expenditure is a wise and effective use of public money. I see the public’s participation in the planning process as an inalienable right and duty. It’s not red tape; it’s due democratic process. But there are those who think they know better than the People. How dare they. They are detestable know-alls. No, they are insightless know-nothings. And if they are members of parliament they should be voted out post-haste – which of course is the ultimate use of democratic power.