First Rudd blamed the Liberal federal government for Labor failings at the state level in health. Now he's doing it with education. The Liberals big mistake according to him is to blame the states for screwing up in areas that are clearly delineated as their responsibiltiy under the constitution.
The what?
That's right. The Australian Constitution. We've got one, but you would not think so if you listened to Rudd. He disregards and disrespects the Constitution at every turn. In doing so he shows contempt for the foresight or our forefathers like Edmund Barton who took such care in crafting the document which forms the bedrock of Australian democracy and, apart from a couple of important additions, has hardly changed at all from it's initial inception over a century ago.
Firstly he disregards elections, usurping the authority of the PM and claiming to speak for Australians at APEC when he is not the constitutionally elected representative but merely ahead in the polls. There is only one poll that indicates the will of the people, the Constitutional election. Those that respect democracy wait for the result of that poll before presuming to speak to other heads of government on our behalf.
Secondly, he disregards the length of parliamentary terms by insisting that the Govt call the election now, sorry 3 weeks ago, when the 3 year time-limit of the current parliament is not over for another month or more. Rudd has gone into righteous fury mode (just why does he think everyone but him is evil?) on this issue by saying he'll call a referendum if he wins to entrench 4 year terms in the constitution. Can anyone see the major hypocrisy here? He want's to entrench 4 year terms, 1 year longer than the current term, and yet demands the the PM call the election before the current 3 year term is up? Helloooooo!
On the bright-side I guess it shows that he has heard of the Constitution, but he has no respect for the stuff in it that's been working for 107 years here (longer back in Westminster). The flexible election date allows for the PM to call an election as a plebicite on an issue - like the GST election in '98. Then the PM called an early election and won a mandate to engage in major reform. He was able to give the people a choice then and there rather than wait 2 years for a mandate, or plough on not knowing whether he had one.
Rudd's official motivation for the 4-year terms is that it's supposed to stop the government running adds in a phoney campaign. How would a fixed term stop govt advertising exactly? They can do it at any point in their term, and should if the opposition is running an add campaign to mislead the public. Might i remind Rudd that the phoney campaign started when he became leader a year ago with him parading his ugly mug around the media.
Soon the Rudd will demand a one-person tango.
Thirdly on State's rights, areas of commonwealth responsibility, like defense, are clearly oulined in the constitution. All other areas of responsibility fall to the states. Health and education are two of these. Rudd is making concerned noises and visiting hospitals but as Health Minister Tony Abbot pointed out he is just a tourist. He he would have no direct power over the hospitals as PM unless a refendum was passed to change the constitution by a majority people of people in a majority of the states. In the present situation the PM can withhold funding if certain goals are not met, but he can't operate the machinery. The States run public hospitals and public (state) schools. It's just that they run them very badly. Rudd is blaming the federal Libs but State Labor is to blame for failings at state level. Why does Rudd think that lying in this way will work? I'll answer my own question here. Because he thinks you're stupid.
Kevin Rudd thinks that Aussies can't tell the difference between state and federal issues. He thinks that he can con us into thinking that a state issue is a federal issue, and that concentrating power on health and education in the hands of federal Labor is a good idea. The people of Australia like division of power, not concentration of power in one man or one party. All of us may not fully understand that health and education are state issues not federal ones, but our healthy distrust of bureaucracy and concentrated power is demonstrated in our nationwide tendency to vote liberal federally, and labor at state level. On some instinctive level even the most politically apathetic can differentiate between state and federal politics (perhaps the more apathetic the more distrusting and the more likely to vote for a division of power.) We are smarter than know-it-all Rudd thinks, even though most of us don't speak mandarin.
If we were to credit Rudd with good intentions, against our better judgement and all good taste, we might say that it's good that Rudd wants to take responsibilty for the States and (try to) fix the problem. But is this a really good thing? Is a centralised bureacracy necessarily better at providing public services. Even if it was why should we trust federal Labor to run it any any better than state Labor? Simple, according to Rudd, he is the man. The solution shines out of his arse.
Rudd thinks that he alone can fix all the problems of the nation. Only he can pull the states on and get them to deliver. He claims to be the master of co-operative federalism. On the contrary Rudd is a master of coercion. Rudd is a bureaucratic bully. His time as a public servant in QLD demonstrates that he refuses to co-operate with anyone of a different political persuasion. So too for the ALP generally. Labor is holding the nation to ransom. They are refusing to co-operate with Howard and demanding that a federal ALP be elected, and the unions re-installed as power-brokers in return for their co-operation. Australians can sense this, they can smell it. It stinks of two-faced manipulation from Rudd and bare-faced indimidation from Labor. Is this the behaviour of a man and a party who are willing to co-operate with people of different views? Obviously not. Still, Rudd would have us believe this with his shiny spin.
I don't know if Rudd wants to face down the entrenched sectional interests in his own party. My personal belief is that Rudd does not want to rein them in. Why would he join the Labor party if he was not a socialist? If he was a real conservative surely he's be in the Liberal Party. It's a con, but let's for a second suspend disbelief of the Big Lie. The fact is that even if did want to defeat them he can't. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The unions fund the ALP and through the factions and states they get their way. All of the opposition front bench are former unions reps and for Rudd to say he hand-picked them instead of caucus is a lie. There were installed by the machinery along with him. Rudd is an opportunist who stabbed Beazley in the back at the behest of the union movement so that they could get rid of the new IR laws. There is an army of unions officials and bureaucrats with their own agendas who can't wait to get into power and get their payback. As Bob Katter Jr says, "Rudd is one, they are many".
Health and Education are the two areas of the public service bureacracy with strong union membership. Although their members do valuable work, the teachers and nurses unions are hard-left. The teachers unions in particular are famed for their ideological intolerance. Concentrating power in the hands of the ALP at federal level on health and education increase the power of these unions and stifle future debate in the public service over how best to deliver. The socialist agenda will be entrenched and next thing you know the public coffers will be emptied in the service of socialist agendas. The number of bureaucrats will increase, the GST will go up and Australians who now are able to take a privately funded path for the education and health of their families will be dragged back under the one-size-fits all yolk of socialist public service provision.
Rudd can't stop this, and I don't believe he wants to. His centralising plans are the exact opposite to what the county needs. We need fewer bureaucrats and more freedom. The division of powers enshrined in our constitution have served the Australian people well so far by stopping the creation of health and education mega-bureacracies. In countries like Britain and France the exam questions faced by school kids and the number beds set aside for intensive-care can be changed at the stroke of a bureacrat's pen without the consulation of the minister, let alone the people. In this country Rudd would have to win an election and a referendum to usurp the power he craves. Even he knows how hard this is going to be. That's why he is is showing so much contempt for the document that began and still symbolises Australia's democracy.
Oh yeah, Jeez. I nearly forgot Rudd wheezed a few weeks back that there could well be a referendum on the Monarchy if he were PM. Heck, Kevvy. Why don't ya just throw the Constitution in the bin. There's obviously not alot you want to keep so just start again. After all, Nanny knows best.
