Howard's agenda behind the agendas?

Michael Raper, President of the National Welfare Rights Network has warned the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry that changes to government welfare represented the most significant downgrading of income support provisions in the social security system since the Social Security Act was introduced in 1947.

He said, “Too little of the detail of how the new system will work is contained in the proposed legislation. This represents a fundamental shift in that many rights, entitlements, obligations and responsibilities, previously spelled out in legislation, will now be based on policy guidelines developed by bureaucrats. Such policy is developed without the scrutiny of parliament and may be changed at any time.”

Universities and research bodies have already felt stung by government funding dictates and strictures. They find themselves out in the market having to sell themselves on similar terms to business. The traditional idea of universities being places of fundamental research and reflection - so established thinking on anything and everything could be questioned - has been tossed out in favour of the gods of the market.

One impact, highlighted by Stuart Macintyre, Professor of History and Dean of the Arts at Melbourne University (The Age, November 16, 2005), suggests some researchers have become “victims of a form of political interference in the system of national competitive grants that is unique to this country”.

As a former chairman of an Australian Research Council’s panel - humanities - he claimed Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson had “vetoed some grants in the humanities that had been approved by the ARC”.

Now the board has been made non-existent, “A committee appointed by the minister, meeting in secret and applying mysterious criteria, is vetting academic applications. Those with applications rejected by the committee never find out what was wrong with their application or have an opportunity to argue their case,” he wrote.

Ironically, the proposed counter-terrorism legislation has struck more terror in people’s hearts than the likelihood of being hurt by an actual act of terrorism. Law and order proposals invariably put journalists on guard, no matter the colour of the political party pushing that barrow. Although the threat of terrorism has a dangerous and international face, both media and lawyers are widely appalled at the attempt to strengthen sedition laws which would endanger freedom of speech.

A number of Coalition backbenchers (Australian Broadcasting Commission, November 10, 2005), have also expressed reservation on the counter-terrorism legislation. The government has agreed to review the sedition provisions, but this needs to happen before legislation is passed. The counter-terrorism Bill seeks to upgrade penalties for sedition to include seven-year jail terms for promoting the use of force to overthrow the federal government.

Liberal backbencher Petro Georgiou believes such laws would threaten free speech. He is also concerned about proposed search and seize powers and a provision prohibiting those detained from contacting family members. Older migrants with personal experience of police states well understand his concerns.

Barrister Ian Barker (Sydney Morning Herald 14/11/05) has pointed out the significant difference between existing and proposed sedition laws. He wrote that previously a person had to commit a proscribed offence, and, at the same time, have a seditious intent. That would no longer be the case:

The definition of seditious intent is now limited to the seditious intent which may be a mark of an unlawful association. The new offences of sedition do not require proof of a seditious intention. They can be committed by mere recklessness, and they carry a penalty of seven years' imprisonment. There is a good faith exception which seems to me to be a reversal of proof. In other words, the practical effect of the new legislation is that a person accused of doing any of the things in the new criminal code bears the onus of showing he or she did not act with a seditious intent. This is repugnant to the notions of fair process.

For example, urging disaffection against the government seems to be what many ordinary people often do, born of sheer frustration … The problem is, the crime is all about words and the construction of words. It is becoming increasingly dangerous to be honest and direct in the use of words.

This is 2005, not 1605 when words could see you executed. A cool, clinical look at what is being proposed overall has to ask: are these pieces being put in place in the national jigsaw to benefit the nation, or to control the nation? What is the real agenda? Unsavoury measures allowed to slip through in phoney haste will set an uphill task for others to redeem.

By the way, there is no sin in watching carefully and trying to assess what is really happening - and then commenting publicly on it. Well, at least, not for the moment. But it is reasonable to wonder whether this article would be regarded as “seditious” next year? And if so, would it get published?