Letters

• Enable people to be at their best, says Christopher Evatt

• Pensioners will cop it, says Mike Hudson
• I am in shock, writes Elizabeth Mayson
• Do we stand up for the underdog? asks John Ward

• Iraq elections: it's too early to tell, writes Mohammad Gill

• We're getting to the bottom of the neocons, writes Rebecca Renfro
• Giving the people their opium, writes Josh A Gilman
• Drury clarifies what neoconservatism is in comprehensive, flowing language, writes Karen Hardtke
• They may both be wrong, writes George Diehl
• Exactly what I was looking for, writes Frank Adams
• It doesn't make any difference, writes James Nall

• Why so much anger over Global Warming, writes Phil Armit (Evatt replies)

• Blogging is the new frontier, says Athena Vongalis-Macrow
• Praise for Dunlop, writes Grantly Brown

• Why won't Telstra become foreign owned, writes Rob Brown

• A question keeps popping up, writes Carl Bennett

• Whatever happened to industry-based child care?, writes R J Campbell
• Family flexible workplaces, laments Paula Kilby
• A childcare bill less than my weekly wage, suggests Catherine Corkhill.
• It's not easy, writes Diana Groves

• I enjoyed the read and totally agree, writes Mechell Woody

• Some hope here, writes Nicholas Gregory

• It's like a water colour left in the rain, writes Kym Houghton

• The sun rises on a militaristic Japan, writes Tom Uren

• The solution is grass-roots media, writes Frank Rich
• More please, writes Jackie Trad (Evatt replies)

• Debating economics is politics: Lindy Edwards replies to Steve Keen

• Clear vision at last, writes Steve Bell
• Commitment and generosity: go to school, writes Joe Edmonds
• Not the ordinary Australians I know, writes Peter Bryant

• The worm of wedge politics has crawled through many gutters, writes Steven Presley
• The next great privatisation debate, writes Geoff Lazarus
• A misleading and coercive reform, writes Athena Vongalis

• It's five minutes to midnight out here, writes Wayne McMillan (Mark Latham replies)
• We need an eco-economy, writes Len Puglisi (Brendan Gleeson replies)
• There is another pathway to affordable housing, writes Shann Turnbull

• Remembering the Doc, writes Virginia Abascal
• 'Everyone' is not invited, writes Helen Meekosha
• It's great to see a bit of activism, writes Chris Rau
• Evatts of the world unite! writes Danny Evatt
• Informative & interesting, writes Natalie Tan
• What about education policy? asks Anna Brazier (Evatt replies)
• A welcome contribution from home turf, writes Michael Fensom

Hugh Stretton and Terry Lane, it’s morning. I just arrived in my office. There on my PC screen was the "Evatt Foundation" and suddenly I am with you, both in your enthralling discussion visiting the Housing Trust of South Australia, sitting with Roosevelt, Jim Landers and Galbraith and dropping in at Norway's National Oil Corporation.

Yes, we must constantly strive to create that better way. That is the purpose of life itself and the striving is the joy and the outcome the reward. This morning my task is sending letters to the leaders and managers of companies in Finland and Sweden inviting them to join with me in enabling their people to be their best.

In the midst of the New Zealand Experiment I saw the feeding frenzy as the peoples' "state" assets were sold at bargain prices. The social result? As the man repairing my car said: "May not see you again. Can't afford to do my work here. Costs too much to live. We are moving to the country."

I moved to Finland. Like Sweden, Finland is a country that has created its better way: a country of only 5 million that, against all possible odds, gained its freedom from Russia. Almost over night it industrialised as people worked around the clock to pay Russia the enormous price demanded for its freedom. And how have they created their better way?

They enjoy one of the highest standards of living in their social democracy with a very strong cohesiveness between all sectors. As a lawyer friend said "Finland is a tribe". Along with free education, placing their students as top in Europe, they also have (with Sweden) the lowest cost-to-students university education, plus free health care.

What of their economic performance? They are rated as "the world's most competitive economy"; the leader in their use of technology; and up near the top in IT and ICT and industrial design. And a surprising number of their companies are in the top three in their fields internationally. Example: NOKIA.

And of course there is the price of high taxation, with both partners having to earn and a static and aging population. The better way is a process of constantly giving up what does not support wellbeing and life to develop ways that do. And this morning I post an invitation to leaders and managers in Finland and Sweden to join with me in co-creating their better ways within their organisations.

And our theme: "There is no greater gift we can give others than to enable them to be the best they can be."

Best wishes, and full support for you both.

Christopher Evatt
Porvoo, Finland

Australia’s 3.5 million pensioners stand to have increases to their allowances cut as a result of the Coalition government's controversial new industrial relations reforms.

Not only does the Australian government want to abolish basic working conditions, they also intend removing the power of the Industrial Relations Commission to set the minimum wage. This is not only bad for paid workers; it is also detrimental to pensioners.

The pension in Australia is calculated according to the Social Security Act, 1991. The Base Pension (i.e. not the pension supplement) is indexed twice yearly based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but is also benchmarked against Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) at 25 per cent. March, 2005 this year was the last time the pension went up. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) publishes the CPI quarterly. The Base Pension is then increased by the percentage change in the CPI over a six month period. The new CPI indexed amount was then compared with the latest MTAWE figure.

As in previous years, if the new CPI indexed amount was less than 25 per cent of MTAWE, an extra amount is added to the base single pension so that it is at least 25 per cent of MTAWE. The MTAWE figure includes the earnings of men on the minimum or junior wages as well as higher paid workers.

The Australian government wants to take the minimum wage settling powers away from the Industrial Relations Commission and give them to its handpicked ‘Fair Pay Commission.’ We can only wait to see how much of an oxymoron this name becomes. The American equivalent hasn’t increased their minimum wage since 1998.

The Fair Pay Commission will make its first minimum wage decision in late 2006, and the implementation of this pay rise ‘adjustment’ could be delayed even longer. The incumbent Australian government considers the minimum wage too high: it wants to take penalty rates out of awards. This will mean a catastrophic drop in wages for shift workers.

Naturally prices will continue to go up including the basic necessities of life (because of petrol prices of which more than 33 per cent goes to the government in tax). When the MTAWE goes down, so will pensions. This will mean pensioners will have difficulty paying skyrocketing bills for essentials such as food, housing transport and health services. One must ask how people are going to save up enough in superannuation to afford a decent retirement.

The proposed industrial relations changes are unjust, regressive and will guarantee greater inequality. The pension will be eroded in real terms relative to prices. The IR changes must be opposed to prevent looming impoverishment of wage earners (the working poor will be a reality) and people on fixed incomes (pensions).

After 14 years of prosperity this is what we get offered. These changes must be opposed. If you are not happy with these IR changes, lobby your local federal member.

Mike Hudson
Umina Beach, NSW

I am in shock at the Senate IR debate. Can anything be done to save this country for my sons and grandchildren? I am wondering if the Bi-election result in Pittwater, NSW, where the Liberal Party was thrown out for the first time in 30 years, could be indicative the public in general?

Elizabeth Mayson
Bilgola Plateau, NSW

We take democracy for granted. Democracy is not just something that you have, or are allowed to participate in by your benevolent rulers once every two or three years. It is something that has been passed to you by your forebears who fought hard to build it, for you and your children. It’s up to you to maintain it. Democracy is a noun but it should also be a verb; it should be understood as something that you do. You don’t just get the right to enjoy democracy — you must fight for it each day.

We tell ourselves that, as Australians, we are open, outgoing, supporters of the underdog and resolute in adversity, that we don’t take well to arrogance and bullying or being treated with contempt. But what is it that we actually do?

We accept that our prime minister can take us to war, to invade another country without any input from the nation. We give him power he does not have under our Constitution because we are subservient to executive power. We turn our faces away from the plight of asylum seekers or low paid workers, we allow our political masters to ignore conventions such as the UN convention relating to the status of refugees, or the International Labour Organisation relating to our industrial laws at work.

These are conventions which, as a nation, we are obliged to honour. We allow a petty tyrant like John Howard to rip them up with virtually no protest from us, the supposed forthright Aussies. We don’t stand up. We cower in the shadows and let another piece of our “Democracy” be taken away. That’s who we are, that’s what we do.

We go along with the idea that we should lock people in solitary confinement because they cannot prove they are who they say they are. When they go mad, we disbelieve them. In convict times at Port Arthur, we practiced the “silent system” and we did it so well, we had to build an asylum alongside the jail to house minds we destroyed.

We still do this to innocent men women and children behind 9,000 volts electric fences, and we still ponder how the German people allowed Hitler to bit by bit take their country away? And now we will watch while John Howard breaks the UNHCR obligation regarding refoulment as he hands Chinese diplomatic staff over to certain severe punishment.

Face it. We are the bullies. We are careless, apathetic and certainly not vigilant; we just don’t give a toss about human rights or dignity as long as we don’t have to be involved or it doesn’t directly affect us. That’s who we are, that’s what we do.

During the so called “Dirty War” in Argentina, thousands were detained and “transferred” onto planes where they were then dumped out over the Atlantic, drugged but conscious and made to ‘disappear’. Our government has created the Baxter Detention Centre where we already know one person was ‘lost’ for months in the system. So if a psychopathic politician should ever want to, the means are now available to mimic the Argentine example.

Do we stand up for the underdog? Of course we don’t! We are insular, ignorant and easily intimidated. That’s who we are, that’s what we do.

Now people, if you do not believe me, just get a mirror, look into your soul and see what you have become.

John Ward
Gordon, Tasmania

Juan Cole's narration, "A Mixed Story", is quite realistic. It is too early to make predictions about the aftermath of the Iraqi election.

The election was held and how it is going to unfold is difficult to predict at this time. The coming events will shed light on it. From some initial reports coming out of Iraq, it appears that the Shiite majority wants the Shariah law to be included in the constitution. If this indeed happened, the democratic government that might emerge in Iraq would be theocratic; a theocracy legitimized by the popular vote.

Although al-Sistani has indicated he would not play any substantial role in the government, the Marjaya would be under his thumb. If that happened, it would be a nightmare for the US and the West. The US wouldn't let that happen easily, but in the end how would it prevent the popular from majority expressing its will? How would it enforce a secular and liberal (Jeffersonian) democracy in Iraq if the majority opted for the Shariah based government?

Mohammad Gill
Belleville
Michigan, USA

Shadia Drury gets to the bottom of neoconservatism. I cannot tell you what an excellent description this seems to be of the Leo Strauss neocons. Unfortunately, most Americans haven't look too deeply into the cult like underpinnings of the neoconservatives.

While reading this article, two memories flashed immediately into my mind ... a speech Paul Wolfowitz gave at Georgetown University, where he said to the audience "you Americans must learn patience" and the Ron Suskind article in which he described an unnamed White House aide saying that "they (the admin) create reality and the rest of us follow".

It seems the neocons deliberately try to make Strauss's beliefs too complicated in order to discourage average people from bothering to try and understand their agenda.

Excellent work. Thank you.

Rebecca Renfro
New Bern,
North Carolina, USA

I've just finished reading Dr Drury's "Saving America," and I have to say I enjoyed it immensely.

With my experience of living/interacting with people from all over the US, I regret that such an interesting article would be lost on the inhabitants of a large portion of our population.

It pains me to see my country stumble down this path, exactly for the reason Dr Drury highlights in her essay: the Bush administration is "giving the people their opium."

Thank you for making this essay available online!

Josh A. Gilman
Columbus, Ohio, USA

I read with interest the comments on Shadia Drury and the neo-conservatives. Having had the privilege of being taught by one of Strauss' followers - Stanley Rosen to name names - I was struck by the 'aha' feeling of those who responded, as they discovered the real truth behind the goings on in America.

Perhaps there is some truth in that discovery. But I wonder if now that the insight into the backbone of our politicians is out, do we really know what Strauss and his followers are really about?

I am not a scholar, just a reader, and probably poorly so, of those men and woman who have attempted to give us insight into for the sake of a better term, human nature. I think that Drury has described the Straussians well, but Rosen's comment in passing in his latest book, that she spoke 'in anger', made me pause. What exactly did he mean?

One thing that Strauss' books made me realize is that one must read carefully. And especially the writers we all seem to quote and take for granted; and this includes Strauss and Drury and Plato and Machiavelli and the Bible; reading these and Austen, Cervantes, Trollope and others should give us moments of insight to question anyone who speaks the truth. A simple question: have you ever met a truthful person? Or a wise person? In short, someone who has all the answers?

I have read many interpreters and their explanations of what someone has written; but they are only that, interpreters. Perhaps we need to be wary of them and the works they interpret? Or ask why are they writing in such a cryptic way? Why not just say things as they are? But then we return to the 'truthsayer'. A bit of a paradox.

This is not to say that there is not an answer. Nor that the Strausses, Rosens, Kleins, Pangles, Blooms, and Benardettes don't have an agenda for good or ill, but that they may also offer a way to examine a life that gives us pause; a way to question that leads to the very conclusions implicit in doubting what it is that they say.

I am not sure that the neo-cons are necessarily correct, nor that their opponents have a right way of guiding us. They may both be very wrong, and the answer to our doubts may lie in a different philosophy, rather than a new interpretation.

George Diehl
Bothell
Washington, USA

Thank you Shadia B. Drury. I sent your article Saving America to the Kerry-Edwards campaign headquarters in Washington DC. Your article is well written and it clarifies what neoconservatism is in comprehensive, flowing language.

Again, thank you.

Highest regards,

Karen Hardtke
Pengilly
Minnesota, USA

I just came upon the name of Shadia Drury and her discussion of Leo Strauss and his influence upon the Bush Administration. I teach philosophy at Front Range Community College in Colorado. I have been trying to understand the philosophical underpinning of the Bush Administration and neoconservatism.

This information from Professor Drury on Leo Strauss was exactly what I was searching for. It makes a great deal of sense, and bought Strauss's Natural Right and History today. Leo Strauss in neither in the local library nor in the CSU library.

I was laid off from my full-time work almost two years ago, so I only have a part-time teaching position. So I must choose wisely what I spend money on.

I will share this information with the philosophy teachers in the area, and try to make a difference in my little part of the world.

If you have a free newsletter or e-mail, I would appreciate the information.

Frank S Adams
Ft Collins
Colorado, USA

Modern liberals here in the USA set the stage for the neo-conservative take over of the Republican Party. In their impatience in making a change, they drowned out the voices of the old conservatives, which opened the door for the neo-conservatives to take over the Republican Party.

Liberals simply scared the pants off property owners with their denial of personal property rights. They scared the hell out of rural folk like myself, by threatening to take away our ability to protect ourselves from intruders (guns).

I'm not a Republican, or neo-conservative, I fear them as much as I fear liberals. I have committed myself to secession, I have become an anarchist. So whoever holds the reins of power, liberal or neo-conservative, I know that they will attack my liberties and my "God" given rights.

It simply doesn't make any difference.

There seems to be a concerted push to knock off the idea of Global Warming. There are quite a few journalists very partially writing opposing views, with Andrew Bolt probably being the most ardent.

Michael Duffy on the ABC's Counterpoint often has items downplaying environmental concerns, and frequently cites Lomborg as an expert of "balanced" views about environmental concerns.

This may seem naive, but I'd like to know why. I can speculate, but I'd like to hear from people who know this lot and can say with some credibility why they are so angered by the idea that human behaviour is having major impacts on environments.

Phil Armit
Towoomba, Qld

Thank you Tim, for your explorations of blogging as the preferred frontier for public intellectuals.

Having recently listened to World Bank senior economist about the mistakes of the 1990s (they were far too simplistic in applying efficiency models), what strikes me is that the Bank and others are on quest for new norms and new models.

Meanwhile, the academic is constantly in some binding constraint, especially in the current climate where the failures of efficiency models have yet to resonate with so called progressive policies for educational reforms. We shall wait and see.

But, in the meantime, through blogging, academics and others can rehabilitate the sterile grounds of efficiency and reclaim a public intellectual role, by passing those whose sole work is politicking.

The World Bank economist spoke of expanding the productive possibility frontier, and blogging is the new frontier for expanding our productive possibilities. As public intellectuals within a civic society we can make contributions that can shape, reconnect and reassemble all of those de-territorialised from public debate in the new frontiers of blogging.

Dr Athena Vongalis-Macrow
Melbourne, Vic

I enjoyed Tim Dunlop's article on blogging very much.

Thanks

Grantly Brown
Vaucluse, NSW

Could controlling ownership go to overseas interests?

If so, is it not conceivable that the actions of these interests could be detrimental to Australian telecommunications? That is, they may find it to the advantage of their business to run down infrastructure, not introduce efficiencies and innovations, favour one sector of the market over another, etc.

Even if Australian legislation contained conditions of sale to o/s interests intended to prevent this, would they still be able to?

What if Australia got into a conflict with a country that owned our telecommunications network?

Please direct me to articles addressing these questions.

Yours in solidarity.

Rob Brown
Brisbane, Qld

I found the article on economic rationalism "Eating yourself: The troubling experience of economic reform" by Michael Pusey most fascinating.

The question that keeps popping up, though, is "why do people then support a federal Liberal government so strongly?"

If people were aware that economic rationalism is ultimately bad for their standard of living, bad for the environment, bad for values within society, then why is the paradigm supported by the people?

This is especially relevant given the large swing to return the government.

Carl Bennett
Melbourne

What ever happened to the industry-based child care centres, with single parents paying to the private sector exorbitant fees to have their kids looked after?

The huge salaries given, not earned, by those brain sucking CEO's and their side kicks, could make it a reality.

Socialism is now, it seems, dead and buried in the Labor Party. It would take a huge struggle to get any form of it back, to try and maintain some sort of social justice for the working class of this nation.

Ross J Campbell
Central Coast, NSW

I'm a mother of a 6-yr old son and have, for the majority of my working life been involved in a high level executive role in the IT industry. I have travelled the world at the drop of a hat on my employers whim and worked long hours. I even transferred continents for work with my then 2 yr old son. My reward? The company restructered and offered me a role I did 20 years ago. My son had just started school so I requested the flexibility to work from home in the morning and afternoon to minimise childcare run around and cost. This was rejected so I was forced to take redundancy. The company had already provided me with the technology to enable me to work from home.

I have since battled to find another job since despite applying for over 700 jobs in the last 2 years. I'm 41, have spent all my life in IT, am articulate, well spoken, professional, fit and have great employment skills ......so why is it so hard for me as a working Mum to get work? Why am I - probably like so many other Mums like me - relegated to finding temp admin work? It's like an accountant having a child, going back to work and being offered the office junior job just because they can only work from 09:340-4:30 each day!

I almost feel like I'm walking around with a tattoo on my forehead stating "working mother - unemployable!!!"

Paula Kilby
Sydney

The child care rates need to drop, spending your whole week's earnings on child care is ridiculous. Women want the best future for their children and its not easy. Give us a fair go we are the one's who make this country function.

Catherine Corkhill
Mundaring

Firstly, I will state that I do not have any children. However, I sympathise with the difficulties women have in combining full-time work and caring because, until she finally had to be placed in a nursing home in late January this year, I was attempting to work full-time and assist in caring for my other who has Parkinson’s disease. It was NOT easy, despite the advantage I have of working in the public service (state) and only working 35 hours a week.

I wanted to say that I find the articles written by Anne Summers very sensible, also stimulating. I think that writers who believe women should be in the home, not working when they have children, such as Angela Shanahan, are living in a "cloud-cuckoo" land. While I continue to work with women who really battle to combine working full-time and caring for one or more children, and whose mental and physical health is compromised as a result, I will continue to support policies that legislate for flexibility.

Why for example is not more paid annual leave legislated? Five weeks on full pay or ten weeks on half pay, for example, would greatly assist two parents to cover the eleven weeks yearly school holidays. After all, its over a quarter of a century since annual leave was raised from three to four weeks!

Diana Groves
Bankstown, NSW

I read this article with extreme interest. I never heard of the book or the guy but am presuming that he is another upstart arrogant Brit?

Yes? I am of Maori descent, my great gran was born at Parihaka, another place raped and pillaged by the Brits. My family has all been displaced over the generations. One of the constables who raided Parihaka actually married great gran. He left soon after the incident. Perhaps like Arthur he too was a man of thought. Just wanted to say that I enjoyed the read and totally agree with you.

Mechell Woody
Tasmania

I have just Bob Ellis' article on economic rationalism. I found his writing lyrical and lovely. I did not see the TV program he so vividly evokes, but I did see the promos for it. The struggle Ellis decries is - as he suggests - symbolic of changes across our nation (and around the world): the pruning or hacking of beautiful things - the relegation of merely human customs and practices - in the name of a greater good (economic sustainability?).

It seems clear that a truly rational approach to life must include a wide range of elements - food, shelter, clothing, education, health services, hi-tech junk, and so on. One of these elements is an informed and responsible use of scarce resources.

I suppose the purpose of 'economic rationalism' is what is problematic about the term. If we expend in such a way as to enable us to afford the range of things that we consider valuable, in their necessary and desirable proportions, and if we check with each other to see what it is that we do consider valuable, then surely that is truly 'rational'? The reason ER has a bad name is that it is used for a kind of social engineering - a shaping of the public agenda that reflects just one view of things - at the expense of any other set of values.

In my mind, the whole agenda of our times is associated with economic rationalism; the back-to-basics appeal of children-overboard, Bush's appalling gut-reaction to New York's 9.11, the changes to established civil liberties in response to 'terrorism'.

The life I am accustomed to all runs together, like a water colour left in the rain.

Kym Houghton
Kyneton, VIC

Roy Eccleston's article in The Australian, "Drifting ever closer to a nuclear nightmare" (24/5/03), shows that North Korea's behaviour is a critical priority for the Australian government. I don't see North Korea as a direct threat to us, but what worries me is the instability it will create in Japan.

Since the missile tests carried out by North Korea over the Sea of Japan, certain newspapers in Japan have been creating hysteria among the Japanese people, encouraging Japan to revise Clause 9 of their anti-war constitution. I am not trying to raise anti-Japanese feelings in our country. For over 40 years I have advocated there is no progress in hate. In those years, Australia and Japan have built up strong relationships in trade and tourism, but we have a right to be deeply concerned about events that are evolving in Japan due to the Korean incidents.

There are elements in Japan that still yearn for the pre-Japan WW11 days. In the year 2000 the then prime minister Yoshiro Mori reversed a mid-90's position on Japanese war responsibilities when addressing parliamentarians for Shinto Politics (a 230 strong caucus) declaring "I have promoted ideas which the government has tended to avoid and have continued to affirm to the Japanese people that Japan is a country of gods, with the emperor as its centre." He thus articulated the precise racist and exclusionary formula of Japanese identity promoted in the official ideology of the 1930's and 40's fascist Japan.

Some may argue that Mori is no longer prime minister but it is his influence within Japanese political and bureaucratic system that concerns me. The present prime minister from his early days in that office was aggressive about removing Clause 9 of their constitution. Recently Mr Koizumi has advocated amending Japan's war-renouncing constitution to allow is 240,000 strong self-defence forces to be called military. His comments have been interpreted as a readiness to strike first – a position advocated by his defence minister, Shigeru Ishiba, earlier this year. He told the Kyoto news: "I believed the day should come when the SDF is recognised as the military under a revised constitution".

The Japanese government has spent over $U50 billion a year for the last five years on defence - Japan is now second only to the US, and that is under a pacifist constitution. Japan has substantial quantities of plutonium and could soon be able to develop nuclear weapons and they have the scientific skills to create an appropriate delivery system.

Prime minister Junichiro Koizumi is among the Japanese political leaders each year that pay homage at Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, where war criminals of WW11 are enshrined. The Japanese government still deters their educational system from informing the youth of Japan about the crimes their militant and fascist armies carried out in the 1930's and 40's. All Australian people should be concerned.

Tom Uren
Balmain, NSW

I am the founder of a grass-roots, Internet-based initiative in my local community designed to better scrutinize the conduct and actions of our Township's local officials, a project I felt compelled to start after learning that our local newspapers are really not interested in properly probing and scrutinizing questionable official conduct.

I just came upon your site and read some excellent material concerning the death of investigative reporting. This has served to further support my belief that the press is failing our citizens today, and indirectly contributing to many serious problems by failing to speak to power. It's nice to know that there are people out there that "get it." Great content!

Frank M. Rich, III
Montgomery Township Citizen Watch
Lansdale, PA, USA

Thanks for organising the Phillip Knightley Seminar. It was incredibly informative and well timed for the Rally the next day. Just a couple of things: 1. were speech notes provided by both speakers for interested audience members? 2. I had to leave before the event and didn't get an opportunity to put my name on the list for copies of "The First Casualty".

Jackie Trad
Redfern, NSW

You can now read Chris Masters' paper Who killed investigative journalism? in Evatt News and Phillip Knightley's The death of investigative journalism and who killed it? in Evatt Papers, and you can order a copy of Phillip's classic work, The First Casualty, using the Evatt Foundation's Publications Order Form. We have also posted several more papers on the media, and aim to continue the series..

"That is a ripper title" has been a common response to my recent book How to Argue with an Economist. The title taps into a political struggle that risks being overlooked if we take Steve Keen's approach to arguing with economists. The title taps into a sentiment that people are being silenced in political debate. In part they are silenced because the language locks them out. But even more urgently, they are silenced because some issues are systematically ignored.

The way we debate politics is a form of power. The frameworks we use install some issues on centre stage and make others invisible. Governments ignore whole communities’ needs and priorities by rendering them silent. My book is not about debating the technical minutiae of economic theory. It is about empowering people to participate in day-to-day politics.

My approach has been to distil economic rationalism down to its ethical core, expose its values, and give people the tools to drag issues that are currently invisible onto centre stage. This is vital for anyone interested in progressive politics. The two things that matter most to a progressive agenda fall into economic rationalism's 'blind spots'. Both the distribution of power, and the nature of social relationships fall into the 'not important' and 'not up for debate' category when we debate in economic rationalist terms. Let me explain why.

For the uninitiated, the basic premise of the economic rationalist worldview is that as a society we have a limited pot of resources. The economic challenge is to work out how to allocate those resources so as to bring about maximum human welfare. Economic rationalists argue that the market solves this problem spontaneously. When you and I go out into the market we are prepared to pay a high price for things we value highly, and not much for the things we don't. By contrast profit-maximizing businesses will target their businesses at producing things that get a high price, but are cheap to make. That is, they will target their activities at producing the things that are highly valued but use minimum resources. The result is that the market targets our resources to producing the things we value most.

It is a model of a democracy of consumption. Citizens cast their vote on how our resources should be used. And the pinnacle of efficiency is achieved when our resources are targeted so as to bring about the greatest possible level of human wellbeing. Or, that is the theory.

Economics' most stunning oversight is that it is a democracy on a sliding income scale. Those with a lot of money have a big vote, and the poor are almost silenced. Consider splitting $500,000 of annual income between 10 people. Consider what the market would provide is one person got $400,000 and the remaining $100,000 was split between the other nine. An efficient market would provide an extravagant home, a fabulous car and exceptional food and clothes for the wealthy person - and basic survival rations for the other nine. But if the income were split evenly, giving them $50,000 a year, the way that the money would be spent would change and the market would deliver quite different products. There would be a drop in orders for Mercedes and fancy meals. But medium range food, housing, fridges and televisions would boom. The distribution of resources will reflect the distribution of income. Resources are not targeted for the greater good.

A well-versed academic economist will respond that economics does not seek to pass judgement on existing power structures. It simply seeks to maximize wellbeing given the existing constraints. That is, it renders them unimportant and actively replicates them. But to the average working economist, the technical caveats of their disciplined blurred some years ago. They will advocate a shift from the universal provision to user pays in the name of efficiency. They won’t recognise it is shift from counteracting existing power structures to reinforcing them. And they won't question what they mean by efficiency.

The left must force our way back into economic debate by challenging what we mean by efficiency. Is our economic goal:'To use our scarce resources to maximize the wellbeing of the community'; Or as it currently is: 'To use our scarce resources to maximize wellbeing in a way that reflects existing power structures'?

One of the central features of my book is to set up a conceptual framework for having this debate. And for being able to formulate progressive policies in its wake. In taking this approach I am seeking to challenge economic rationalism at its political heart. In characterizing this approach as debating market failure, Keen has overlooked the core thrust of the book. The heart of the book is not what counts as market failure, but what counts as efficiency.

Keen and I might also need to agree to disagree on what counts as conceding 'centre ground' in political debate. Is it accepting some of the rules of engagement, but challenging the ones that are politically important? Or is it packing up and going home until the rules change?

In my view economic debates need to be seen as political debates. Our most immediate task is to create a space for getting progressive values back onto the political agenda.

Lindy Edwards
Canberra, ACT.

I was not aware of the existence of the Australia Institute until I heard Dr Hamilton being interviewed on the ABC-Radio's Life Matters programme.

Here at last, it seems, is a person who has a clear vision of where we, as a civilisation, are headed. He has articulated thoughts which I have been struggling with for 30 years or more now.

Thank you Dr Hamilton for putting the case for a more equitable world so concisely and clearly. More power to the Australia Institute if this is an indication of the type of thinking that is flourishing there.

Steve Bell
Cairns, QLD

Dr Clive Hamilton's thesis is largely consistent with the social philosophy and educational mission of some of our best schools. Both my daughters finished secondary school 5 to 6 years ago. Both have done higher studies and are now in the work force. Both give part of their time to charitable/community service work. They learnt this habit at school. It was part of their Christian education. I've recently taken up membership of a charitable organisation and believe its the closest I have come to the 'gospel experience'.

What Clive Hamilton is saying calls for a response. Teachers in today's schools are getting that response - from young people. Commitment and generosity are part and parcel of our educational programs today and are having an impact. It's good to see the older generation being challenged and encouraged to think about fulfilment. Clive Hamilton's advocacy is worthwhile as it drives us along the same path.

Joe Edmonds
Sydney, NSW

Clive Hamilton says that "ordinary Australians happily shell out $40,000 for a four wheel drive plaything and gamble away a few thousand dollars each year merely for entertainment" while their "households are filled with big-screen TVs and DVDs". They probably have a pool in their backyard too, because Clive has seen them as he overflies the suburbs of Sydney. These ordinary Australians, he says, are not concerned with how to pay their bills, but with how to enjoy "their unprecedented wealth". And yet these ordinary Australians are still not happy.

Well, Clive's ordinary Australians seem a whole lot different than the ordinary Australians I know – like those living on the average wage, for example – so I don't know by what criteria Clive considers his ordinary Australians to be just ordinary or average. Most of the ordinary Australians I know have nothing like the level of material affluence Clive attributes to them, and if they're unhappy with their lot it's mainly because they feel insecure and anxious in their jobs (most have experienced restructuring) and overworked (most work longer hours than before). In the modern economy, all jobs are expendable and even a job well done is no guarantee of a good job or indeed of any job at all.

The Left, in all of its historical forms over the past two-hundred years, has had what it believed was an answer to this: to replace capitalism with an economic system based on social ownership of the means of production or, in the (weaker) social democratic version, to reform capitalism through income redistribution and other policies. But this didn't spring from a desire to maximize economic growth or to satisfy insatiable consumer demand – it was to maximise economic and social freedom and to satisfy the human need for meaningful work. Even the much-maligned socialist objective of the ALP was originally represented as a means to realise political and social freedom and equality.

These traditional Left aims seem to me to be consistent with Clive's vision for "ordinary people to achieve liberation and an authentic life" or what elsewhere he refers to as "a life that is fulfilling and self-expressive". Yet he says nothing at all about the workplace as a site for democratic intervention and an authentic life. Instead, he believes we should simply practise the "great refusal", by stepping off the materialist treadmill and discarding our meaningless acquisitions. How this can be done without a radical alteration in the organisation of work and property relations is not explained, and I am skeptical that it could ever be done at all merely by appealing to people's individual quest for an "authentic life".

I agree that we need a politics to contest consumer capitalism and its mania for growth, but Clive's answer, which seems close to Thoreau's prescriptions on "voluntary simplicity", suggests something more like a personal cultural protest than a political movement. Warts and all, I'll still choose the Left.

Peter Bryant
Rozelle, NSW

For first hand knowledge of the privatisation of power industry in the Latrobe Valley and other essential services and the resulting community devastation and despair, I can assist by making available people from Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU), Latrobe Valley District Committee, GTLC (Gippsland Trades and Labor Council, Latrobe Shire, ALP led).

A delegation of our people could speak to your people regarding corporatisation/privatisation and its devastating effects, including 17.9 per cent unemployment, 46 per cent youth unemployment, youth suicides, downward spiralling property and house prices, felt right across the community. Or perhaps a delegation of your people can come down here to meet with us. Some of this may provide insight into what's been happening in the Latrobe Valley since Award restructuring, the Accord, the national electricity grid and their effects on the community at large and unionism. Further debate can be found on the Labor 21 forum.

It certainly does seem that the Howard agenda/worm of wedge politics has crawled through many gutters to reach the union movement. When union is fighting union, faction is fighting faction, official fighting official, worker fighting worker, I realise that Howard, Reith and Abbott have won the debate. It certainly is a shame to see and hear what's going on between the Sydney national office of the AMWU and their adversaries in the Victorian Office.

Certainly there is no talk - I repeat no talk - of unemployed members and their families or workers and their families at present coming from either office. One wonder who they all think they are representing.

Steven Presley
Morwell, Vic

Thanks for carrying articles on PPPs on the website and elsewhere. It's a hot topic inside the Victorian Branch of the ALP, and getting hotter.

Anything else which comes the way of the Foundation should also be placed on the web site. I'm sure it must be of interest to other members of the ALP in other states due to the Labor governments being taken in by what are essentially ridiculous and quite superficial arguments, being trotted out to justify the unjustifiable.

The issue has the potential to become the next great privatisation debate given its scope and the growing concern inside union and ALP ranks.

Geoff Lazarus
Flemington, Vic

I think this is misleading and coercive reform, where people are being used to make functional experimental models premised on inequality. I agree that issues of power and distribution need to be sorted before community models are constructed. Needless to say these models are not in wealthy communities.

Athena Vongalis
Melbourne, Vic

I admire Mark Latham's attempts to market Western Sydney positively, but he tends to focus on some of the successes and gloss over the urgent problems. At Mt Druitt, where I live, there is high unemployment, growing youth suicide and high domestic violence. Over 20 years, successive State and Federal Labor governments have only done bandaid work.

Where are the vital community services Mt Druitt so badly needs? DOCS has so many cases on its books, children are suffering in high numbers as victims of abuse, many not attending school and aspiring to be like their older brothers and sisters - unemployed and in trouble with drugs and the law. It is five minutes to midnight out here, and we don't need Mr Costa telling us he intends to build more gaols to solve law and order problems.

The people of Mt Druitt are fed up with politicians telling us they know our aspirations! We want jobs, jobs and more jobs, and decent community services. We want humane policies that address the root causes of the problems we face. If Labor can't deliver this, we will start our own people's party, and a coalition with the Democrats could also be on the agenda. This will herald in the new fourth way, as the third way is already morally and ethically dead!

Wayne McMillan
Mt Druitt, NSW

Mark Latham and Brendan Gleeson's papers on "What's happening in the suburbs" were very thoughtful contributions to an important subject. They show a keen appreciation of social, economic, governmental and some environmental dimensions of urban planning. I think, though, that we have to take another step, in particular, in regard to environmental considerations, if we are to get to the crux of dealing with an urban-metropolitan agenda.

Lester Brown (Worldwatch Institute) writes in The Ecologist (Dec 2001-Jan 2002), foreshadowing the content of his new book, Eco-Economy:

Today's global economy has been shaped by market forces, not by the principles of ecology ... This has created a distorted economy that is out of sync with the earth's eco-system - an economy that is destroying its natural support systems ... Converting our economy into an eco-economy is a monumental undertaking.... There is no precedent..."

Looked at in this light, the urban planning project, including its suburban aspect, is a very radical one indeed. For instance, it would confront, as an unwarranted risk, the population growth impetus of much of our business and a multiplicity of other commentators, along with Carr and Latham. But it would also question the environmental implications of how business and trade are conducted and their footprint in the cities; the resource depletion effects of consumption patterns and affluence; the psychological and other consequences of lives lived in 'virtual reality' high tech milieus; how suburban lifestyle (now in many ways recklessly pursuing 'affluenza') can be deflected to contribute to what is arguably Australia's main national task - to restore-repair the land, meaning its soils, groundwaters and rivers, coasts, etc; how to counter the complacency about the serious longer-term effects of air pollution from commerce, 'productive enterprise' and traffic growth, at dangerous places in and around airports, along main roads, and the cumulative effects leading to heart disease, cancer, asthma, of exposure to often poorly understood chemical and particulate emissions.

All of these concerns, and more, will have to be integrated into a new economic perspective. In a way that will transition developments within a time frame that will avoid continuing untold damage to natural ecosystems, that will be sensitive to tensions due to resource and basic needs in other countries, and the local social fabric.

As Lester Brown implies, this is not an enterprise that we know how to manage in toto, but there are plenty of steps we can take while being aware of the imperative of seeing it as the main game.

Many thanks to the authors for the papers and their dissemination on this much neglected, but very pertinent, subject of the suburbs.

Len Puglisi
Burwood East, Vic

A Co-operative Land Bank (CLB) creates a new type of tenure system that can make urban development self-financing, while democratising the ownership and control of land. It represents a political and economic building block for a type of economic system that I described as 'Social Capitalism' in my book Democratising the Wealth of Nations.

The CLB improves the equity, efficiency and sustainability of an urban economy by separating community created values from privately created home improvement values, putting them into two separate but related title deeds that are traded in different markets. This substantially reduces speculation and the export of economic values to non-residents. It also allows the windfall gains and wipe-outs to be averaged over the community to provide a collective incentive to improve and sustain community facilities and services.

The CLB obtained international interest when I was invited to present the concept to a seminar of experts on 'Land for housing the poor' that was held in Bangkok in 1982. A key-note speaker was Professor William A. Doebele of Harvard University, a consultant to the World Bank and one of the world's leading experts on land tenure systems. One of Professor Doebele's students, Thomas Johnson, completed a Masters thesis based on the CLB idea. Mr Johnson believes that CLBs provide a means for upgrading the extensive run down urban areas in North American cities, without the use of public funds. In countries with extensive public housing estates, the CLB structure provides a technique for introducing self-management and, or, privatisation of housing estates. Because of the international interest, I was invited to present a seminar to the faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Design in 1986 and in 1991, and invited to be guest faculty for the Special Interest Group in Urban Settlements in the School of Architecture and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1987.

The ability of a CLB to make housing sites and services self-financing would allow traditional banking organisations to participate in the upgrading of squatter settlements. Because a CLB creates a grass-roots self-governing precinct, it can offer political as well as financial advantages to sponsoring governments.

Occupants and their families construct over 80 per cent of housing in the world. The greatest problem in obtaining affordable housing, whether or not it is self-built, is to obtain access to suitable land. The more suitable the land in terms of access to income producing activities, water and other services, then the more expensive it becomes. The effectiveness of a CLB in making land self-financing increases as the value of land increases with its development.

As the value of land may typically be around 30 per cent of the cost of housing, CLB's provide a means for eliminating the deposit gap for housing everywhere. This benefit indicates how more efficient a CLB is compared with traditional forms of land tenure systems. A CLB also represents a more equitable land tenure system, as it eliminates the capture of 'unearned' windfall gains in land values. This feature makes a major contribution in enhancing economic efficiency.

Shann Turnbull
Sydney, NSW

What a delightful experience to discover this site. The Evatts are cousins of mine and I have vivid memories of their visits.

I was eight when the United Nations was being formed and recall my mother's excitement as she got ready to attend the daily meetings. They would come over for tea and then we would drive in the car to the St. Francis Hotel for dinner. Uncle Bert would let me sit in the front - between him and the chauffeur.

One day while we were riding in the car he asked me, in his thick Australian accent, if I liked school. I didn't understand his question and asked him to repeat it three times. He responded, “Good God, girl, can't you understand English!"

In my adult life, I became a speech teacher!

Virginia Waterlow Abascal
Berkeley
California, USA

Frankly, I am sick and tired of progressive organisations and e-news groups inviting "everyone" to events at Gleebooks. If you are using a wheelchair there is no way you can participate. This is nothing more than Apartheid. It is 23 years since International Year of Disabled persons and 12 years since the DDA but few on the left or progressive side of politics in Sydney seems to have noticed.

Helen Meekosha
Sydney

Just thought it's great to see a bit of activism still happening via a university. Thought those days were gone. Whoever does your writing for the website is a gem and congratulations!

Please though, do we have to go through all this American nonsense just to register? Phew! What a laborious process.

Anyway, I'm a fellow writer and iconoclast, and I hope you all keep me posted. Lovely to have stumbled across you through the media alliance's website. Nice to think there are still a few thinkers out there.

Chris Rau
Kings Langley, NSW

I am a distant US cousin of the late Herbert V. Evatt. Through much research, co-operation and work, I have created a (free) website dedicated to all of the "Evatts" of the world. The address is http://www.evatt.org I actually have a link to your site under the "Australian Evatt" links.

There is also a link on the website to the largest Evatt Family Tree in the World which is held on http://www.Rootsweb.com. Herbert V. Evatt (and myself) are all on this family tree. The oldest Evatt traced was born about 1266 AD. This is one of the few family trees I am aware of that traces a family (the Evatts) over 700 years and many countries.

I just thought you might like to do a story on the website and/or place a link, etc. Also, and I know this may sound somewhat trite, but you should sell t-shirts with the Evatt Logo on the front - I would put a link on my site - would be great exposure for your organisation. Just a thought.

Thanks for your time, dedication and hard work!

Danny Rex Evatt
Midland, Texas, USA

I needed to research some information about the Bill of Rights relating to Australia's situation at the moment for an essay. I must admit, I found your extensive information about the issue most informative and interesting. Compliments to your page.

Natalie Tan
Sydney, NSW

I'm studying for a Masters of Public Policy at Flinders University and I'm researching current education policy and alternatives to the push for market-driven school choice policies, particularly in regard to funding and resourcing mechanisms.

I couldn't find much information on your website in the area of education policy. Your search engine didn't seem to differentiate keywords and kept returning me numerous articles without any reference to education policy.

In contrast the Centre for Independent Studies website was full of articles on this topic. Any plans to address this? Why don't you publish the chaper by Simon Marginson from the book Globalisation: Australian Impacts on your website? Then there would be some content on the topic!

Anna Brazier
Adelaide, SA

A comparison with the so-called Centre for Independent Studies! Ouch! Stuart Macintyre's paper "'Funny you should ask for that': Higher education as a market" is a masterful survey of the way markets and their surrogates are shaping higher education, and Tony Moore's paper "The ALP and cultural democracy" suggests some new education policy directions. We hope to publish more on this crucial topic. In the meantime, Globalisation: Australian Impacts can be purchased through this site, or from all good bookshops.

I very much appreciate this site and welcome it as a wonderful Australian contribution to thinking. I have previously been dependent on the wonderful US Znet site, and so it's great to see something from home turf.

Michael Fensom
Gosford, NSW