Uniformity and the tyranny of the majority

My post WA election, Lyne and a wry sense of enjoyment triggered a conversation in the comments between Bob Quiggin and myself. In one comment I said in part:

What do you do if the entity is such that a majoritarian approach means that you must always lose out, creating a perpetual case of majority oppression?

Bob responded:

What do you do when you are in the minority? For a start, you suck it down, because that's what a democracy is - the tyranny of the majority. That leaves the hard grind of changing attitudes through lobbying, education and work. It's not like it's a hopeless cause, unless it is a plea for special treatment on a plainly unequal basis.

What Bob says says here sounds so reasonable, yet I think that it is very badly flawed. Things don't work like that in practice.

As I write, Nathan Rees, the new NSW Premier, has launched a major cost cutting exercise following an apparent $1 billion collapse in the State budget. In so doing, the new Premier said that he had no explanation of how the State's finances had fallen into a hole since the June budget.

The Sydney Morning Herald (10 September 2008) quotes Mr Rees as saying: "I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to examine why we've got those estimates wrong." Apparently the Government was simply unaware of the problem until last Friday (September 5). Now here there are two quite different issues: how did the problem arise; why was the Government not aware of it?

Dealing with the second first, access to information is central to informed debate and decision making. Here I was a bit appalled, but simply not surprised by the apparent problem faced by the new Premier.

Back in March last year in Access to Information - a NSW oddity, I complained that there was no way in NSW to access Government press releases. Oddly, when I commented on this to a Sydney journalist, he found nothing strange about it. I could always go to the State Library, he said!

What I could not say at the time was that I became aware of the problem because of some work that I was doing that required me to check past Government statements. I had to scrounge round to find copies on files or in people's private holdings. I also found that NSW had no apparent system for recording or accessing past Cabinet Minutes or decisions. Again, I had to scrounge round.

The lack of transparency - internal as well as external - may have facilitated the Government's capacity to constantly recycle announcements, to apply its electoral supermarket approach, but it did not make for good Government.

In writing about NSW Government policy over the last few years, I was (I think) one of the few who took the Government's major planning statements - Mr Iemma's Ten Year Plan, the various coastal strategies - seriously enough to try to analyse them in some detail. Here I pointed to two key weaknesses as I saw them.

The first was that were very bitsy, really an aggregation of somewhat disconnected performance measures. The second was the apparent disconnect between the statements and targets and actual economic and demographic change on the ground. This created an apparent Kafka like world in which the official system acquired its own powerful internal reality - plans, projects, targets, performance measurement, power structures, accords, special interest groups, Commonwealth-State agreements, the power of Premier's and Treasury, risk management, communication strategies, best practice - that was in some weird ways disconnected from the world around and especially that outside Sydney.

Also as I write, on the other side of the continent, the Australian is carrying the sad story of Sanchia Norrish.

The facts are simple enough.

Five years ago, the normally healthy 53 year old became ill. On the Friday morning, she was driven 25km to the Northam Hospital in WA's wheat belt. There she was X-rayed and diagnosed with a blocked bowel. Neither that hospital nor the immediately surrounding ones had the doctors or staff to operate - Northam Hospital itself services a population of 20,000, but usually does not have doctors at the weekend.

Mrs Norrish was then driven to Perth - and hour and a half trip. The busy Perth hospital did not accept the local diagnosis. By the time the diagnosis was confirmed, it was too late. She died during the operation.

The significance of the Norrish case is that the leader of the WA Nationals, Brendon Grylls, is the local member. Mrs Norrish forms one element in his push for improved regional services.

Now when resources are short, and they seem to be getting shorter all the time, Governments have to triage. They have to set priorities. In this context, those living in Sydney could point to a string of similar cases in the greater metro area.

The problem with triage in an increasingly resource constrained world is that it creates a pattern of winners and losers with sometimes fatal consequences to the losers. In a perfectly fair system, one could argue that this may be sad for the individuals or communities concerned, but them's the breaks.

The present Australian system is neither perfect nor fair, nor can it be. The current emphasis on national or state priorities, uniformity, common standards both conceals and adds to the unfairness, creating a constantly changing pattern of winners and losers.

At present, NSW has very particular problems. This means that the squeakiest immediate wheel gets action. However, even if we can fix the current problems of transparency and fragmentation, problems will remain.

In my series Why I remain a New England New Stater I tried to set out using personal examples why the current system worked against New England. Here my core focus is on institutional factors.

In somewhat similar vein, to test the NSW Government's Ten Year Plan, I took New England as a case study. My core conclusion, set out in NSW Ten Year Plan and New England - Conclusions, was that the plan simply did not reflect New England's needs. I would add that it could not because current institutional structures prevented those needs from being recognised.

Now one could argue, and quite fairly, that my New England focused approach is parochial, even quaint! However, it does rest on reasonably articulated underpinnings.

In my posts on constitutional issues (list of some at the end of post) and especially the View from 1926 series, I refer to the views of David Drummond.

Drummond argued that all exercise of Government power involved loss of freedom and created winners and loosers. He also suggested that a major problem in democracy lay in the fact that the majority would always oppress the minority. This is not simply a matter of changing majority views on particular issues. Rather, of cases where there is an entrenched majority view.

To overcome this, he suggested that Governmental structures should be geographically based, close to the people, so that there was a commonality of interest. This implies a shifting hierarchical structure capturing different levels of needs.

Drummond would have accepted, I think, that there will always be cases where specific local, regional or (for that matter) national interests must be over-ridden in the interests of the greater good. However, he would have said two things.

The first is that the meaning of greater good must be defined, tested. Secondly, that the dangers of majority oppression must be controlled through proper decentralisation of Government.

Our current structures do not easily allow for this. Let me illustrate this by taking an example that Bob and I share.

Working in the Commonwealth Industry Department, we were trying to develop new policy approaches that would encourage the development of Australia's electronics, aerospace and information industries. These industries shared many common features, but were also very different.

In developing new approaches, we had to fight against deeply entrenched Canberra attitudes.

One was the view that any industry support measure involved market interference and was therefore bad. A second that the only appropriate measures that could be used were so called horizontal, universally applicable, measures. Any vertically tailored approach was necessarily bad in its own right and open to special pleading.

We shared the doubts about previous industry specific measures. We also knew that most of the so-called horizontal measure ignored industry and geographic variation. In this sense, the so-called horizontal measures became deeply vertical because of their very varied industry impacts. By contrast, vertical measures that took into account industry variation could be structured to achieve a more uniform affect.

To manage all this, we developed what we called the matrix approach, something that Bob has referred to before in his comments. This was quite simple in concept.

We listed all the industry sectors we were dealing with across the top axis. This is a very big and varied sector, so there were a lot.

Then down the horizontal access we listed all the economic factors affecting the industries, all the relevant policy measures as well. Again there were a lot.

We then examined the effect of each policy measure, each economic variable, in each industry sector. From this we asked basic questions: what were the common features; what the differences; what were the gaps; what needed to be done to alter or harmonise policies so that negative impacts were overcome, so that their effects were harmonised and mutually reinforcing.

The approach proved very powerful, but also failed in the end because we could not overcome the horizontal, one size fits all, mentality. Our fatal flaw lay in the fact that we wanted to take difference into account.

And this, I think, lies at the heart of problem of majoritarianism.

Constitutional Posts

• Australian Constitution & the High Court Decision on Work Choices
• Water, new states and the intellectual poverty of current Australian discussions on Federalism
• Australian Federalism in an International Context
• Constitutional Change in Australia - the view from 1926: Introduction
• Constitutional Change in Australia - the view from 1926: Three streams of constitutional thought
• Constitutional Change in Australia - the view from 1926: Constitutional principles
• Importance of Parliament
• Constitutional Change in Australia - the view from 1926: Power will be Exercised

Cyber-attack sinks Neil's Floating Life - hopefully not for long

Those like me who have noticed that Neil's blogs are down, can find out the reasons why here.

I haven't followed the detail of the discussion that Neil feels triggered the attack. I, too, read a variety of blogs and value the freedom of expression and different ideas involved. I can only hope that the problem will be sorted out soon.

In the meantime, let conversation continue.

Postscript

In fact, not all Neil's blogs are down, just the Gateway blog. Floating Life itself is still on line. I did not pick this up at once because I always use the Gateway as my entry point to all of Neil's blogs.

Round the blogging traps - Legal Eagle on the common law

One of the reasons that I am so fond of scepticslawyer as a blog lies in the standard of discussion from the posts themselves through the interplay of the two writers to the standard of some of the comments.

Earlier this month, Legal Eagle had an interesting post - Has the time come for the common law to be scrapped. Nick Gruen also reviewed this issue if from a somewhat different perspective on Club Troppo.

As I read the material, I found the discussion rubbing up against some of my very long held and traditional opinions (perceptions) dating back to my study of European and British history at school. There George (RWL) Crossle presented the common law as an example of English genius, part of the evolution of British freedoms, contrasting this with the history and operation of the Napoleonic codes.

It was only later that I came to realise that studying history with George was in fact a liberal education in its own right. In many ways, George was a conservative man. He certainly seemed so to me. He wrote regularly to the local newspaper in defence of the Menzies-McEwen Government, attacking the manifold sins of the ALP opposition. Yet when it came to teaching history, he had the capacity to present the sweep of history, to draw out various sides. He was also prepared to countenance alternative arguments.

The issue of the differences in due process between the common law and the continental inquisitorial system formed a key thread in Legal Eagle's discussion. Nick Gruen focused on the same issue, pointing to the huge costs associated with the adversarial system. The comments on LE's post drew out some of the history of the evolution of the common law and its interactions with individual freedom.

The reason why both LE and Nick's posts rubbed up against my prejudices lies, I think, in their focus on the processes of common law as compared to my own perceptions of the history and role of common law.

As I understood common law, it's roots date back to Feudal England as a response to the varying exercise of power within Feudal structures. These structures were marked by cascading authority.

In Europe, the concept of centralised power was reinforced through divine right flowing from the church as successor to the Roman Empire through to the ruler. Individual rulers may have challenged this, but the concept of authoritarian power was clearly established. Napoleon's later codification was based on the concept of absolute imperial central power.

For a number of reasons England went a different route. Yes, there were many features of the continental type, but power was more divided, less formally centralised. In these circumstances, law became more of a device for controlling power, less of a device for imposing power.

This links to the second feature of common law, the way in which law evolved through practice, through judicial decision. Over time, this created a flexible if sometimes messy body of law capable of governing relations between individuals and entities independent of central dictates.

The emphasis on due process, on the adversarial system, was a by-blow of all this.

From my perspective, the common law is now threatened not so much by either its costs or the adversarial system, but by two linked developments.

The first is the emergence of the state as the single, central, source of power. In theory in Westminster systems, parliament is paramount. In practice, the executive has inherited the divine right of Empire.

One side-effect is that the importance of the legal system in acting as a barrier to the unbridled exercise of state power has increased. No Government likes to have its divine right to rule constrained. All respond to greater or lesser extent by trying to alter the law so that it delivers the control required.

The second development is the huge proliferation of laws and quasi laws. We live in a black-letter world in which everything must be controlled, regulated, ordered, risk managed. In these circumstances, there is less and less scope for the sometimes messy processes bound up in common law.

It is a fact that all organisations, Government or private, will use the law and legal processes to their own ends. The more formal law of all types, the greater the economic interests involved, the greater the incentive to work the system.

The fact that cost and complexity have increased is not, of itself, a reason for moving further away from the common law, although this may be the actual effect. Rather, we should ask the more basic question as to what we are trying to achieve, what the principles and processes should be.

Nothing that I have said in this post should be construed as an attack on either LE or Nick Gruen's points. I am simply mulling over things from my own perspectives.

Postscript

Marcellous had a rather depressing post, Banging your head against a brick wall, illustrating some of the costs and complexities of the legal process.

Visitor 37,000

Welcome to visitor 37,000 who came from Luft in Germany direct to the story on Qantas and its oxygen bottles.

While 37,000 is not a lot by some standards, it is still a fair number.

New Nationals - and a new sense of hope

Anybody who reads this blog on a regular basis will know that I do not fit in in conventional Australian political terms. I get typed variously as a conservative, a soft left small l liberal, a right winger, a social conservative, old fashioned, sometimes even as a radical.

Anybody who reads this blog will also know that I am disillusioned with current politics and approaches to public policy. Here I try to apply my analytical skills to suggest new directions.

I describe my traditional party position as country party, a party that no longer exists. In constitutional terms I am a monarchist who also wants to tear down the existing system to create new entities, to clarify responsibilities.

If you look at what I write about, I constantly emphasise the need to recognise differences across Australia, to avoid one size fits all approaches. I write about localities and regions, about the Aborigines not as "the Aborigines" but as Kamilaroi or Bandjalung.

I have tried to articulate my position in a range of posts.

In Sunday Essay - The beliefs of a New England populist I attempted to outline the origins of some of my beliefs. In Why I am not a conservative and then in a follow up post Why I am not a conservative revisited - and now Saturday Morning musings as well. I tried to articulate some of my broader positions.

If you look at my writings on my beloved New England you will see that I did not just argue that New England was neglected, that self-government was the right option, I also tried to articulate what needed to be done at a policy level to turn decline and relative deprivation around. To use modern jargon, I tried at least in part to create bench marks against which policy and programs could be judged.

In writing about politics I complained about the use of the word punter to describe votes, about the application of the concept of the brand to political parties. I complained too, and on many occasions, about the application of what I called supermarket politics, the idea that voters walked the aisles looking at goods until they decided what to buy.

This links across to the current abuse of the word "mandate", the idea that election promises are like contracts on which parties must deliver. Anything not covered by the contract is outside the mandate.

In all this, the distinctive thing about the WA Nats, the things that commentators are both fascinated by and struggling to come to grips with, is that Brendon Grylls and his colleagues appear to have articulated a position based on principles and then stuck to it.

I cannot comment on the sense of the WA Nats policy positions because I have not analysed them. I am struck, however, by the way that Mr Grylls is approaching discussions about alliance and the future in terms of specific principles laid down over the last two years and set out clearly to the electorate.

This is what people want. This is why Peter Andren was so successful in Clare. This is why the New England independents - Peter Windsor, Richard Torbay, Rob Oakshott - have been so successful. They are the real inheritors of the tradition to which I belong.

Interviewed tonight on the 7.30 Report, Brendon Grylls was asked about the implications of the WA result for the Eastern State Nationals. He said, simply, that it is all about community. The transcript is not up yet, but should come up here. In my words, the WA Nats were part of, identified with and represented their communities.

This does not mean simply going with the majority view. Peter Andren in Calare did not. But his electorate always knew what he stood for, what he would do, that he belonged to them.

This is a world apart from the modern political machine in which everything is spun, focus grouped to death, fine tuned.

I accept that I am old fashioned, that the world has changed. But regardless of the final outcome, the success of the WA Nats gives me hope that that the world that I thought had gone is not completely lost.

Postscript

The WA results are still unclear. However, I am so enjoying it all.

National leader Brendon Grylls emphasises that what he wants has to be set in a budget context. Current Premier Carpenter says that Mr Grylls has made it clear that he does not want to set the regions against metro Perth. According to Mr Carpenter, Mr Grylls keeps emphasing outcomes.

Mr John Bowler, the new independent member for Kalgoorlie who was dumped by by Mr Carpenter from Labor and who everybody assumed would support Labor, has been talking to the Nats. He emphasises that, like the Nats, he is truly independent. I do not think that there is any way that Mr Bowler would join the Nats - his point is that he and the Nats have things in common.

The truly enjoyable thing in all this is that Mr Grylls really seems to have set currently accepted conventional principles aside. He gambled on true independence, articulated principles, and now seems to be sticking by them.

I cut my eye teeth on this stuff. This is right back to the 1920s when the NSW Progressive Party split over coalition with the then equivalent of the Libs. The True Blues, the group who became the NSW Country Party, would not countenance coalition because this would compromise their principles.

Don Aitkin spoke of Country Party mythology. The True Blues are part of that mythology. It is a mythology that has become lost in the modern NSW Nats.

I wrote of the split in my biography of my grandfather. It's actually quite a gripping story that has never been fully published. Perhaps its time I put it on-line.

NSW Ministry

For those that are interested, I have listed the full new NSW Ministry in New Ministry in NSW.

If my maths is correct, there are 23 Ministers from the following geographic areas:

• Sydney - 17
• Illawarra - 2
• Central West - 2
• Central Coast - 1
• Hunter - 1

Premier Rees seems to have maintained the current portfolio structure, including ministers for specific areas considered to be of special geographic significance - Redfern-Waterloo (inner Sydney), Western Sydney, Illawarra and the Hunter.

In addition to the departure of Michael Costa and Reba Meagher, Frank Sartor has been dumped. I think that his style had become just too much of a liability.

I was pleased to see Kristina Keneally get a promotion, while Ian Macdonald and Tony Kelly stayed in the ministry. While I have had no direct contact with him, Mr Macdonald has always impressed me as competent.

Matt Brown has gone from Housing to Police, a promotion in a formal sense, but in terms of possibility for real contribution he would have been better off staying where he was. His post has been taken by David Borger, a new junior minister who has Western Sydney.

The overall portfolio structure remains very messy. It reflects previous fancies and lacks any coherent thematic structure.

WA election, Lyne and a wry sense of enjoyment

I am really enjoying the WA outcome. We still don't know what the final results will be, but it has set people running in all directions at once. In particular, I am really enjoying the existence of so many multiple National Party models.

In WA, we have the cross-bench model. In SA, a coalition arrangement with Labor. In Queensland, a merged Liberal National Party, with Federal members able to sit in either Party room. This is in fact a variant of the CLP NT model.

In all this, there now seems to be emerging agreement that the lessons for the Nats from the Lyne/WA combo is stick to their knitting, proper independent representation of regional interests.

Meantime, in NSW with its new Labor Premier, the main feeling seems to be a heartfelt hope that he can actually do something to improve the situation.

A major casualty in all this is the support that once existed for four year fixed terms. This seemed so self-evidently sensible - give Governments time to govern. But what do you do when a Government gets into a mess? In the NSW case, the ALP's current majority means that the Government can simply hang in there for the next few years hoping that things will get better. As do we all.

The decline in the NSW economy adds to the Government's woes.

All the discussion about the existence in Australia of a two tier economy misses the point that the Australian economy has always been a multi-tier economy. It's just that the balance has changed.

The NSW Government's revenue position has been weakening for some time. The ending of the Sydney property boom reduced income from property transfers. Slowing consumer spending affected GST revenues. Growth in pay roll tax revenues has slowed as employment growth has slowed. In all this, the only growth area has been increased mining revenues from the coal fields of Northern NSW.

The NSW Government's expenditure position has also been deteriorating. Leaving aside problems with the State's deteriorating infrastructure, the aging of the NSW population is now affecting spend in a number of areas such as health and welfare.

One can argue that the Labor Government has failed to address the State's needs. However, and in fairness, it needs to be recognised that any NSW Government would face a difficult time just at present.

Sunday Snippets - As Darkness Falls, New England Woes, Hugh Frewen

Photo: Bronwyn's new book.

In As Darkness Falls - a good read, I reported on Bronwyn Parry's new book. Bronwyn is in fact the partner of Gordon Smith of lookANDsee. At the time I had only read the first chapter on line. I then bought the book and read it in one sitting.

It is in fact quite gripping as a crime story, although the romance genre itself is not quite my style. Bronwyn has established her own blog, Bronwyn Parry - Australian Romantic Suspense as part of the marketing activity.

The use of blogs and web sites as a marketing device to support new fiction is quite widespread. In updating New England Australia - blogs, I added some of Sophie Masson's blogs as well as Bronwyn's.

On a less positive note, the dispute between the University of New England's Chancellor and Vice Chancellor has now spilled over to ICAC (the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption). I haven't written much on this one because I find the damage being done to my University just so depressing. I am desperately hoping that the independent inquiry by Justice Street can resolve things.

Staying on the New England theme, the Nationals heavy defeat in Lyne was not a surprise, although the scale of the defeat was. I set out my own views on the National's position following the Howard Government's defeat in New Directions - and thoughts for the Nationals. I followed this a little later with Reasons for the coalition loss in NSW, March 2007 .

My key point, I suppose, was the need for the Nationals to carve out a clear position in terms of their role as a Party of and for the regions, not just a country cipher of the conservative wing of politics. I had intended to write more on this, but had no heart for it following the merger in Queensland.

Facing extinction, the WA Nationals had no real choice but to go it alone. They fought as a truly independent cross-bench party and the electorate has rewarded them. At this point at least, a new coalition agreement has been ruled out, so if the remaining votes go the way as predicted, the WA Nats will determine which Party forms Government.

I really enjoyed Kim Beasley's somewhat naughty commentary last night on Sky TV. He knows his history and knows how to stir at the same time. Citing past cases of Country Party/Labor Party cooperation, he said that if he was ALP leader in WA he would now being talking very seriously indeed to the Nats to determine their price.

I think that we can talk about price in this case. The Nats have earned their position. They have said that they will sit on the cross-benches and have quite explicity not ruled out supporting either of the major parties. I smiled at Liberal discomfort here. Now if they (the WA Nats) have the skills, they can negotiate in the best interests of their constituents in a way precluded by normal coalition arrangements with their in-built compromises.

Continuing with a somewhat New England theme, the post I wrote on Hugh Frewen, Saturday Morning Musings - Hugh Frewen: a New England story, has continued to draw interest and more information in comments. I enjoyed writing this post, and am pleased that it has drawn a response. However, as I read the latest comment from one of Hugh Frewen's grandaughters I was reminded again of the need to exercise care where people are involved.

Some time ago I did another such post about some one I had known. It was one of those reminiscence pieces in which I mixed together my own recollections with information gathered from the web. In this case, the person in question whom I had not seen for over forty years found the piece and pointed to errors in my memories. I altered the post, but was reminded of the need for care.

In saying all this, I am not suggesting that Hugh's granddaughter was upset. I don't think she was. However, when we write about people at a personal level who are alive or have living family, we do need to take the potential impact of what we say into account.

This does not mean tampering with the truth, although the idea of truth itself can be a difficult one, simply being sensitive.

Election Night 6 September 2008

I live blogged this one out of interest.

As of this morning, the ABC computer is showing the WA lower house results as ALP 27 seats, Liberals 23, Nationals 4, Other 3, with 3 in doubt. Of the 3 in doubt, the ALP is ahead in one, the Liberals in one, an independent in the third. If they split that way, then it becomes ALP 28, Liberal 24, Nationals 4, Other 4.

Voting in the upper house is proportional. Prior to the elections the Liberals held 12 seats, the ALP 10, the Nats 5, Greens 2, Christian Democrats 1. Too few votes have been counted to be certain of outcomes.

The National's position is an interesting one. Their position was further weakened under the redistribution, threatening their position as a party. They fought this election as an independent force outside coalition arrangements and appear to have benefited as a result. Now that they appear to have the power to determine who will govern, it will be fascinating to watch the machinations.

The National's success in WA contrasts with their disastrous result in the Federal seat of Lyne where independent Robert Oakeshott scored 64.14% as compared to the Nats 22.12%. This continues the fragmentation of the Nat's traditional Northern NSW heartland, although I would have thought that they would have a good chance of winning the NSW state seat vacated by Mr Oakeshott.

In the Federal seat of Mayo in South Australia, the Liberals appear to have won, although preferences will decide the seat. The ALP did not run a candidate here, with the Greens picking up the majority of ALP votes.

In all, an interesting night.

6.27 pm. While I have not been commenting on the current election round, I have been following. In Lyne with three booths in, Oakshott is on 56%

6.32 pm. Booths so far in appear to be traditional National. Oakshott (independent) home. New England preserves the voting tradition I have been writing about. My impression is that the Green vote is down to blazes.

6.40 pm. Port Macquarie booths starting to come in. Mr Oakshott's lead increasing.

6.46 pm. The booths closed in the SA seat of Mayo at 6.30 EST. First results should come soon. A little while before the close at the WA State election. Opinion polls show a cliff hanger.

6.50 pm. Booth feedback from Mayo suggests independent, Green strength. Booth worker optimism?

6.52 pm. With 29 booths in, Mr Oakshott seems to be establishing a huge lead in Lyne. My impression of Green vote apparently affected by the booths involved.

7.00 pm. First booths in in Mayo. Libs on 54%.

7.08 pm. A this point, the Libs appear to have won Mayo.

7.33 pm. I lack the local knowledge to judge Mayo. With no Labor candidate, the Lib vote is down, the Greens up. Both independent Bell and Family First are polling well.

8.04 pm. Switched to Sky TV to get the WA results. Mayo getting very interesting. Results unclear.

8.13 pm. The commentators are already using the Lyne result to point to the end of the Nats. They should merge with the Libs. The commentators miss the point - Mr Oakshott won because he better represents regional and especially Northern NSW interests. The Nats close connection with the Libs is their problem.

8.24 pm. In a TV interview, Kim Beasley compared the WA Nats with NSW. He said that the NSW Nats had to recognise that their role was to represent their constituents, not just seek Government. He contrasted this to WA where the Nats had moved to the cross-benches. The Nats are very much a tiny minority in WA , but their vote appears to be holding up.

8.40 pm. First WA booth results coming in. Very early, but still not possible to say anything. All the coverage is still talking heads! The first early results show big swings to the Nats. I wish!

8.50 pm. Very early WA results show swing to the Libs.

9.00 pm. The Libs are claiming victory in Mayo. Commentators say re WA that odd things are happening in the vote. At this stage, the ALP appears to have lost one seat.

9.15 pm. Still very early. Nats in front of the Libs in Moore. Projections now showing two Lib wins from ALP.

9.30 pm. Apparent Lib gains up to four. The ABc computer projections suggest two Nat gains from the Libs, eleven ALP seats where the Libs are in front of the ALP, one possible gain from the Libs.

9.40 pm. While individual results are all over the place, the reasonably uniform swing against Labor in metro Perth puts the Government at threat.

10.10 pm. At this stage results remain fascinating. The Libs have lost 2, possibly 3, seats to the Nats, some to Labor. On the other hand, they have won a number of seats from Labor. The Nats have also won one seat from Labor. At this point, neither Libs or Labor may get to a majority.

10.20 pm. The numbers have bounced again. I had Pilbara has a possible Nat win from Labor, but it is I think now back in the Labor camp. At this stage, neither Lib nor Labor may get to a clear majority. Perhaps the Libs are the best bet. The increased Green vote is also a factor.

I am signing off now. More in the morning.

10.45 pm. I had not intended to post again, but I heard an interview with the Nats leader. He said that the party vote had grown because they were an independent party and that, consequently, they would not enter into a coalition agreement but stay on the cross-benches to get the best deal for regional WA.

The costs of standardisation and uniformity

I am part way through my next post in the current series, but I could not resist a brief comment on two radio stories today. The first dealt with the proposals for regulation, standards and uniformity in the not-for-profit sector. The second, the problems associated with the creation of a child care centre in a small rural community because the costs of standardisation and compliance spread across a small customer base made the centre uneconomic.

I first came across the costs of uniform standards when I was researching the history of education in NSW.

In the early part of the twentieth century, reforms to the technical education system had the effect of shutting down large slabs of NSW country technical education because it lacked the base to comply with the regulations. From that point, trades people trained elsewhere had to be paid to come to country regions. The economic and social costs were quite profound.

I know of no solution to this problem. Once we create the burden, we then have to pay to create services at the now defined standard in areas that can no longer afford the service. No Government is prepared to or can afford the subsidies involved to support uniform services at the mandated standard, so services decline or disappear. Yet we continue with the approach.

I haven't written about the change in the NSW leadership because I do not expect it to make a damn bit of difference to the areas that I am most interested in. There will just be more of the same.

Ethnicity, ideology and the sometimes slippery concept of Australian "independence" - Part Two: Australian Identity

Graphic: Castle Hill Rebellion, 1804.

In the first post in this series, Ethnicity, ideology and the sometimes slippery concept of Australian "independence" - Part One: "Independence", I explored the evolution of the Australian independence from a historical perspective. I suggested that this had evolved in ways not always well presented in current histories with their us (Australia)/them (British, London)focus.

The second part of this series discusses the evolving sense of Australian nationalism and the relationship between this and different streams in Australian thought. This is a far harder task.

The term independence itself is capable of many definitions and is in any event a continuum. However, it is framed by, and can at least be assessed in terms of, specific historical events. By contrast, the evolution of our sense of identity and of the changing nature of Australian nationalism is far harder to assess because it centres not just on symbols, but on the changing way Australians think of themselves. We are what we think. But what have we thought?

The problem is made more complex because current modes of thought always create a barrier to our understanding of our past.

Take, as an example, the current use of the terms "Anglo" and "Anglo-Celtic." These modern labels have no validity in a historical sense, although their use may be of interest to later historians. Coined for current purposes, they actually create a mental barrier to our understanding of the past.

The popularity of the term "Celtic" is quite recent. The joining of "Anglo" with "Celtic" is even more recent, creating a combination that conceals one of the great divides of Australian history.

In historical terms, the islands from which Australia's first European settlers came were a melting pot marked over millennia by invasion after invasion of new settlers. Despite this, perhaps because of it, the principalities and kingdoms that emerged in historical terms were stubbornly separate, often at war with each other. The history of the Isles is littered with war.

Religious divides added to tensions. Here the Reformation is central because of the divide it created between the Roman Catholic Church on one side, the rise of Protestantism on the other. This played out within and between the kingdoms within the Isles, set within a broader framework of Western European religious and political conflict.

The place that would become Australia was settled from 1788 by people from various parts of the Isles. Others would come and make their individual contribution, but it was the people from the Isles who dominated especially in the first period.

I make this point because Australia was a mixed ethnic and religious society from the beginning, bringing together in one place people from homelands and especially England, Ireland and Scotland that were very different. People carried their history, religion and culture with them - they did not cease to be who they were just because of their transhipment.

There had been deep divides in Scotland between Roman Catholic and Protestant. The Presbyterian Church itself displayed a remarkable tendency to schism, a capacity and fury for theological debate that would be carried over to the new colony. The defeat of the Jacobite uprising in 1745 and the reprisals that followed were still recent history at the time that Sydney was settled.

In Ireland, too, national and religious divides were powerful. The political tensions associated with the English Reformation, fears about the loyalty of Irish vassals, led to a series of military campaigns to assert English control over Ireland. New settlers were planted from England and Scotland to form loyal Protestant communities.

By 1788, Ireland was governed by a local parliament whose electors excluded the 85 per cent Roman Catholic population, helping further strengthen bitter sectarian divides. In 1798 rebellion at Wexford culminated in the Battle of Vinegar Hill when 10,000 British troops successfully attacked the rebel headquarters. A number of the defeated rebels were sent to Australia as convicts.

In 1801, the Irish Parliament was abolished and Ireland became an integral part of a new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland under the Act of Union. However, Roman Catholics were still banned from the Westminster Parliament. It would be 1829 before this restriction was lifted.

Far away in the remote convict settlement at Sydney, maintenance of order was a key official concern. This was no easy task.

In 1804 rebellion broke out among the Irish convicts.

Led by Phillip Cunningham, a veteran of the 1798 Wexford rebellion, and William Johnston, another Irish convict at Castle Hill, the intent was for the 500 convicts at Castle Hill to rise, meet with with nearly 1,000 convicts from the Hawkesbury River area then March on Parramatta and Sydney. The rebellion began on 4 March 1804. Ineptly led, it was crushed a week later.

This early period of Australian history established three key features of Australia and the Australian character.

The need to maintain order among a divided population, along with the politically influential Scots Presbyterian presence, effectively mandated a secular society. The Church of England might be the church of the establishment, but it would never be the established church.

The need to maintain order, the colony's manpower needs, as well as the rise of the emancipist (ex-convict) class, required a pragmatic approach. Society could not be as rigidly organised, the laws could not be as rigidly enforced, things had to be done just to get by. By modern standards, these were harsh times. However, convict NSW also had a freedom, a social license, that is completely alien to today's three strikes and you are out mentality.

This introduces the third feature, the desire for order itself, especially among the emerging middle classes. Here one of the enduring features of Australian history have been the attempts of the middle classes to impose order on the broader population. In many ways Australia is a very conformist society.

All this affected language and society. Australia has never been a classless society. However, the egalitarianism of language and attitude, what John Hurst has called a democracy of manners, dates I think from this early period.

While NSW may have been a secular society, the sectarian divide between Roman Catholic and Anglican or Protestant continued, due in part to the carefully maintained dominance of the Irish Church over the the Australian Church. This meant that Irish attitudes and issues continued to play out in Australia. There was a clear and in many ways ghettoed divide between the majority population and the separate Catholic minority, a divide that was mirrored across education, social, cultural and economic and political life, that still exercises a powerful influence in Australia today.

The existence of an Australian dialect is one feature of the Australian character on which all can agree. This emerged among the currency lads and lasses, the locally born, quite early. A tri-partite language subdivision emerged, later described in terms of English-Australian, educated Australian, broad Australian.

It is not clear to me why the variations in the Australian dialect should have become socially and education based, with so little regional variation. As a historian and social analyst with a particular interest in regional history, I know just how deep the variations are between different parts of Australia.

Part of the answer lies in the then mobility of the Australian population. The Australian population, especially the working class population, was in a state of constant flux across Australia searching for new opportunities. The educated elites were also mobile within Australia and the broader Empire.

Part of the answer probably lies as well in the emergence of centralised education systems. Later, the spread of radio was important because of the way that the ABC in particular mandated a certain type of spoken English.

Part of answer also lies in the evolving Australian social structures that gave rise to the tri-partite division in the first place.

English-Australian was the domain of the new public (public in the English sense) and private schools that emerged over the nineteenth century to provide education to the wealthier elites. Especially in girl's schools, elocution (the speaking of proper English) was very important.

Educated Australian became the domain of school teachers and the small but growing number of university graduates.

Broad Australian was the language of the working class and of the bush.

The evolving concepts of Australia and Australian were inextricably entwined with ethnicity and social class, as was the evolution of the political parties. In turn, both played out in the evolution of Australian thought.

I will discuss this in my next post.

Ethnicity, ideology and the sometimes slippery concept of Australian "independence" - Part One: "Independence"

A contemporary (c1810) propaganda cartoon of Bligh's arrest produced to show Governor Bligh as a coward hiding under his bed.

In 3 September 1939 - the Second World War starts I said in part:

On 1 September German troops invaded Poland following a staged incident to provide a nominal justification. In response, Britain and France declared war on 3 September. The Dominions including Australia followed with independent declarations on the same day.

In a correction, anon noted that:

Australia had not ratified the Statute of Westminster and therefore was not able to independently declare war. We were hostage to England's (or should that be Britain's?) foreign policy.

Now anon is technically correct on the first point - the Australian Parliament did not ratify the Statute until 1942. It is the second sentence that I want to discuss in the context of the evolving sense of and presentation of Australian nationalism.

To set a context, in the period immediately after European settlement, formal political control rested with Westminster and its local representative, the Governor. Even then distance meant a degree of local autonomy.

Local interests were no mere ciphers. Australia's only military coup, the 1808 overthrow of Governor Bligh by the NSW Corp creating a military Government that ruled until 1810, was based on clashes of interest that played out in Sydney and the halls of Westminster.

Between 1836 and 1859, various parts of NSW were separated to form new colonies - South Australia (1836), New Zealand (1840), Victoria (1851) and Queensland (1859). Western Australia and Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania) were separate identities from the beginning.

The creation of South Australia and the separation of New Zealand were driven from Britain. Victoria and Queensland were driven more by local interests who wanted independence from Sydney control. The moves were opposed by Sydney interests who, in the case of Queensland, were able to get the proposed border shifted north.

In 1825 an appointed Legislative Council was created in NSW. This was followed by the grant of self-government under elected parliaments beginning with Victoria in 1852, the year after separation from NSW. From this point, the individual colonies had effective control over local matters.

The colonies were no mere ciphers for London. This held even in foreign policy areas where the colonies were active in trying to protect what they saw as their own interests to, as in Queensland's 1883 annexation of the southern coast of New Guinea, the sometimes distress of Westminster.

For reasons that I will come to a little later, modern Australians sometimes have difficult in understanding the nature of relations in the Empire, squeezing it into a them (the Brits) and us (the Ozzies) model. Really, there was only us.

You can see this if you think of the Empire as akin to Australia today.

There was the central government (Canberra, London) concerned with the interests of the Empire as a whole. Then there were the states (the various colonies) focused on their own concerns. The key difference between the two is that the Australian colonies had far more real power and independence than do the Australian states today.

I think that this is important because the them/us model acts to conceal things.

The treatment of the Aborigines did not come out of London, we did that. The adoption of protectionism in a generally free trade Empire did not come out of London. We did that. The adoption of the White Australia policy did not come out of London. We did that. Our over-reliance on the Imperial shield in the period leading up to the Second World war did not come out of London. We did that.

In all these cases, the British Government had a different view tempered by British social attitudes and the needs of a global trading Empire and Imperial power.

While the various colonies had very real powers, the creation of the Australian Federation ended what we now call the colonial period - itself an often mis-used word in an Australian context. The adoption of protectionism by the new Australian Parliament was the first independent trade act, the adoption of the White Australia policy our first foreign policy act.

The subsequent evolution of Australian official policy took place within an evolving Commonwealth and Empire. We entered the First World War as part of Empire. We, along with the other Dominions, signed the Treaty of Versaille in our own rights if within an Imperial umbrella and then became members of the League of Nations.

The role played by Australian Prime Minister William Morris Hughes (and here, here) in the period leading up to the signing of the Treaty is instructive.

Like a leading state politician today, Hughes was an Imperial (aka national) as well as Australian (aka state) political player. Determined to punish Germany, fearful of Japan, determined to protect what he saw as Australian as well as the Imperial interest, Hughes played an active role in British politics at electoral and Government level.

When I first studied Australian history, Hughes role was presented as the first successful exercise of an independent Australian foreign policy. It was not, nor was it successful except to the degree that Hughes got his own way. His desire to make Germany pay, his success in tightening sanctions on Germany, his alienation of Japan, all contributed to the subsequent Second World War.

The next major step in the evolution of Australia's national role came in 1926. There at the 1926 Imperial Conference, the governments of the Dominions and of the United Kingdom endorsed the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which declared that the Dominions were autonomous members of the British Empire, equal to each other and to the United Kingdom. The 1931 Statute of Westminster gave legal effect to the Balfour Declaration, declaring that the Parliament of the United Kingdom no longer had any legislative authority over the Dominions.

Initially Australia chose not ratify the Statute and did so for its own foreign policy reasons, the desire not to weaken Imperial links and protections in the face of the rise of Japan. We finally did so in 1942 when Japanese military success led to a greater focus on the US relationship.

The fact that Australia had not ratified the Statute did not affect constitutional practice.

In April 1933, 68 per cent of electors at a referendum in Western Australia voted for the state to leave the Commonwealth of Australia with the aim of becoming a separate Dominion within the British Empire. The state government sent a delegation to Westminster to cause the result to be enacted, but the British Parliament refused to intervene on the grounds that it was a matter for the Commonwealth of Australia. As a result no action was taken.

The last residual formal residual vestiges of the power of the British Parliament over the Dominions were finally removed by the Canada Act 1982, the Australia Act 1986, and the New Zealand Constitution Act 1986.

If you look at this potted history, you can see how the concept of Australian independence has evolved in ways not always well presented in current histories with their us/them focus. In the second part of this post, I will look at the evolving sense of Australian nationalism and the relationship between this and different streams in Australian thought.