Archive for January 2013
Old events in new costumes
Posted 31 January 2013
on:- In: ACT OPINIONS | Entertainment | Tourism
- 6 Comments
Old events in new costumes
If the organisers hoped the Centenary celebrations would create the impression of Canberra as the Capital of Progress, Innovation, Culture and the Arts I think they will be disappointed. How on earth can this impression be created when many programmed events are old events dressed in new costumes?
In the same way as many programmes on our new TV channels are repeats of programmes as old as Canberra’s main demographic, the Centenary is taking the old saying ‘everything old is new again’ to new heights.
Although I might be growing long in the tooth I have fond memories of birthday parties made exciting and entertaining spontaneously. As I grew older and my tastes changed so did parties. But one thing didn’t change: my hope that the parties would still be exciting and entertaining.
To digress, having worked for decades in the local tourism industry which is hoping the Centenary will fill beds and rattle tills, I trawled the Centenary website hoping to see messages that substantiate the industry’s hopes. I was looking for messages designed to stir the latent jingoism in Australians that would encourage them to cancel an already planned overseas visit for a trip to Canberra.
Sad to say, the messages on the website did little to suggest they would encourage such a thought. Bear in mind that prospective tourists, Australian and overseas, will look at the same site. One hopes they don’t reach the same conclusion as me.
In terms of infrastructure and physicality Canberra is a young city yet the website seems designed to appeal more to an ageing demographic. And so I ask: where are the ideas from young people that some of an older demographic will think zany? They may be there, but if they are they are not obvious, so why expect young people to visit?
This is not to say the photographs on the website are not useful, but I have to say that during my sixteen and twenty five years age span, it was not that I didn’t enjoy some moments of cultural appreciation but in the main my mind was focused elsewhere. I suspect that in this regard things are still the same.
Don Allan
dca@netspeed.com.au blog: Allan Takes Aim; web: donallan.wordpress.com
The ACT Government needs courage and new ideas
The start of the ACT’s new four years of political fray is now upon us. I live in hope that the start of every new Government heralds a new state of political honesty and the discarding of the usual words of denigration that politicians throw at each other in parliaments.
I hoped also that the incoming Labor/Green Government at the start of its new contract with ACT voters would wish to give them hope that things have changed. Unfortunately, indications are that they haven’t.
Already rumours are rife that Liberal Zed Seselja is moving on the Senate seat held by fellow Liberal Gary Humphries. In all honesty I think that’s more a rumour created by Labor to counter the rumours of unease within Labor, than it is true. But true or false, what it indicates is that things will go on in the same way for the next four years as they did in the previous four.
That apart, what do we mean by honesty in politics? It’s a wonderful idea, but what does it mean? Does it mean we always want our politicians to tell the truth no matter what the truth is, or does it mean something else? Talking to people I get the impression they think that “honesty in politics” means they want people in politics to think the same as they do and deviation from that path means they are dishonest.
Much as most say otherwise I suggest the real truth is that we want are politicians who will confirm our prejudices or, better still, give us good news. Politicians who give bad news are, as Sir Humphrey would say, “courageous.” Sad to say examining the record of the last ACT Government shows that it had few courageous politicians.
For forty years of my forty four years in Australia I’ve enjoyed living in Canberra and for twenty five of those years I enjoyed the benefit of Canberra being subsidised by the rest of Australia.
That subsidy gave my family access to a health system, arguably the best in the world; an education system envied not only by many other countries but also other Australian States; a relatively unpolluted environment; world class sport and recreational facilities that were more generous than in Australian cities with a population size comparable or larger, and better than in cities with seven or eight times the population size in other developed countries; a first class road and transport system; superb cultural facilities; and virtually no unemployment.
In some respects Canberra could be likened to the dream city of “Utopia” described by Sir Thomas More in his 1516 book of the same name as “a seat of perfection in moral, social and political life.” Sadly, however, and much as we all would like our dreams to continue, they fade. Eventually we wake up to be faced with the harsh realities of life.
Canberra was suddenly wakened to the harsh realities of life when self-government was introduced in 1989. Fortunately for Canberra, the infrastructure of the dream remained; unfortunately, the money needed to maintain and grow it, did not.
At last Canberrans were faced with the reality that to maintain their dream city, they would have to put up most of the money because the subsidy from fellow Australians would decrease. Unfortunately since self-government, while most ACT Governments talked of the new reality they continued to hope that Canberra would continue to be treated as dream city.
The first and only Chief Minister to face up to reality was Liberal Kate Carnell. Unfortunately at the moment I cannot support Chief Minister Katy Gallagher because, unlike Kate Carnell, she seems unwilling to be honest with voters by telling them their dream city could become nightmare city unless they change their attitude. To do this she might have to risk unpopularity by doling out doses of strong political medicine.
But perhaps she prefers celebrity to courage?
Blog: Allan Takes Aim; web: donallan.wordpress.com; e: dca@netspeed.com.au
Communications special
Posted 26 January 2013
on:Important announcement
to all readers of Blog – Allan Takes Aim
I am loathe to take the following action but, but to help reduce the volume of spam on the site, as from February 1, only people registered and logged on to donallan.wordpress.com will be able access and comment on the blog.
Those who do not wish to make their comments privately can contact me direct at: dca@netspeed.com.au
Let me restate that this site was not established as a means of free advertising under the umbrella of another site, but for the purpose of promulgating the exchange of ideas and t Bloghe promotion of free speech.
And people whose first language is not English should not shy away from making comment: most people will understand what you have to say.
Let me thank you in advance for your co-operation.
Yours sincerely,
Don Allan OAM
- In: ACT OPINIONS | Politics
- 10 Comments
The day is getting close when few executives in a company can expect to stay on forever. The terms might vary but today the expectations are geared to between five and eight years particularly in the top job. This was brought to mind by a TV news report of the rumour that Andrew Scipione, Chief Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Force would soon be leaving the job.
Adding substance to the rumour were his words during a fairly recent interview when he said that though his contract still had two years to run, having served six years in the position, his use by date was approaching. This is happening more frequently in the world of big business as experienced executives move from one company to another and in doing so gave support to the old adage that ‘a change is as good as a rest.’
After moving I doubt the executives will need to change their management skills. In all probability these skills will improve with the change of business scenery. They might also regain their capacity for invention and innovation and also develop new skills.
If you don’t think this is true an examination of the employment background of many executives (including CEOs) in Australia’s major companies will display a background that shows lack of experience in the field which the company they are employed is operating. And while I won’t go as far as to say that the company they left and the company they work for now will have benefitted from the change, I think it more than likely.
This is not to say there are no exceptions to my theory. Some small self-owned and self- managed businesses are unlikely to benefit from change if only because customers like dealing with familiar owners and managers.Unfortunately however, that is changing, as small businesses get gobbled up by big business and the familiar is replaced by the unfamiliar.
Perhaps we think this is a new and undesirable chapter in the life of business but the fact is history will show that this was ever so. Since the start of commerce the same process has occurred time and time again because the wheel of life has never stopped turning. In a sense and though it applies to other than human and/or animal life, the process is Darwin’s theory of evolution writ large.
Unfortunately, one business that should have changed but hasn’t is politics. The West endorses democracy as the system in the wheel of life that will cure life’s inherent problems. Despite centuries having passed since the idea of democracy made its first appearance, ambitious people have used the idea to enhance their life at the expense of others.
Which brings me to political wars and the election of politicians: in reality, politicians are business executives because government is big business. Unfortunately unlike business, where executives can be sacked because of incompetence, politicians manage to escape that possibility even if after being elected it becomes apparent they don’t measure up to the CV presented to voters. (Think Thomson and Slipper)
Why should this be the case? After all billion dollar businesses carry on even when executives get sacked.
So let me suggest that in the same way as business organisation use technology to advance their business, why, on a regular half yearly basis, can’t voters use technology to advise a Government’s Managing Director of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their government’s business management They would also be able to suggest as to which politicians should get the chop because their performance is below par.
Such an idea might be too revolutionary for politicians but I think voters would l welcome it.
Some politicians will say the idea is daft but, following 508-507 BCE when Cleisthenes established what is generally held to be the first democracy, democaracy would undergo many adaptations before our current system was accepted. And so I ask: is the proposed idea daft? Some politicians I know think this is the future of democracy beyond tomorrow or the next election and that eventually it will come.
At the same time I think politicians should not be allowed to serve more than two parliamentary terms thus avoiding the current system which encourages politicians to think a seat in government is a sinecure. Importantly, such a system would refresh government and keep politicians on their toes. Also they would have to keep close to the electorate to find out first – hand what voters in their electorate thought important not what biased staff thought.
But that’s enough for today and perhaps to your relief, tomorrow I shall be silent.
Blog: Allan Takes Aim; web: donallan@wordpress.com; e: dca@netspeed.com.au