The Secret State? (3)By JAMES CROTTYAs I grow older historical processes become more obvious. Primarily because I discern the change between what I knew and experienced then, and what I know and experience now. Some more incisive and capable than I may not have required nearly 50 years to come to similar conclusions. But ponderous though the process may have been for me the result survives critical examination. I have two real and immediate concerns. One recently expressed by another on these pages, the second politically incorrect and to date inchoate.
First, professional life has engendered in me grave distrust for government and its agencies. For this reason the recent comments and analysis of Rick Snell Government, be they Governors, Premiers, Ministers, servants or agents from time to time mislead the governed. That is us. The unkind might say they lie. Freedom of information is a way, perhaps a slow and frustratingly limited way, but a way to provide a check and balance by the fourth estate and other interested parties on the governing class. In Tasmania lip service is given to this important tool to ensure open government. In an age when the media is for sale or pre-occupied or incompetent, we are increasingly reliant upon academics and interest groups to investigate and expose wrongdoing. This results in the inevitable loonies and conspiracy theorists competing for media attention with serious analysis. The result is telegenic lunatics receive attention and considered analysis is often considered too weighty to be saleable. Rick Snell's recent critique on the inadequacy of the administration of Tasmania's Freedom of Information law is accurate and compelling. Whether the problem be from the under=resourcing of the office or inappropriate selection and training of staff the result is the same. An application made under Freedom of Information in Tasmania will in a contested case take longer and the result be less likely to challenge vested administrative interest than in other states. Snell isn't sexy and his arguments are unlikely to propel us to the barricades but they should be heeded. Slowly, inexorably, what we may have once hoped to regard as an independent and fearless public service is being exposed as pliant to political influence and corrupted by personal ambition. To protect ourselves from the effects of the modern age we need to ensure the mechanisms for accountability are available and appropriate. Delay in disclosure can be just as damaging as a refusal to disclose. The unsexy therefore becomes the centre of present attention and we need to ensure the Office of the Ombudsman receives the public and governmental support it deserves. The same can also be said for the Auditor General. "Safe at Home" The second concern that I have, and one I admit causes me to be unhappily characterised as a reactionary, is the "Safe at Home" proposals. The immediate concern that I have is that the money has been allocated, the police staff undergoing training, the media hyped and anticipant, but the legislation is not yet even in Bill form. What is it that is proposed. If the publicity is to be believed then it is an horrendous infringement upon what we should regard as the fundamental liberty of the citizen and the restraint of state power against an unconvicted citizen. In my view it is and should be a basis for all state action against a citizen that an allegation is not enough. Before "rights" can be removed there must be judicial determination according to a "fair" law or at least procedural fairness. "Rights" is in inverted commas because we do not have a "Bill of Rights" and "fair" is in inverted commas because the parliament can pass any law it likes, so long as it does not offend the Constitution, which even a law allowing slavery or capital punishment does not. It will come as no surprise to readers to hear that we have very few "rights" and those we have can be easily legislated away. The "Safe at Home" proposals appear to be a huge legislative encroachment into what we would regard as our way of life. I say appear because I do not know what the proposals are because they have not yet been formulated in Bill form. That is in itself a ground for complaint. Our government is already putting in train a new regime for dealing with family matters and we do not know what it amounts to. I do not know and I doubt anybody else given to critical appreciation outside the Minister's advisers know the detail. In broad brush I understand the proposals to be an ability for police to remove allegedly abusive or violent spouses from the home. That spouse can then be restrained from re-entering. The physical separation protects the victim of abuse or violence. The redress of the position is through the courts. Should that be the proposal there is an absolutely certainty the law will be abused most probably on the advice of matrimonial lawyers seeking to gain advantage for their clients in disputes. I should not and will not be seen as defending male violence by these comments. I should not and will not be seen as insensitive to the financial inequality of females in most relationships. I have spent a professional life acting for those who are victims and struggling to be reborn. What I should be seen as is deeply concerned about an end that justifies the means. Giving the police the power suggested in the paucity of information available is inappropriate and will, as history has shown us, be tragically abused. The basic element of our society is the family. Usually that is a man a woman and children. There can be other combinations. They are not predominant. I suggest there will always be men and women who produce children. I may be wrong. Perhaps in the modern age there will be some other way. But all of our genetic diversity to this minute has been the result of men and women attempting to raise a family. It is this, not some idealised notion of gender equity, to which we should apply our means to assist. Men are violent, uncaring, ungrateful, drunken and abusive. They are also fathers. What are we going to do without them. We should concentrate on assisting a family stay together, not as an initial reaction rendering it apart. What makes anyone think that a drunken and abusive husband and father is either without need of assistance or incapable of change. How many second wives and families benefit from the experience of a husband and father who has had an unsatisfactory prior relationship. The second family benefit to the detriment of the family he has left. To my mind the obligation of a father to provide Child Support in a broken relationship should be equal to the mother's obligation to ensure the children are allowed the opportunity to experience and appreciate the role model of a father. The proposals of "Safe at Home" do not appear to have either considered or recognised that for good or evil, having parents, and even most "bad" fathers, make boys and girls better parents themselves. Have any of our legislators considered what you do after you remove a father from the home. What do you do to his parenting role after you punish him for his "bad" behaviour. What do you do ten years on when the children are set to graduate, have their eighteenth birthday, become engaged, married or have their own children. Parenting is a continuum. I don't have ready answers but I can recognise "Safe at Home" is not a solution. In my own experience I have seen convicted criminals be better parents than captains of industry. While this is not always the case the lesson taught is that parenting is specific and not the subject of prescription. It is hugely important not to allow social experimentation on the basis of some trendy ideology. Once upon a time we thought criminal behaviour could be predicted from the size and shape of a head. It was called phrenology. Once upon at time we thought economic and social behaviour could be predicted from the interaction of classes within society. It was called Marxism. In our modern age we know those beliefs were as transient and trendy as bell bottomed trousers or short skirts. Playing with the fabric of our society requires more than just a trendy belief. It requires more than a bit of feminist dogma and dodgey statistics. It requires thought and consideration of the welfare of our children. Any fundamental change in family roles and expectations requires mature thought and consideration, because once we have children, it is their welfare, not ours, that should be the paramount concern. James Crotty is a Hobart lawyer
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Monday, August 23, 2004 |