page 2

Minogue Talks

Last Wednesday witnessed yet another in the series of alternative lectures organised by the Political Science Society (Neil Grey gets the kudos). The speaker was Mike Minogue National M.P. for one of the Hamilton seats. He was advertised to start at 12.30, the subject was to be "Parliament". Neither of these eventuated, although we'll be big and forgive him for being ever so slightly late.

Rather than speaking on Parliament itself, he concentrated on the heart-rending, tear jerking pressures and problems that confront the little boys and girls who play semantics in the House. He informed those present (around 120) that his personal crusade was aimed at removing the totally negative qualities of section 6 of the Official Secrets Act.

This section deals with the "wrongful communication of information". It goes on at great length about anyone who has in his/her control any secret Official Information relating to a "prohibited place" or which has been obtained by the person having held or holding a Governement position. If this information (in the form of a "code word, password, sketch, plan model, article, note, document") is communicated, used, retained or is not looked after so that the interests of the state are endangered, the Act is breached. In otherwords, this act can be turned against democracy by virtually placing a total ban on information released to those outside of Parliament.

Mr Minogue spoke of elements of "institutionalised [unclear: paranoia] and power seeking which determine activities and disposition in Parliament". He did not elaborate this point any further.

Against this background there were three things which he felt every politician must be aware of. A politician who sees the Parliamentary system with dismay, despair, or disillusion becomes a tired cynic", and tired cynical politicians are nothing more than "rubber stamps" for the system. He must realise that change is the product of evolution, rather than revolution-of events rather than individuals-and is therefore a slow and tortuous process. Because of this a politician must select his objectives with care realising that he will be limited by time and heavy workloads. A norms' working week without late night sittings would therefore be the first step to a more efficient Parliamentary system, making full use of available time to get through Parliamentary business.

He spoke of the monstrous weight of bureaucracy which hinders politicians (it wouldn't happen to be in some cases their own severe mental incapabilities that hindered them?) and the difficulties arising from the permanence of the bureaucracy and the transience of governments. The size of some government departments, including Health and Education meant they were almost too large for a single minister to handle. (It shows).

Minogue spoke with the confidence that often accompanies generalities. Although citing examples to prove some points, he was not specific in responses to questions and wandered off onto tangents which often seemed to be irrelevant. Indeed he was a man with a cause, but was it devoted to the furtherance of democracy or Mr Michael Minogue M.P.?

Despite his airy words of wisdom for politicians about seeing the system without disillusion, rubber sumps, evolution, not revolution causing change he did make on" statement about the key to political survival.

Buried in the mass of generalities: "Get a safe bloody seat."

Is there something contradictory emerging somewhere?