Select Hypocrisy
The value and importance of Senate Committees and their inquiries is well known. Apart from the committees which are permanently in place (known as Standing Committees), the Senate also a long-standing practice of setting up Select Committees, which are committees established solely for the purpose of examining a specific issue. These are usually major inquiries which produce a comprehensive report. Occasionally they examine a series of issues around a particular topic and produce a series of reports over a number of years – the Select Committees on Superannuation and on Animal Welfare are two examples. This link goes to a table showing all the various Select Committees established since 1985.
Since the Coalition gained control of the Senate in mid-2005, not a single Senate Select Committee has been established, with the last one, a major inquiry into mental health, reporting in early 2006. Now, in the very first week since the Coalition lost government, they are using their continuing Senate majority to set up three separate Senate inquiries – into state government financial management, barriers on housing affordability, and agricultural and related industries.
I am not at all unhappy about the opportunity for extra scrutiny of the important policy issues (although the inquiry into state government financial management looks likely to be blatantly partisan.) However, it is hard to ignore the hypocrisy of stopping any Select Committees for three years (and many other Committee inquiries too) and then immediately use their Senate majority in opposition to set up three new inquiries at once.
This table shows the number of Select Committees in any one year. It shows that at no time since 1980 has there ever been less than two Select Committees operating in any one year – often many more than this. It is not a coincidence that 1980 was the last year a government had a majority in the Senate.
16 Comments, Comment or Ping
wmmbb
The contradiction is a stand out. Senator Minchin now argues articulately for an inquiry into abandoning WorkChoices even though the legislation was pushed through and dissenting views were ignored. There is a rule for government and a rule for opposition, which is the rule of political expediency rather than political principle. It is no wonder that representative institutions and representatives alike would then be held in low esteem.
My sense is that the Labor Minister’s, judging by the televised Question Time, have still got their training wheels, but the non-informative answer seems to be the modus operandum.
Feb 14th, 2008
zen
wmmbb
Correct Latin is ‘modus operandi’. Similar gramatical structure rules in English (taken after Latin) where gerund is used in phrases like modus operandi- ‘operating system’ or ‘modus vivendi’ – way of living, etc.
Latin is such a wonderful language and it is such a pity it is not being taught in Australia. After all, 50% of English comes from Latin.
Feb 14th, 2008
CORAL
It doesn’t surprise me at all that the Coalition would want a Senate inquiry into state government financial management.
All of the states and territories have Labor governments. They’re just looking for a new way of getting rid of them.
As for agriculture and related industries, they’ve probably jumped on the bandwagon to get rid of all of our livestock industries.
I didn’t think they would care too much about housing affordability. Maybe they’re worried about losing further votes – and probably hatching a plot to give assistance to those on good double incomes, who make up a very large proportion of the population.
Feb 15th, 2008
wmmbb
Thanks zen.
Feb 15th, 2008
al loomis
politicians are not hypocrites, for much the same reasons that whores are not virgin. or, to put it another way, ‘hypocritical politician’ is a tautology. (greek is useful, too)
Feb 15th, 2008
zen
Senator Andrew Bartlett,
I have a feeling that Natasha Stott- Despoja is not helping Democrats with her recent stunt supporting boycott of the Games in China because of children being killed in the Sudan and Darfur.. China is world known for human rights abuses and they haven’t good records as their own children are concerned, either.
However, Natasha’s protest is too little and too late. Why did she choose the two countries, only? Are miserable children in Iraq or Afghanistan any different? Is it because there is oil in the Sudan and Darfur and the West has also appetite for it? It was Americans who bombarded farmaceutical company in Sudan. Do the Chinese drop bombs there?
If Natasha is really honest about boycotting China she should have started with boycotting Chinese goods in Australia i.e. Country Road, David Jones, shoe shops, most of the department stores and stop selling gas and uranium to China.
It is a bit too late, too. Many Australian businesses have already invested in the Games; our equine industry does not need another blow, after the equine flu. I just think it is yet another selective hypocrisy.
Just wondering whether she consulted all her colleagues or just ‘doing Cheryl Kernot’ with personal decision made overnight.
Feb 15th, 2008
CORAL
The term “modus operandi” is the plural of “modus operandum”.
The English translations would be “modes of operation” and “mode of operation” respectively.
Other examples would include “addendum” (singular) and “addenda” (plural).
The easy way to remember it is that the singular always ends in an “m”.
Here is another example: “bacterium” (singular) and “bacteria” (plural).
Feb 15th, 2008
battery
zen- I may be wrong … thinking abck to the mid 60s …… ‘operandi’ looks like a gerund to me and … creaking brain cells whirr noisily … would that be the gentive form? so it parsed thus:
modus [singular noun =way, or mode]
plus
operandi [gentive form of gerund =of operation'] ?
The one thing I remember for sure is that gerunds can only exist in the singular. ( I think.)
Feb 15th, 2008
2 tanners
Lordy, lordy. Latin Grammar snarks.
Zen is quite correct. The -i ending for operandi is not the plural, but the possessive ["genitive"] case which is used to qualify nouns – ‘mode OF operating’.
Back to the point, I think your concerns are back to front, Andrew. Yes, their virtue is questionable and the sudden rush to committees is undoubted hypocrisy, but we should at least benefit, provided the committees aren’t used to delay or defer legislation for no justifiable reason.
Feb 18th, 2008
CORAL
wmmbb:
There was never a problem with your usage of “modus operandum”. The rest of these people have the bull by the tail.
Just cut the apostrophe from “Minister’s” because they are not owning anything – and you have an excellent post.
Feb 20th, 2008
wmmbb
Thanks for pointing it out to me Carol. I am not sure what possessed me to use an apostrophe in that context.
Feb 20th, 2008
ken
The hypocrsisy here is the notion being peddalled that somehow “select” committeees are anything other than a political fishing and / or expedience process.
Like any other tactic taken advantage of when and if desired.
Even the waffly burecratic link to Sentate pracfice eventually gets down to the guts of it when noting that ususlly they are undertakne in a highly politically charged environment.
Feb 21st, 2008
zen
Coral,
‘modus’ is definitely SINGULAR. 3rd declention (declinatio mixta). -’i’ ending in plural usually comes from Greek (Cactus -cacti) still preserved in some cases in Latin, but plural in Latin has different endings.(‘Modus operandum’ is a grammatical idiocy very much like ‘I likes eatings’)
Very similar ( but not the same) to Latin, English, has different plural endings;
-s in boy – boys, chair- chairs
-es in bus buses, class – classes
-es in words ending with -x, box-boxes, fox- foxes
-es in some words ending with -o potatoes, tomatoes, cargo-cargoes, but musical instruments as in piano-pianos
- ves in words ending with ‘-f’ or ‘-fe’ in ‘wife’-wives, ‘knife -knives’ or ‘wolf-wolves’
- ies in the words ending with ‘-y’ preceded by a consonant as in ‘baby’- babies, lady-ladies but toy-toys (preceded by a vowel)
-es in Latin words like in basis-bases, and some Latin words ending with -x. Appendix -appendices, index-indices, etc.
-i ending in Greek words: cactus-cacti
-a ending in words Greek or Latin phenomenon-phenomena, bacterium-bacteria, datus-data
Irregular plural endings:
Child-children
brother – brothers or brethren
goose-geese
tooth-teeth
man-men
woman-women
sheep-sheep
fish-fish
ox-oxen etc.
‘-ndi’ ending (gerund- ‘gerundium’ in Latin)is an equivalent of the English gerund (-ing) as in i.e. ars amandi (art of loving)
Well, ‘gerund’ has no plural or singular and no declention. It is a form of a VERB, Carol. When it takes a form of a noun it can have plural (sittings). It is up to the context as many English words have contextual meaning (position in a sentence).
‘Cook cooks’, ‘Cooks cook .(subject-verb-object)
Sorry, Carol I studied Latin both in Grammar school and at the University, well,… in Europe.
But it is a thrilling experience to teach Australian born their own language by a migrant like myself.
Feb 23rd, 2008
Naomi Cartledge
zen,I agree with you about China and the games.I think it’s just another example of political hypocrisy across the board.I don’t think China should have got the games,but then the US is the only country that executes the mentally ill and children(who were children when offence committed).The killing of 1.1 million in Iraq is hardly the actions of a so-called democracy is it?How many times did they attempt to murder Fidel Castro?What about the CIA flying so-called ‘terrorist suspects’to secret prisons in Europe and Egypt +?How many people killed in Central America due to corporation’s greed?Look what’s going in in El Salvador(still or again),$millions$ pouring into Venezuela to get rid of the democratically elected Hugo Chavez?Evertime I hear Bush,Rice or Cheney rave on about democracy it makes me ill.
Last year the SMH had indepth articles (couple of days)re the number of inquiries,commissions etc (Fed Govt)the money they cost and the fact that they were either not reported on in Parlt.or nothing was followed up.Too many to mention,but millions-good cop for pollies junkets with meals at good eating houses.I hope that nonsense stops.I don’t object to an inquiry into poverty,as long as people are treated with respect,there’s accountability,and then,ACTION TAKEN!Not more ‘nothings’!
I really feel sorry for decent,accountable and hard working people like Andrew,who must really get fed up!I get angry reading about it!What a waste of good public housing money;mental health needs????
Feb 24th, 2008
CORAL
I wouldn’t be too thrilled, Zen.
No one is disputing that “modus” is singular. The plural would be “modi”.
“Operandum” is also singular – plural is “operandi”.
Memorandum – Memoranda.
Addendum – Addenda.
If our fellow poster is talking about a single method of operation, there is nothing wrong with what has been written. Only he/she knows how many methods and how many operations he/she is talking about.
It was you who started picking on this person in the beginning. I respectfully suggest that you leave wmmbb alone.
Feb 25th, 2008