DEAR News Of The Area,

I AM 90 years of age and have experienced the unprecedented change between both the pre-and-post social ethos.

Christmas was all about moral character and community, not consumerism, to World War II.

The common national core values were based on Christian philosophy.

We still open parliament with the Lord’s prayer but it is difficult to see the Christian character in much of the behaviour in our Parliament.

And where is the voice of those religions who claim to protect the Christian philosophy, a philosophy which is still found to be a parachute by people who make unenlightened choices in their life?

The recent shooting in Queensland highlights the extreme differences in character and values now developing within our communities.

I can readily find the core values expressed by each political party, but nowhere can I find a clear expression of our core national values that would bring our communities together in shaping the future with trust, cooperation, progressiveness and character.

Individual taxes should be each taxpayer’s real investment in our country, spent wisely and efficiently and prioritised in line with our core national values, by our statesmen (politicians).

We now live in a difficult ethos of information overload, globalisation, rapid and diverse technological change, gynaecocracy, climate change, epidemics and population welfare needs.

Yet we still blunder on, trying to manage the difficulties of this new ethos with outdated ideologies, policies and personal ambitions that were formulated in the times of a totally different ethos.

History repeats itself – where regulations are ineffective, corruption thrives.

The only proven escape from corruption is the combination of regulations based on enlightened national core moral-values, implemented by executive leaders of character, and agreed, understood and supported by the majority of citizens.

However, can you the reader see any real advances in the social ethos until we can define national core values that are compatible with our genetics, role model needs and our national governance needs?

How can we begin a reformation to cope with the new ethos without defining clear national core values succinctly – questions such as ‘Do we believe as a nation that our children are our future?’

‘Do we believe our children are being adequately prepared for their future responsibilities to their country and communities?’

‘Do we believe that the people (parents and social welfare) who are responsible for preparing our children for their future social responsibilities are educated in line with their social responsibilities as teachers and role models?’

‘Do we want a parliament that has a command authority or just a management authority – how many politicians would understand what this means?’

And where is the sense of having a parliamentary ethos where half opposes the other half that has been elected to govern?

And what does it say about the citizens when they accept and openly address the losing party as ‘the opposition’.

Why aren’t we using the best brains in both parties to work together, to develop trust rather than suspicion, to encourage the building of cooperation based on trust and then all citizens enjoying the fruits?

For many years many European countries have operated successfully without a majority government.

Citizens have lived in rental housing all their life because rents can only be increased by the CPI (this also gives the building owners assured income every year).

Should Parliament as a whole be held accountable for national performance and not just the party winning ‘government’?

Should domestic housing ever be considered an investment vehicle?

Is domestic violence the result of poor parental training in how to provide their child’s right of passage?

I suggest that all citizens need to think much more deeply and define more clearly the person they need to be if they wish to live in a trusting, cooperative, productive and decent society.

AJ TURNER,
Social Futurist,
Coffs Harbour.