Indeed, it could be more important than spending all that money on new submarines if the Australian authorities don’t handle the whole issue properly. History has shown that when countries have serious problems, they tend to blame outsiders (Hitler blamed the Jews; recently, the American people blamed immigrants for their problems).

Indonesia must be one of the most difficult countries in the world to govern. It is a relatively new country, formed after WWII, and consists of some 211 million people from 7000 islands, speaking 250 separate languages and each island with its own cultures, some very different, from the Melanesians of Papua to the staunchly religious Muslims to the west. There have been rumblings of unrest from some of those quite different peoples. So, who will they blame for their problems if things don’t go smoothly? Already there have been the bombings in Bali in which many Australians were killed and, if any dissidents are looking for someone to blame for their problems, they could easily point to Australia.

Yet Australia, while signing up for multi-million dollar submarines has reduced its funding for foreign aid. That doesn’t show clever thinking at all.

But there is an answer that could be done quite cheaply: have our Prime Minister visit Indonesia to explain something that not many Australians would realise and even fewer Indonesians would have been told – it could be argued that Australia has always been Indonesia’s best friend.

The Prime Minister should explain the history of Indonesia’s creation and, if memory serves me correctly, it was Australia that introduced Indonesia to the United Nations. It was Australia that put great effort into deterring the old colonial powers in Europe returning to take over again after the Japanese were kicked out of Indonesia.

Australia made no objections when Indonesia took control of Papua, although there were, and still are, groups including some from Australia who oppose Indonesia’s control of these Melanesian people who are very different from their Micronesian occupiers.

There have been some problems on the way, such as the campaign to free East Timor from Indonesia control but, generally, the Australian people and governments have encouraged a close relationship with Indonesia. And that is the message that the Prime Minister needs to make clear to the Indonesian people.

We in Australia need some clear thinking on defence for a change. There is no obvious threat to Australia from any of the three big powers – the US, Russia or China – who could simply walk into our country. Any smaller potential enemy would have huge problems crossing the big moat around our huge island and then in crossing the second biggest desert in the world to reach the more valuable parts of our continent.

It is surely obvious that our money and efforts should go into showing the world we have no reason or intention of controlling any other country. That is not only a logical move, it is much cheaper than buying submarines and other military hardware. It just makes good sense.

The State Government is said to be considering privatising the Land Titles Office. If so, this must be one of the most questionable of all privatisation deals. Privatisation, in itself, is a blatant admission by the government concerned that they are not good managers and that someone else can run the show far more efficiently than they can, and even make a profit doing it. But the Land Titles Office should surely be completely owned and controlled by the government of the day.

Can anyone really own land? Yes, we might have a document that shows we have title to some land, but what, really, do we own? How far down do we own? We can’t dig it up and take it to the market place in a wheelbarrow to be sold. We don’t own any minerals. All we have is a title to farm or build something on that land. 

And who ‘owns’ the beaches, the mountains, the escarpment, the roadways and the rivers? We leave that ‘ownership’ to the government of the day. So, what is the point of privatising the Land Titles Office?

Our land titles system is known internationally as the Australian System or Torrens Title. Keeping track of who ‘owns’ certain land had been a big problem throughout the world until a very clever South Australian politician, Sir Robert R Torrens, came up with this clever and simple system.

Without going into detail, it brought the title of a piece of land to one single page, removing the need for a sometimes extremely complex history of that piece of land. Within a few years all the Australian states, then other countries took up the system and most advanced countries now have something similar to that created by that South Australian man. But why try to privatise this office? Why not do what a private owner would do? Why not change its managerial system so that it makes a profit for the government? If it is sold to private investors, that is what would certainly happen.

Privatisation means the politicians admitting they are bad managers and that their friends in the private world are not only capable of running any instrumentality more effectively than they can, but also make a profit at the same time. Is it sort of sinful for a government to make a profit from any of its undertakings? Why?

Ray Williams has been a Post columnist since retiring from the newsroom in 1993.