Keeping QANTAS Australian

"I still call Australia Home" Source: Flickr

The flying red Kangaroo on the back of an aircraft has signalled the iconic Australian brand of QANTAS for decades. It is seen as a patriotic institution; the airline that takes our athletes off to the Olympic games and the airline that "still calls Australia home". Though there is something to be said about the cost of keeping that iconic national image. Australian financial support (and management) of the airline isn't making it competitive and something needs to change.

The reason behind QANTAS' turbulent troubles is complex. A high Aussie dollar, more international and domestic competition, high fuel prices, Australian wage conditions, questionable management and foreign ownership restrictions all come into the mix. So what are the options?

1. Government Assistance. Bailouts, government assisting with debt, buying a stake in the airline; the list goes on. It's an easy option to sell to the public but it is not a long term solution. The government should only intervene in exceptional circumstances. If the airline can't keep afloat (or have a sustainable business model) without government assistance for 'tough times', it will never be a business that is self sufficient. Every time businesses claim they are experiencing 'tough times' I question when they were not experiencing tough times. Being in business is always tough. Get used to it. Business is a dog eat dog world.

2. Changing foreign ownership laws. It doesn't really matter if the airline is mostly owned by a foreign corporation. If the government changes the QANTAS Act so that it requires the airline to still be Australian (ie, employ Australian workers, have flights within Australia) the airline will still be Australian. Vegemite is owned by American giant Kraft, though we still cling to Vegemite as being the iconic Aussie spread. This is the most favoured option, but if the government is seen to be selling off the Red Kangaroo, it could result in some voter backlash.

3. Do nothing. Some call it 'minimal government', I call it lazy government. The QANTAS Act imposes  heavy regulation on a large Australian business. If that business is cutting 1000 + jobs, the government needs to pay attention and provide some assistance, or heavily justify why it should do nothing.

4. Assist the newly unemployed. If you don't care about the business itself (a risky thing to do!) care about the newly unemployed QANTAS workers. Help find them employment in new industries. Business become lazy with handouts. Tied handouts to the unemployed can act as a great incentive to encourage them into new fields of work. However, it isn't a long term solution if more jobs are to go in the future.

More options than these 4 do exist, though by our calculations, they're the most probably. It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks what actions the Government and QANTAS take to stabilise the QANTAS business model.

Links:
Tony Abbott cool on handouts for Qantas - SMH
Can Qantas fly without strings? - The Age
Tony Abbott says ditching Qantas Sale Act restriction on foreign ownership not 'unreasonable' - ABC Online

Change is in the air

Some of you may have noticed the a-political-opinion.com website has been down as of this month. Unfortunately, we're moving back to the traditional .blogspot.com domain name for now and are going through the expected complications of fiddling with anything that is technical. 

But we promise you readers something more. a political opinion will be back soon with a different style. More to come soon. 

Optional preferential voting is required for Australia

Example Australian Senate ticket: Source AEC

The Abbott government has been sworn, but the buzz from the 2013 Election campaign is far from over. The almost universal outrage at the way in which minor and micro parties have been able to sneak into Senate poses an ongoing problem; does Australia require electoral reform. In short, Yes.
There is nothing inherently wrong with minor or micro parties holding power within the Senate. This blog is an advocate for more representation from independents and minor parties in Parliament. Though what is highly objectionable, is the idea that unwanted and (mostly) disliked parties and politicians getting into power where there was clearly no preference for them.

Optional preferential voting needs to be the new solution for Australia, for all State and Federal elections. With compulsory voting required in Australia (or at least attendance at a polling booth), the ability for citizens to fully utilise their political right to participate in an election needs to occur. When someone goes to vote, before they even mark their ballot papers, they have two options. To vote or not to vote/cast an informal vote that will not count. Seems simple, but it gets a little more complicated later on. Many people cast informal ballots at the election such as voting for only one candidate or writing obscenities for the electoral officials to laugh over later. They validly decide that they don't want to place any candidate in power. This is a legitimate political choice. For voters who vote this way, they reject the current offer of political candidates. But what about citizens who want to only vote for 1 or just a few candidates, but not others? In a two candidate election it is simple, they preference one candidate above another. Throw in more candidates and the voter will probably find other candidates they would preference above their least preferred candidate. But an elections and voting shouldn't come down to ordering your least preferred candidates. You should be able to reject candidates outright if you have no preference at all for them to be in Parliament.

Many senate tickets run over 50 candidates, so if you're voting below the line, you can sometimes have a difficult time working out who your least preferred candidate is. In the House of Representatives, there is a different problem. In an electorate where it is unlikely that no minor party or independent will get a majority, as is the case with most electorates in Australia, you still have to choose between either of the Liberal or Labor candidates to vote for. If you wish to protest vote so they do not receive your vote, you forgo the opportunity to vote for your most preferred candidate.

What happens if no party manages to get a majority?
Then you re-hold the election. This may seem like an unfortunate consequence and an inconvenience, but when the inconvenience is having a minor party is only 0.02% of the primary vote having the balance of power, sending a state or an electorate back to the polls is nothing too sinister.

So where should this rule apply? It should apply to all House of Representatives and Senate ballots. House of Representative ballots are typically small. We could safely assume that people would give some preference options, especially if they want their vote to fully count (and not have to go back to the polls). But it prevents them from having to give a preference to a candidate they have no desire to elect to Parliament. As for the Senate ticket, you may still have above and below the line optional voting. If parties want to engage in preference deals they may. Though it also allows them to decide which parties they would not want to be in power with. This way, parties won't have to choose between the Motoring Enthusiast Party and Sports party. It also enables more below the line votes to occur. The main reason people don't vote below the line is not because they don't know how to count (even up into the hundreds), but because they can't be bothered distributing their preferences across so many parties they don't care about. 

Electoral reform in Australia needs to occur. Or the issues we identified as problems within the 2013 election, will just reoccur again and again. 

What's in a gaffe?

No one is immune from it. Politicians try to be the perfect articulators of policy and party position, but when under pressure, they muck up. It's only human to make a mistake when delivering an all important speech and you're under the pump. Especially when you're delivering speeches every day, as you are in an election campaign.

Though the gaffes politicians make sometimes illuminate insights into their character. Just to pick on a few politicians and their notable gaffes, and what they show about their character (and policies)

#1: Kevin Rudd - "Ratfuckers"
Kevin as PM (before Julia Gillard) made the offhand comment once he thought an interview was over that the Chinese government were "ratfuckers" because of how they conducted themselves at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference of 2009. This outburst showed many things. Number one was that Rudd wasn't scared of using profanity. It's new news that some politicians have a potty mouth, though when you are the Prime Minister and an ex diplomat, you should have had the common sense to hold your tongue and say that far far away from the cameras. Number two, and for policy purposes, it showed clearly how much Rudd cared about passing an agreement. His fury was clearly on display, highlighting his passion for action. And lastly, a quick temper. Though this was later backed up by many more reports on Rudd's character.

#2 - Tony Abbott - "No one is the suppository of all wisdom"
No they're not Tony, and neither are you a depository of the finer points of the English language. Mixing up words is no big deal, though when it's a word like "suppository" it does make people sit up and listen. The laughter from fellow Liberal MP's just after he said it highlight how harmless and innocent the mistake was. Yes it's a laugh, but just because you occasionally mix your words up doesn't rule you out of the position as PM.

#3 - Tony Abbott - "They're young.... (ahh) they're feisty... (ahhh).... I think I can probably say [they] have a bit of sex appeal" 
Despite this making international headlines and enraging many feminists, the most sensible critique came from Kevin Rudd.

"If any male employer stood up in a workplace anywhere in Australia and pointing to a female staff member said this person is a good staff member because they’ve got sex appeal I think people would scratch their heads at least and I think the employer would be finding themselves in serious strife." Kevin Rudd 

A throwaway line by Abbott, but a bit mistake for anyone who has previously been accused of being a misogynist. Commenting on any colleagues sex appeal is something that teeters closely to harassment. There's a joke between two close colleagues who've known each other for a while and they both engage in simple banter, and then there is a superior commenting on a colleague. While many argue that this is another aspect of Abbott's misogyny, it definitely definitely demonstrates two things; his 'Dad' joke moments are politically palpable and he found nothing more to say on the women who he was endorsing. The latter is a greater indication of how he values women, by the things he omits from saying when questioned what he thought of them.

#4 - Mark Latham -  "She's a rather plain ordinary-looking woman and Abbott has exaggerated massively to try and win her vote among the blokes"
In response to Abbott's previous comment, Mark Latham gaffed his way through a radio interview, demonstrating his inability to connect with the Australian people, or have a filter to what he thinks. He may not be in politics anymore, but if you want to be taken as a serious political commentator, you don't go and be a misogynist (and plain rude) yourself by saying

"In politics they say it's showbiz for ugly people and I don't think she'll be out of place"  - Mark Latham. 

It's honest comments like that that end political careers. So when inevitability an MP makes another gaffe, have a laugh but don't believe all the hype that it's something radical or profound. It's just another piece of evidence into their character, or how much attention they paid to English at high school.

When you correct a gaffe only to make it again. That, is priceless.
(FYI, this was his maiden speech to Parliament)

Links: 
Mark Latham gaffe over Tony Abbott sex appeal comment - The Age online
Kevin Rudd attacks Tony Abbott over 'sex appeal' comments - Sydney Morning Herald

World Bank finally moves on from coal

World Bank Coal power stations will be a thing of the past

The World Bank's recent bold decision to stop funding development projects of coal fired power stations has been welcomed by most.  Since President Jim Yong Kim's took the helm, environmental policy has become a key issue for the World Bank. He has commissioned several reports into the dangers of rising temperatures and the impact reaching the critical four degrees celsius mark would have on the poor. While it is now official policy of the World Bank not to fund the construction of any more coal power stations, there is an exception. In circumstances where there is no alternative to coal, a coal power station may be built. The success of this policy will be shown by how many 'exceptions' are granted.

The World Banks movement to become more environmentally friendly in its development projects has been slow. In the past five years the World Bank has spent over $5 billion in coal power stations alone. Though within that same five years, it has doubled financial support to the renewable energy sector. Despite it long being known that coal is the worst form of electricity production for the environment, the World Bank has continued to use it. It has been slow to implement environmentally friendly policies due to the US's historic position of denying the existence of climate change. Though times are changing and there is a big cultural shift within the World Bank to be more conscious about the environment. The last coal fired power station to be built by the World Bank was in South Africa in 2010. There is one in development in Kosovo at the moment, though at the rate they are being constructed, it's not overwhelming. This official policy shift should cement the direction the World Bank is taking, and should hopefully also influence other World Bank development projects to be more carbon conscious.

As always, there have been critics of this policy. It has been argued by Aid Watch that a ban on coal fired power stations will lead to more damning and hydro electricity production. It is important when hydroelectric dams are built that the environment (and people living) downstream are considered. Many livelihoods depend on the flowing of rivers and the produce that comes from them. Yet as with any development project, there are always some costs. Some land and resources must be used in return for development. The World Bank has been keen to promote decentralised electricity production through solar panels and small wind farms. This allows for electricity to reach rural populations and doesn't require large facilities and cable networks. This off grid renewable energy appears to be the best option for supplying electricity to poor households in developing nations, while not causing severe disruption to the environment. 835 people die a year in Kosovo because of exposure to coal pollution, so it too is not a safer alternative to hydro electricity. The future for World Bank electrification projects looks to be in decentralised, local renewable technologies. Let's hope they stick to it!


Sources: 
World Bank to stop funding coal-fired power stations in developing countries - ABC Online
Can Jim Yong Kim end World Bank backing for coal-fired power? - The Guardian

The right of religions to discriminate

Labor's new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which is currently in front of a Senate inquiry, is causing a stir within some circles. I say a few, because it's not really front page stuff. Religions have discriminated against particular groups for centuries, and even the most progressive churches still discriminate. (You can't be an Anglican bishop without first being Anglican!). Though what has become an issue, is whether the government is justified in securing the right of religious organisations to discriminate when it comes to services they provide, like hospitals and schools.

It is well known that most religions organisations don't recognise, respect or tollerate certain practices; from homosexuality to unmarried couples. Often these groups that are marginalised become (or already are) secular or atheist because of this. Though there are some who wish to identify with a particular religion, despite not being fully accepted by their chosen religious organisation. There are many reasons as to why this occurs, yet the main rational is because they personally get a tangible benefit from identifying with that faith. Be it a good feeling that they will have an eternal life, or the comfort of being accepted within a particular community. Religion brings a benefit to people who subscribe to it.

But that benefit is severely diminished when the value that is placed upon particular practices and beleifs, is erroded by the state or others. The Australian constitution protects freedom of religion. That allows individuals to freely associate with religions of their choice and not be discriminated against because of that, but it also allows religious organisations to operate independently from the rules of a secular state. Most often this is held to mean they don't pay tax. But it is much more. Religious organisations don't have to subscribe to a particular organisational structure like a public company does. Nor are they required to change their belief from creationism to evolution because the state doesn't believe in it. This freedom enables religious organisations to run themselves in the way they and their members see fit, not the public or secular government. Just because the state believes discrimination is abhorrent, does not mean it can impose that value on a religion.

People of similar faith congregate around each other for a 'shared' experience. They get meaning and benefit from existing in such a close and similar community. Religions that discriminate, actively choose to do so because that is (typically) what the majority of the congregation want. If the majority of members of the Catholic church accepted the notion of abortion, they would not excommunicate members who receive one. While not completely approving of it, most of the Catholic church has stopped excommunicating members who get divorced. (It was a bad retention strategy.) Some Anglican churches have 'gay only' services that particularly target gay Christians. Why? Because that is what the Church as a whole wants. Religion morphs over time and some faiths modernise, others don't. What's most important is that the ones that don't still bring value to the people who believe in such orthodox faiths. The 'purity' of their religion comes not from just being able to exclude those who are divorced, gay, or had an abortion, but those from other faiths, those who don't truly follow their practices. And this is why for religion, discrimination is is a tool that enables practice.

As a free citizen, you have no right to access a religion. You may choose your faith, but you have no right to demand access to your faiths organisation. As a Christian, you can't walk into a Synagog and demand a Rabbi give you a traditional Islamic wedding ceremony. They wouldn't allow it on religious grounds. It would be against teachings, current orthodoxy or because its members find it disrespectful and 'immoral'. It doesn't matter if this was something of your choosing or not, because the rest of the church's religious practice is harmed. If you disagree with their religious view, change the church you attend, change that organisation and it's members viewpoint, or start your own religion (hello Church of England). It is completely within the rights of a religious organisation to discriminate against certain people, so they can actually provide the religious benefits that its members want. The government shouldn't shy away from defending this right to discriminate. Otherwise churches, religious ceremonies and certain practices just become "acts for hire" by members of the public who want to gawk at people in funny costumes.

When it comes to a religion discriminating against an individual for a "public services" they want, it becomes a trickier issue. A religious organisation which receives public funds to run a service, such as a school or hospital, should not be able to discriminate on who they hire or who they let in the front door. Government funds come from an assumed secular source, the taxpayer. The funds are not there to help provide better services to one religion, but to any citizen who may wish to access those services. Funds that are raised privately by churches are for the sole purpose of assisting those they wish to assist, mainly those who are interested in their faith. It is perfectly acceptable for a privately run religious school to deny homosexual teachers from working there, as it is to bar non religious students from going to that school.

It sounds horrible if you are in that minority. And most people are, as you can't be part of every faith. Yet those with such strong strong beliefs who want to bar and discriminate so as to guard their faith and its practices, need to be protected. For some this is done by not having a gay priest. For others it's not having a sinner in the pews. Those who wish to access a special religious social service, like a Catholic hospital or Islamic school, do it for a religious reason. They want their child to be taught a certain way, they want a particular kind of care, or only want to be surrounded by certain people. If that's their wish, they or their church can pay and provide for that particular religious service. They pay for a service that comes with a complimentary sermon. As for everyone else who is considered a minority, there are many local secular government services provided, from hospitals to community housing. So let those with a strong faith live and receive their services as they wish.


Links: 
Gillard's bizarre act of faith leaves vulnerable unprotected - National Times
Anti-gay rights to stay - Sydney Morning Herald
Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012: Explanatory Notes - Attorney Generals Department

Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easier to!

The US has long struggled to pass meaningful law reform on gun control and ownership. If it hasn't been the National Rifle Association (NRA) watering down policy, it has been the Supreme Court overruling it but upholding the second amendment of the constitution. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting has inspired many on Capitol Hill to modify existing laws. While some political pundits and commentators are optimistic that the small progress that can be made now will set a trend for more discussion and policy in the future, there isn't much to be optimistic about. Passing small, watered down and compromised policy in the aftermath of an unparallelled national tragedy, only raises the bar for when policy discussion can occur again. It just affirms that policy will only ever follow after tragedy.

Joe Biden's "there is no silver bullet" approach (ignoring the politically incorrect pun), does have some merit. Yet in attempting to be holistic, it has become sidetracked with issues not directly related to gun violence and gun control. There is degree of dissent amongst experts and social scientists regarding the link between violent videogames and gun violence. Regardless of the link, current laws are too lax at preventing children from being exposed and participating in videogame violence. Though it really is skirting around the main issue of gun control when almost anyone is able to access a gun in the first place, because the NRA and other lobby groups have severely limited the ability of Congress to pass laws to restrict or even control sales.

The NRA is really clutching at straws trying to defend the right of US citizens to bear arms. Sadly though, their pathetic catch phrases and argumentation work.

"...this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans"

Given that the NRA lobbied to put a clause in Obama's healthcare reform policy that prevented the US government from collecting data on gun ownership, can we verify this claim? When 40% of gun sales in the US occur without background checks, how do we know these people pay taxes, are hardworking, or are even honest enough to say who they really are? It's a desperate attempt by the NRA hide reality with meaningless rhetoric.

Even when the NRA doesn't cry out against gun reform, many US citizens do, claiming they have a right to protect themselves and their families. I couldn't agree more with them. But I strongly disagree in their desired method of how they want to defend themselves. Let's say you want a gun to protect yourself from a home intruder. A gun is both a very big threat to that intruder, and it can be used to stop someone from breaking into your house and hurting you. All you need is gun with 4 or less bullets, depending on how bad your aim is and how many people you're expecting to try and break into your house. But an assault weapon with an extended clip of more than 100 bullets isn't needed to ward off your local burglar. That's the kind of weapon used to take on the FBI, SWAT or US Army. So in that circumstance you're not really wanting a gun to protect your family, but you're looking for a mass killing machine that will allow you to overpower anyone or anything that comes in your way. That's not self defence, but mass murder.

The mantra of "self defence"and "protection" by the NRA, gun lobby groups and gun toting citizens really doesn't lend much weight to their claim for gun ownership. It is a mantra to have more police officers, more home security, a right to have personal panic rooms and to sleep with a baseball bat beside your bed. You may have a right to defend yourself from a burglar or random aggressor walking down the street, but you do not have a right to kill them. And what's a gun really for? It's not a tazor gun which incapacitates, or baton which can ward off and injure someone, or pepper spray which causes temporary blindness. It's a contraption that shoots small metal balls at high speeds, designed to kill a target. It's not a defensive weapon. Even if it is, there are better alternatives available, eliminating the right for US citizens to "bear arms", but to now use more sophisticated personal defence devices. And that is a discussion the NRA really doesn't want anyone to have.

Links: 
How the Video-Game Industry Already Lost Out in the Gun-Control Debate - The Atlantic
Joe Biden Gun Control Recommendations: Background Checks To Be Top Priority - Huffington Post
Joe Biden meets games companies as gun control taskforce readies proposals - The Guardian
White House has 'agenda to attack the second amendment', says NRA - The Guardian