The New Children Overboard

The Howard government was long mired after the truth came out about the “children overboard” scandal. No children were thrown overboard. But just the mere thought of it shocked and disgusted a nation. It was chilling to think responsible adults, who are meant to care and look after their children, were risking the life of their child for their own selfish purpose. It was outrage at deliberate, dangerous actions that were morally wrong. In light of the Human Rights Commission’s report into children in detention, no wonder the Abbott government is coming out so scathing against the head of the report, Gillian Triggs. The government has been called out for the inhumane actions it has created and funding. Taking deliberate, dangerous acts that are morally wrong, to serve its own selfish purpose of scoring political points.

Every Liberal and conservative politician and columnist, including Malcolm Turnbull on QandA, dodges and tries to muddy the issue with Labor’s legacy, the numbers of ‘thousands’ of children in detention, and the ‘political motivation’ of Triggs. Some quick facts for them.

1. Yes, more boats came under Labor than Liberal. Though the problem has just moved offshore. Australia is accepting less refugees than it previously did, and refugees are dying in poorly run camps overseas or being exploited via other means (trafficked elsewhere). No lives are being saved under this policy. 

2. Yes, at it’s peak Labor had 2000 children in detention. On average they were processed and released within 7 months. The current children incarcerated have been detained for more than a year, with no clear date of release. The current policy allows for infinite detention of children.

3. The report equally blames Labor for the abuses against children conduct while it was in office (it also released multiple reports during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years). This more serious investigative report was commissioned because of the worsening conditions, and changes of policy that on paper, are indicative of Human Rights violations.  The investigation started under Labor, and continued under the new Liberal Abbott government, amended previous Labor policy.

Discussing numbers and the important changes that the Liberal party are making is just a tactic to avoid the issue at hand. No one within the Liberal party has outlined what they’re doing to stop the abuses occurring to children within the camps, or to improve conditions. No one has even denied the issue, as Scott Morrison did for months and months. This government has had the report since October, and have chosen to release it at the last opportunity possible and discredit it as much as possible. The current policy of indefinitely detaining children that are within state care (they’re locked up, not free to go), reducing media and independent oversight to almost nothing and purposely creating a harsh and depressive prison environment as a ‘deterrent’, is the calculated doings on the current government.

Australia was shocked at the thought of people throwing children overboard to save themselves. Here the Abbott government are throwing children into inhumane jails and camps and not releasing or processing them. Why? To save themselves from the wrath of the electorate, and fulfil under ANY means necessary the promise to have stopped every single boat.

Now we wait for the new PM

Tony Abbott is on borrowed time. He’s a PM in holding. Keeping the seat warm for whomever next the Liberal party room elects to lead the party, and the nation. As much as Abbott loving Liberals want to spin it, the vote was not a ‘strong message’ to the Prime Minister. Strong messages of discontent are delivered to someone’s face, to others behind their back and often with many spills and leaks to the media (see the Rudd/Gillard era). This was a vote to oust a sitting PM. Not a warning, not a signal, but a firm push to remove him from his post. As much as Abbott wants to say he’ll change, both in style of governing and substance of policy, there’s unlikely to be enough of a change to win him another term in government. The only thing he’s supporters have bought him is time to clear the way for his successor. Tony Abbott worked well in opposition as an alternative to Labor’s leadership mess, but that was it. A preference for something that wasn’t Labor, and not a ringing endorsement of him. It is part of the reason his lead in the polls vanished so quickly. Combined of course with his governing style, budget measures, policy choices and broken promises. It may be weeks, months or even a year before another spill motion arrises, or he eventually resigns. But it will come.

On Q&A that same night of the #libspill Monday meeting, ardent Abbott supporter Alan Jones graced the ABC screen with his presence. For someone who so vehemently hates the ‘leftie establishment’, he sure seemed to be enjoying the attention he was receiving there. Though while he and his supporters in the audience enjoyed the serving out of sharp quips against Labor’s legacy and turmoil, his greatest support came for policy ideas that neither the Liberal or Labor party are genuinely proposing. GSC extraction is deeply unpopular in most parts of the country, debt needs to be managed by equitable taxation and spending reduction at the HIGHER end of the wealth spectrum, and business confidence needs to be assisted.

The Liberal and Labor party talk endlessly about ‘plans’ and ‘discussions’ and ‘visions, though neither side makes a clear, concrete position. They sit on the fence between interests groups so firmly, they bleed themselves dry of the popular vote. It’s becoming a race between two parties, in which people must choose the one they least dislike. Kevin Rudd made popular policy moves within his first few months of government. Tony Abbott did the same. But once in government, politicians aren’t keeping up with the ongoing demands of the Australian people. They’re not navel gazing. They’re compromising their way through issues, trying to appease everyone, though in doing so satisfy no one.

Sweeping, bold moves in politics is dangerous. The recently voted out, deeply unpopular LNP Queensland government found this out. Yet Victoria’s return to Labor was because the state Liberal government was doing too little and compromising too much. Whomever takes the helm of the federal Liberal party in the future should heed both State’s warnings and follow broad, popular policies that the electorate has been demanding for a long time.

SHOCK HORROR - trashy tabloids photoshop scandal

Sitting in a cafe today, I saw the front page of News Corp's infamous Herald Sun. I really didn't feel like eating much after that.

Yikes!

Mixing two unflattering photos of people together is never a good idea. Even when celebrity mags try to see what the lovechild of two celebs would be, it always turns out like a deformed being from a horror movie. Doing the same with politicians can only be worse! 

Given all of the commotion that has gone on over the repeal of the carbon tax, why this headline? Why this picture? Seriously, why News Corp, are you trying to make me feel physically sick! Sometimes the content of this rag-mag tabloid is enough to gag on, but this front page is nightmare inducing!  It is kind of expected that tabloids will have a fairly lame yet eye catching headline and front cover, and as the picture below shows, they're usually fairly generic or harmless; personal interest stories, political cartoons and at worst provocative text. Though upon closer inspection, the images and text have been getting more aggressive and derogatory to Labor Prime minsters. That's News Corp's bias coming out strong and clear.

Typical Herald Sun headlines

News Corp's greater purpose of pursuing this line of rag-mag drivel is strangely, both sad and sinister at the same time. There are many other interesting articles out there to write about. The fact that the government just passed one of its key election commitments would be one thing; it's a day for successful government that's dealing with a challenging Senate. Yet instead News Corp decides to make a scathing, not to mention quite petty, attack against the opposition. It's a blatant childish bullying behaviour that is no different to defacing yearbooks and school photos, though now proudly publishing the material.

That's sad for the state of affairs of one of Australia's most read and distributed newspapers, though also sinister because of the the way in which this media conglomerate is trying to influence politics; by bullying and indoctrinating, not reasoning or persuading. The second half of the article itself beneath the horror photo and captions is fairly balanced and factual. Though this is becoming endemic of News Corp's attempts to still retain the most minimal credibility of a news agency, while appealing the lowest common denominator of base and crude attacks against parties and individuals it dislikes.

*Apologies for the lame title.

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

Pokies reform should be a straight forward policy.

Poker machines provide a substantial amount
of revenue for many Australian clubs.
(Image Source)

The petty politics that is going back and forth between Liberals, Labor and the independents over the Government's proposed pokies reform is ludicrous. The policy, which would require players to set a pre commitment for how much they are prepared to lose. The policy sounds straight forward enough; help stem the flow of problem gamblers who continue to feed coins into these machines. But the fury that has erupted in Canberra isn't because the policy is contentious or damaging, but because it is an issue that is relatively unimportant, and thus everyone can take a different position; just to be politically different.

One fact that has been long neglected in this debate, is the research conducted by Linda Hancock from Deakin University. Her research into pre-commitment has found that for problem gamblers who find themselves stuck in 'the zone' or a cycle of gambling to get out of debt, they very rarely act rationally. However if the Independents and Nick Xenophon get their way, there will be a maximum pokies bet of $1 introduced, limiting the maximum loss to be around $120 an hour (instead of over a possible $1000 at the moment). Linda Hancock's research, while mostly being ignored by politicians from either side, is damming evidence that pre-commitment legislation on pokies is needed, if just to help stem the losses for problem gamblers.

It is at this point, that the opposition become ludicrous in their stance against the pokies reform. They should be capitalising upon this and criticising the government for being too weak to truly tackle problem gambling. Instead, their discussion paper, just released, is almost a carbon copy of the government's policy, only with the change to make pre-commitment instalment on machines voluntary, and a greater emphasis on counselling and alcohol training. Though their catch cry, along with the AFL and NRL and Clubs NSW, is that local sporting and RSL clubs will go bust. Though the icing on this cake of hypocrisy is that they too acknowledge that this mandatory pre-commitment legislation will do nothing to help stop problem gamblers. Let's unpick this brilliant piece of logic

First: (The Opposition) The scheme won't work. The evidence proves so - Yet they would like to introduce the same themselves, albeit voluntarily. If we acceptance their logic that a pre-commitment scheme won't work, then neither should theirs!
Secondly: Pre-comittment lockouts on poker machines will kill off local sporting clubs and RSLs - Hold on, you said it wouldn't work, so how will they loose revenue and be forced to close?
Thirdly: They will still lose some money - Not only is that a concession that it will work, but if that's the case, then they're profiteering of the worst cases of problem gamblers. That's highly unethical!
Fourthly: But the installation of pre-commitment lockouts will also be costly and expensive - So clubs won't install them voluntarily under your proposal either, because it will still be too costly, they'll lose money, and they will have to close.
Fifthly: It'll force these problem gamblers onto the internet, where they can gamble even more: Well put limits and regulation upon that too! Pre-commitment on pokies and internet gambling restrictions are not mutually exclusive ideas. 

This storm in a tea cup debate about pokies reform is just low brow political postulating. The government is playing a very similar game, claiming that the opposition are in the pockets of the gaming industry and are prepared to hurt Australian families, especially those effected by gambling problems, for cheap political points. It's very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Though industries and lobby groups like the NRL, AFL, RSL and Clubs NSW are playing equally dirty, by fudging figures and disingenuously representing the consequences for them for such a proposal.

It's coming towards the end of the year and both parties are trying to create artificial distance between each other and their policies. However in doing so, they both neglect to pass what should be, a straight forward policy to assist (to a limited extent) problem gamblers. Though least of all should discussion or a proposal about comprehensive gambling policy be made. That would be all too bold.

Links
RLS jobs at stake - Queensland Times
AFL joins NRL in pokies revolt - The Sydney Morning Herald
Abbott attacked over Pokies discussion paper - Lateline transcript
Abbott talks up opposition to pokies reform - ABC
Abbott needs pokies rethink: welfare group - Sydney Morning Herald
Clubs use tricky numbers to outfox pokies reform - The Australian (and surprisingly enough, it's not behind a paywall....yet)

Gillard politically sore, but not censured

Spooner Cartoon: Courtesy of the National Times

The Gillard government can't seem to win a trick at the moment. Be it the much debated (and despised) Carbon Tax, proposal to enforce plain packaging of cigarettes, to even the Malaysian solution. All have served to only drive Labor lower in the polls. Though this outcome can be expected from a government that lacks the nuance to sell their own successes, especially in contrast to a powerfully articulate and dogmatic opposition. With the Gillard government trying to push through large, often quite unpopular policies, it has come with little surprise that a motion to condemn Gillard's "Malaysia" solution has come about.

Condemnation of government policy from the Parliament is unheard of. That is because the government of the day makes up the majority of the Parliament, and so no condemnation motions are able to pass. Though in the case of a minority government, as Gillard herself admitted, the circumstance of policy being condemned is more likely. However seeing a policy condemned, rather than it not being passed, is more interesting. Foreign policy (which the Malaysian solution comes under) is directed by the executive (Government) without the need for Parliament's approval. This means that it's the government's decision alone when it comes to foreign policy. Unlike normal policy, which gets put before the Parliament, foreign policy does not. This means that the Parliament gets very little time or place to object to it, apart from MPs and Senators airing their views in the Media. However this may change when the Greens move to propose a bill requiring refugee and asylum seeker foreign policy to be put before the Parliament, instead of leaving that power to the executive. As the minority Gillard government couldn't knock down the condemnation motion, it is most likely that they won't be able to thwart the Greens and Parliament's attempts to strip the executive of this power.

Despite the condemnation motion passing, the very motivation behind it was mere coincidence, rather than mass Parliament outrage at the Malaysia solution. The motion only got support when the Liberal/National coalition and Greens finally managed to agree on something. For the Greens, it's the view that offshore processing is inhumane and wrong. For the Liberals/Nationals, it's the view that the Labor party is just plain wrong. While the general agreement between these parties led to a condemnation of the government's policy, it wasn't strong enough to censure the Prime Minister, as the Greens thought such a move would just be a mere political "stunt". Following Tony Abbott's belittling questions to Gillard about the history of such a motion, and Julie Bishops comparison of Julia Gillard to a third world dictator, it's hard to view these comments as anything less than a stunt.

The Malaysian solution is yet again a fizzle of a policy for the Gillard government. When the Labor party isn't chasing opinion polls to ensure support, it isn't successfully managing its image of being a strong government. The merits of an 800 possible refugee swap for thousands more is ludicrous. Even though Malaysia appears to be signing up to the UNHCR, the likely hood of its signatory resulting in better treatment of human rights is a stretch.

Despite the condemnation motion, Labor (if still in government) will pursue ahead with the Malaysia solution. Maybe after that, the polls will start to pick back up. But until then, unless Labor and Gillard manage to woo the public with strong effective policy, they'll have to withstand the tense time of being down in the polls.

Links: 
PM under fire over Malaysia deal - National Times

Parliament condemns Govt on Malaysia asylum deal - The World Today: ABC online

Defiant PM says it's not about polls - National Times

Asylum-seeker swap deal must have UNHCR approval - The Australian 

PM avoids censure as Malaysia deal condemned - ABC Online

Levy turns flood reconstruction into political mess

Gillard and Bligh tour QLD flood areas
Image source: The Herald Sun

Despite a natural disaster that cost numerous lives, uprooted thousands of Queenslanders and left them homeless, and a reconstruction effort that will take years to complete, it is good to see politics in Canberra hasn't changed much. Both Liberal and Labor are squabbling at each other and all who will listen about how the other side isn't playing fair. Now they're turning to the popular kids - Oakshot and Windsor - to pick sides and tell the others they are wrong. For all the talk of a "mateship tax" and politicians keeping one eye on the "Lodge", the efficacy of the tax itself is being ignored. Instead, angry talk back listeners and radio hosts like Niel Mitchell are deciding on the validity of the tax, based on its popularity. No matter how the Gillard government plans to raise funds for the reconstruction effort, some people will be unhappy. But a longer term approach to disaster recovery funding is what really needs to be discussed.

The first step the government took to addressing the financial pitfall for the Queensland floods was winding back and cutting down on "Green investment" spending. While such actions were necessary, amongst some circles, it remains unpopular all the same. Julia Gillard herself may not believe (or want to acknowledge) that the floods of Queensland, NSW and Victoria can be attributed to climate change, but a reduction in "Green investment" won't make the flood waters rise. A lot of the Federal government's environmentally friendly initiatives have cost a lot, yet delivered little. The danger that exists in withdrawing funding from environment initiatives, is that the funds won't return. Once government coffers start filling up, new promises will be made in other areas, and the funds will go there.

The political debacle over recovery funding that has ensued, is paying little attention to the actual methods the Gillard government is doing to assist the recovery effort. Both Gillard and Abbott have done their fair share of hugging and 'meeting and greeting' flood victims in front of media packs. But it is the mentioning of the word 'tax' that is causing an even bigger stir amongst the opposition and tabloids. Reducing funds to existing schemes and delaying promises is one thing, but instituting a tax is laden with politically damaging connotations. Abbott was quick to put on the rhetoric about a tax not being about "mateship", but a cover up scheme for a government that is spending too much. Yet for all the spin and hot air, the tax itself is economically credible. The government must spend money on reconstructing Queensland's savaged infrastructure. As Queensland is a major industrial and mining hub of Australia, it makes economic sense to rebuild roads and rail that once were the economic lifelines of Australia during the GFC. Yet even principally, the Federal government should assist. As a Federation, each state assists others in times of need; it is the very essence of our federation. Otherwise we would be a cluster of 9 different independent States.

People may be outraged that they have already given to Queensland flood relief funds, yet that money only goes to helping people directly after the event (through relocation and clean up costs), not rebuilding roads, rail, hospitals and schools that have been washed away. Funds for the reconstruction need to come from somewhere, and raising revenue by adding a levy to income tax, at this point in time, appears to be the most economically sensible method. While NSW Premier Kristina Keneally claims that such a levy will put too much pressure on households and mortgages, this tax won't affect such pressure. By legislating such a tax, the RBA can clearly see funds exiting the market and slowing down the economy (because as people pay more tax, they spend less). Hence the RBA will defer increasing interest rates, because the Federal Government will be (inadvertently) correcting the economy cycle. At the end of the year, tax or no tax, families and households will be relatively the same. It is a question really of whom will be taking money out of your pay packet: the Government for rebuilding Queensland, or one of the big banks?

The political squabble and concern for people's hip pocket aside, one of the popular kids in the school that is the Australian parliament, has raised a valid point. Rob Oakshott believes that a national disaster reconstruction fund should be established. As natural disasters sporadically occur within each century, a more structured planned system in financing the recovery effort needs to be established. Every time a disaster occurs, whether it is a cyclone, flood or bushfire, the government's bottom line and spending promises are compromised in order to pay for the clean up and reconstruction. Gillard's flood levy may pull Queensland out of the mud this time, but it doesn't guarantee funds for any other disaster that could occur within the next few years. The real debate that should be occurring, is whether the flood levy should be transformed into an established "disaster fund" levy. That way, funds (or partial funds) will be on hand in times of National and State crisis. As politically dangerous taxes can be, Australia may continue to place itself in financial danger if it doesn't acknowledge and plan for future events like the Queensland floods.

Links: 
Flood levy does RBA's job - The Age (Business Day)
Flood levy to test Gillard's leadership - SMH
Levy flushes out a nation of heartless bastards - ABC 'The Drum'

Gillard faces battle for flood levy support - ABC Online

All bark but no bite - National Times

No excuse for floods tax: Abbott - The Australian

This is not just a minor win for Gillard

It’s not going to be ‘business as usual’ in Canberra anymore. Julia Gillard just managed to make government, but that doesn’t mean she has a mandate to govern. The mandate “swear jar” proposed by Rob Oakshott sounds like a good idea. Thought just like his “unity cabinet” proposal, it’ll be tabled as a cabinet agenda item just under 'world peace'. But as a few political doomsdayists  pack their bags for NewZealand, the rest of the world is welcoming Australia to the "minority" club. Currently, minority governments in the western world are the norm. Both Canada and Britain have them, not to mention previous minority state governments in Victoria and a current Labor/Green minority government in Tasmania. Having a government that need the support of the parliament  parliament and its sitting MPs, combined with structural reforms to the way parliament operates, will be a nice change (if nothing else). 

Though the first thing that needs to be cleared up before parliament sits is the term 'mandate'. If you look it up in a dictionary, it states that it's an official order or commission to do something. So when an MP is elected to parliament, regardless of party or whether they're part of the government, they have a mandate to represent their electorate because their electorate voted for them. Previously, a party could claim to have a mandate to govern the nation and form government when it clearly held the majority in the House of Representatives. So before we pull out Rob Oakshott's 'mandate', rules should be drawn up. Every MP in parliament has a mandate to look after their electorate, and in this political situation where every MP counts in order to pass legislation, we're more likely to see MPs serving their electorate rather than following party lines. This shift towards US style politics, where party lines are seen more like 'guidelines' rather than holy scripture, will create a more dynamic and representative parliament. Yes, inner city suburban interests will clash with rural and country Australia issues. But because each MP represent the same proportion of people (not the same geographical area), it all works out in the wash in the end. With more MPs like Malcolm Turnbull willing to cross the floor for specific issues, will remove power from political leaders (from all the parties). This will force leaders to acknowledge the demands of caucus and the parliament, and ultimately be more flexible. It's hard to envisage what exactly is going to occur. If Labor loose just one MP, government could be handed over to the Coalition unless someone else decides to cross the floor. Only time will tell. 

While many eyes and ears have been focusing on the 3 Independents in regards to their choice of party to support, and then for what reasons, significant changes to the functioning of parliament have been signed off by both sides of politics; albeit with some resistance. The first major change is the restructuring of question time. Questions will be limited to 45 seconds and answers cut off at 4 minutes. Pity this couldn't have been applied retrospectively to Rob Oakshott's decision speech. Questions and their answers must be relevant, as dictated by the discretion of the speaker. There will also be two speakers, one from each side of the house. Both will act as quasi independents who won't have a vote. Thus the government isn't disadvantaged by loosing a vote. A new committee will also be set up. Though this committee will vet bills before they reach parliament, weeding out those that are just designed to waste time. To what extent this committee is going to be held to account for its decisions however, is questionable. It may be good at stopping some of Katter's crazier policies from being submitted, though it could equally prevent some progressive polices from being entertained. But if formulated and executed right, it will make parliament more efficient. 

Over the coming days and weeks, Gillard will be doing her all to stop the Labor party from descending into chaos. She will also be trying to determine how she'll be able to pass the legislation she wants by getting support from the parliament. This government can't just rally the troops to blindly support it's policy. She has to sell it, convince the parliament that it's not only in the national interest, but also in the interest of each MPs and his/her electorate. The Coalition and Abbott, if they receive the numbers, could introduce their own legislation and get it passed. The Greens and Independents are hoping to do likewise. Whether this can be achieved or not, is yet to be seen.

Links:

Trio get their wishes on changes to Parliament - The Age
Gillard all smiles but it could end in tears - National Times
First cracks appear - The Age
Rob Oakeshott and Wayne Swan collide on mining tax - The Australian
Leaders face drama of rewarding their political victims - National Times
Gillard calls on Labor to stop the leaks - National Times

Australia joins a crowded global club where minorities rule - National Times

The irrelevance of a boatphone!

When Tony Abbott appeared on Q&A (16/8/10) the other night, it was a good chance for the Australian pubic to quiz and see on display the talents and competency of what just might be, the next Australian PM. It was a chance to quiz Mr Abbott about his policies. But while many issues were raised during the discussion; from the economy to gay rights, the refugee and asylum seeker policy that Abbott touted sounded more like a laughable idea created by the Chasers on "Yes we Can-berra", rather than a serious idea. What I'm referring to here is Abbott's suggestion of using a "boatphone".

But before we can even laugh at the idea of "boatphone", let's shed some light on the current situation regarding Australia's boarders and 'irregular maritime arrivals'/boats. According the the Liberal party under Tony Abbott, but also Pauline Hanson, Australia is under an invasion from illegal boat arrivals who are just flooding Australia and causing massive demographic and social problems, along with contributing to our population boom. Firstly, all asylum seekers who come to Australia (including those who come by air) aren't causing Australia's population to rise. It's the healthy birth rate of 2.3% along with normal immigration channels. So it's a folly to claim that it's the asylum seekers who are causing such problems and subsequently need to be stopped. Considering Australia only accepts 0.6% of all asylum seekers (the US accepts over 40%), asylum seekers shouldn't be the main point of national debate and discourse, let alone be an election issue. Despite this, both parties want to specifically focus on boat arrivals. This has historically been a method of attracting votes from marginal seats who still haven't recovered from the days of 'yellow peril'. The irony in this is that only 4% of all asylum seekers who reach Australia, do so by boat (2010 Department of Immigration stats). The other 96% come by plane. But on arrival, they then aren't locked up in mandatory detention, but instead processed within the community. But to add salt to the wound, the Department of Immigration has also acknowledged that over 80% of all asylum seekers who reach by boat are real refugees, whereas less than 50% of those who arrive by plane are refugees. So both political parties are wanting to focus on a few handful of individuals that aren't a problem, to the detriment of the real refugees on these boats. Aside from this, there is the political neglect for the rest of the nation. Dare I say Indigenous affairs!

I'm just as glad, yet equally appalled at Julia Gillard's public acknowledgement of these facts. The minute scale of this should barely make the political/election radar. Yet she continues to tag along and set aside a fair size of her campaign to this matter. It's slightly better than Abbott making it his slogan - "Stop the boats". Tony Abbott believes that in order to strengthen boarder security, a Howard government's style - "Pacific solution" - of mandatory detention on Nauru should be implemented. Howard's partly justified Nauru because he thought it would act as a disincentive for people to come by boat. What it proved to be instead, was inhumane. High rates of suicide, depression, mental disorders and a lack of basic sanitation facilities, such as running water and bathrooms, led the UN to call for its closure. Now Abbott is wanting to reinstate such a facility under the guise that it'll be "like a boarding school" instead. So what is it Tony; a disincentive or comfy boarding school? Neither is effective or is justified regardless. When it comes to mandatory detention, neither the Coalition or Labor have convincing reasons why we should use them, especially when the rest of the 96% asylum seekers are successfully processed within the community

So how is a "boatphone" going to help Tony Abbott stop the boats? Firstly, he doesn't need one, because the problem doesn't warrant the political attention it's getting. But secondly, if Gillard was to suggest having an "Indigenous-phone", to which she could give directions as to how police should conduct their investigation into remote, disadvantaged communities, her credibility and political career would would be over before you could mention the name :"Mark Latham". Tony Abbott shouldn't have to tell the navy how to do its job. He acknowledged that he'd be giving directions based on expert military advice from those one the naval ship. So under what circumstances would he be able to provide anything useful, other than just agreeing to whatever the commander recommends? Would he contradict the commanders advice? Does Tony know better than the expert actually there? Maybe we could all text in whether we want a particular boat to be turned around? It could be like Australian Idol, xenophobic style!

This "boatphone" is ludicrous. It's not policy. It's worse than a stunt. It is evidence of politicians gone mad by the need to have nuanced sound bites in order to sound like they're saving the world.

Links:
I'll take military advice on refugee boats: Abbott - Courier Mail 

Holy asylum seekers! Tony Abbott to take charge of boat people hotline - News.com.au

PM labels Abbott's 'boat phone' idea nonsense - The West Australian

2010 Federal Election: it finally begins

I considered writing about the 2010 Federal Election once it was called, but in all honesty, I couldn't be bothered. Parties and candidates had careful, pre written scripts and sound-bites, and everyone was playing it safe. Policies were thrown out like tidbits, with only a few in marginal electorates willing to swallow them up. But it's now only a week until the polls, and the heat is on. This is the week that makes or breaks a party, shapes the publics opinion about what type of leader each party has. Enter the real Julia, enter the 'underdog' Abbott, enter all minor parties (sorry, that includes you Bob Brown) who are vying desperately for attention and votes. I can't give a summary of the whole campaign thus far in a single post, but what I hope to give is a snapshot of what's occurring, and insight into each leader, campaign and their policies.

The leaders

1. Julia Gillard - highly competent and good with sound-bites. The 'real Julia' isn't scripted, but neither is she a loose cannon. Like Barack Obama, she isn't playing up her stark opposition to all the other candidates (gender in this case, instead of race), however her method of gaining power has ultimately undermined some of her credibility. 
2. Tony Abbott - a robust politician who's been around long enough to know how the political game works. Has run a highly successful ad campaign with tweet length policy statements. A defeat at the election will assuredly result in his removal from leader, though if he became PM, the marginal supporter base that got him to the position of opposition leader would swell. 
3. Bob Brown - asks tough questions and attempts to bring back issues that both major parties often (conveniently) forget. Because of his age, engaging with the younger demographic of Greens voters is an issue, as across TV he comes across as very stoic. Though he's very enlivened on radio. 

The campaigns

If you don't live in a marginal seat, especially west Sydney or southern Queensland, it's understandable if you don't know an election is occurring. The obviously disproportionate amount of time each party is concentrating and pork-barreling marginal seats is disgraceful, but I guess this is modern democracy at work.

• Labor - currently running a huge fear campaign nation wide against Tony Abbott. It's cheap and dirty, but it's eating away at the gains Abbott has made in the first 3 weeks of the campaign. 
• Liberals/Coalition - arguably have run a fear campaign from the start (stop the waste, stop the taxes, stop the boats and pay back the debt). Though unless they can change their rhetoric or find mud to sling back at Gillard apart from the old "Labor can't manage the economy, voters who are moved by fear campaigns will be swayed more by Labor. 
• Nationals - best jingle for their ad. It makes "stand up Australia" sound even more corny that it already is. The best ad of the campaign thus far. 
• Greens - horrible original ad, but Gruen Nation made a better one for them (that otherwise would have been the best). But because it was commissioned by the ABC, it can't be used. 
• Get up! - clearly the winner in this election, for running the best ads, campaigns and promoting issues better than any other party. It says a lot about the power of lobby groups. When it attacks a party/candidate, it really hits hard! 

The policies

Here is a very brief overview of some of the policies that have been flagged and have become issues within this election. As the week progress, new topics (hopefully about Indigenous affairs or something of equal note) should arise, rather than the typical (but almost guaranteed) economy and border protection policies. 

1. The economy - the main question is who's going to pay back the debt, and who's going to have the largest surplus? Despite the fact that any economist with any credibility (including Joseph Stiglitz and the RBA) acknowledges that Australia's government deficit is not a problem, and if no one payed it back, it would have virtually no affect on the economy; this becomes a moot point. But then it's a question of who can you trust to manage the economy? Both parties have shown equal competence (when you take a bipartisan approach) because they've both had very similar policies (which each party has vehemently denied for political reasons), thus it's also a moot point. So when it comes to the economy, both parties are competent, yet they want to stake the whole election on it! 
2. Boarder protection and stopping the boats - since neither party has been able to conclusively stop the boats, and since the boats only make up 4% of all asylum seeker arrivals, this shouldn't be a big issue. But xenophobia and fear make good campaigns, plus it's easier to tweet STOP THE BOATS. The main difference is East Timor or Nauru (Labor/Coalition respectively), but if you want a completely different option, then the Greens are for community processing, which is what we do for the 96% of all asylum seekers who arrive by plane. 
3. The environment - Labor are wanting to build community consensus by having a talkfest (National citizens assembly) and maybe sometime in the future have an emissions trading scheme. The Coalition are going to have a Standing Green Army (will this be able to invade New Zealand?) of volunteers planting trees and scrubbing coal or something equally as ludicrous as Labor's 'group talk with butcher paper' solution. But the Coalition is also wanting to give financial incentives to businesses who reduce their carbon emissions. Though whether it's an ETS or incentive scheme, it's going to cost money. The Greens are still advocating for a hardline ETS, and despite the fact they may hold the balance of power, it's unlikely it'll ever pass. 
4. Hospitals/Schools/Childcare/Mental health - both parties have shown some interest in these areas, and have surprisingly from both sides, committed more funding. The coalition is all about handing over power/money to the hospitals and principles' of schools, where Labor is about national standardisation and control. Considering the fiasco with the pink batts scheme, this may not be a wise move. However giving free reign to whoever is in charge of an institution, as the Coalition would like, opens up the opportunity for local incompetency. 
5. Indigenous Affairs/Gay marriage/Community Housing/Arts and Science etc - either ignored, condemned, or barely mentioned. More debate and policies over these issue may still come, but it's unlikely. The Greens are aiming to bring some of these issues into the overall debate in this last week, although the chances of them ever becoming serious issues at this stage, is highly unlikely. 

How you should vote! 

I could tell you how to vote, but I won't. Everyone has their own views about politics, policies and issues, and that should be respected. Though when you do find a party/candidate you like, don't vote for them because an ad told you so or because you voted for them before. Justify the reasons why you like them (or don't like the rest) and take a minute to find out more about their polices. 

Though as a side note: if you're in a safe 'blue ribbon' seat, for the House of Representatives ballot, I encourage you to put the current candidate last. Don't vote for the safe incumbent!!! The more marginal your seat is, the more likely your electorate will be pork-barreled and receive election attention. And if this election has highlighted anything, marginal seats are the places to be.

So don't forget to vote this Saturday, 21st August (8am-6pm). 

Julia Gillard: A tragedy in the making

I feel it poignant that at the end of one of the most interesting days in Australia politics, that I give my two cents about the end of the Rudd government, and party selection of Gillard to the office of PM. In the media fray after the spill, I came across the interesting headline, 'The King is dead, long live the Queen'. For me, it really summed up the situation that had entailed. Julia Gillard, as popular and powerful as she might be at the moment, will most likely suffer the same fate as Rudd. She is but another political tragedy in the making; a capable leader that can be removed for (limited) bad press and factional infighting. But beforehand, a look at the past PM, Kevin Rudd.

As much as I began to criticise the Rudd government about its political inaction and obvious, disastrous blunders, it was a party, who had a leader that would have been more effective than the alternate PM, Tony Abbott. As in the 21 out of 23 newspolls since May, Rudd polled above Abbott by a substantial margin, predicting him to win the next election. He also had the power of a first term government on his side. Couple this with the fact that Abbott was considered by some analysts, to be unelectable, and was partially encroaching on the polls because he'd kept his mouth shut. Politicians have done backflips before with even smaller margins; take the Howard government implementing the GST for example. Rudd was a politician cashed up with political capital, but he wasn't prepared to use it or take a risk. For that, he's now been punished by his own party.

Though his departure has to be one of the most courageous and selfless deeds of any politician within the last decade. He put the vote of leadership to the party, clear and simple; sorting out the rumours that had been slowly building and spreading. The party, as seen last year with the Liberals, often almost self destructs before a caucus vote occurs. But Kevin Rudd did it to quell rumours. Mistakes made by him in questioning Gillard's faithfulness, pushy factions, power hunger MP's and the end of his perfect public image, turned it from a vote to a slaughter. His subsequent decision not to challenge Gillard, because of her huge support, further strengthened her legitimacy to rule and didn't cause the party to melt down. While he may have been soft on "the greatest moral challenge of our time", he was a swift, decisive and audacious in this decision, which I believe is one of the greatest bows from office a PM has made.

This quick overturn, from having Rudd as PM one day, to Gillard the next, fundamentally rocks the cornerstone of Australia's democracy. Political parties don't recognise the mandate for politicians to rule.   As Rudd stated during his press statement before the caucus vote, he had been given the mandate, by the people, to govern as PM. At the '07 election, Australia decided it was Kevin Rudd to be the PM, not Julia, (despite her popularity). And from newspolls, which were sliding, but weren't at all seriously hinting at the Rudd government not being reelected, confirmed his ability to lead the Labor party. The ability for the party to realign it's leadership, so quickly and unexpectedly, is almost a miscarriage of representative democracy, as it further diminishes the power of the people to choose its effective leader (and cabinet). Australia effectively chose the 'kitchen cabinet' style of the Rudd government, and while not particularly effective, it was still preferential to the alternative, highly conservative Liberal front-bench. I'm in no stage advocating that there should never be a way to remove a PM from office internally. Though systems like a vote of no confidence within the parliament, or at least having the partial legitimacy of being massively down in the polls, would justify the silent spill that occurred today. It's like the the Labor party are moving back into the era of being controlled by union groups and factions. The Kevin Rudd "car" wasn't broken or out of fuel, it needed an oil change, and maybe bit of spit and polish. But dumping him is a great waste of a popular political leader.

So what changes are we likely to see under the Gillard rule? Since Gillard hasn't taken any hardline policy steps as deputy PM, it's hard to tell. Despite having factional support from the left of the party, there's belief she may move right. What's likely to disappear, is the ability for the Labor leader to choose their own cabinet, which Rudd did with his landslide victory. Lindsay Tanner will not be contesting the next election. Despite being one of the better performers of the Rudd government's cabinet and front bench, he's seen the writing on the wall and is now practically handing over his seat to the Greens. They will be the biggest benefactors of this change in leadership, even if Gillard clearly wins the next election. The ETS is not going to rise from the grave, and putting political spin on it, in any case, is difficult. Because of Gillard's heavy involvement within the 'kitchen cabinet' that has been effectively blamed for Rudd's downfall, she is too, part to blame for the fails of micro managing government's role. Though this will be well dug up when it comes to mudslinging campaigns during the next election, sometime this year.

I'm more than supportive of Julia Gillard, as a politician, and as PM. But the process that occurred that put her into power, for me, undermines most of my faith within her to be a substantive, withstanding PM. It also erodes for me, the power of the PM. The almost instantaneous ability to remove a PM from office, in such a way, needs to be reformed. No matter how successful Julia Gillard may become, a dive in the polls and the miniscule threat of loosing the election could see her deposed of. And for a politician with her ability and strength to lead, in good times and in bad, the current system makes her a tragedy in the making.

Links: 
Labor wastes a perfectly good PM - National Times

Labor decides salvation lies in panic - National Times

In new PM, Abbott has a tougher opponent - National Times

I may delight, I may disappoint, but I'll be working hard - National Times

Lindsay Tanner resignation opens door to Greens in seat of Melbourne - The Australian 

Gillard says challenge 'a tough decision' - ABC Online

Rudd's ETS - a dead horse with whiplash

As much as I wanted to believe the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) would save Australia from the "climate change doesn't exist" idea of bygone days, it didn't. And it could never have. The policy was dead from the start. This 'dead horse' of a policy has been hung, drawn, quartered, minced through the media and whipped into a frenzy by Canberra. The outcome? A dead horse with whiplash, and a public being primed for an election. Considering the ETS policy's imminent death (or "delay", call it what you like), let us all revel in the bittersweet hindsight of what could have been.

It was the Kevin07 election that really got Australia governmentally, acting against climate change. With the years gone by of the Howard government still refusing to sign Kyoto, let alone admit that carbon pollution and climate change was a problem, Australia wanted change. Enter Kevin Rudd and his new government. First act by Mr Rudd, flying over to Bali and ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Finally, an Australia leader who took climate change seriously and was proactive! Next, Ross Garnaut was commissioned to produce the Garnaut report, outlining the best system that Australia could implement to reduce our carbon emissions and impact on the environment. From this, the report found an emissions trading scheme (ETS) was the best method. From within a year, there was action, vision, and a plan to tackle climate change. Everyone, including the media, was aghast at the pace the Rudd government was taking to solve climate change. Comments were even made that things were progressing too quickly. Oh, the irony now! 

As soon as the Rudd government started planning out the policy, Penny Wong (the climate change minister) was bombarded with lobby groups, the coal industry, the Liberals and Nationals, all attempting to water down the policy. The Greens, environmental lobby groups, along with the majority of the scientific and international community, were trying to set the policy to be inline with internationally accepted targets. The outcome? The coal industry, energy sector and Andrew Bolt won. A very weak, emissions target wise,  CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), was produced. It was here the vision, action and policy died. The once galloping horse was now dead. But this aside, there was the challenge of passing the bill. The Greens wanted higher targets, the Liberals and Nationals lower targets, or no ETS, CPRS or any policy at all. Squabbling, name calling, numerous amendments, an economic crisis, 3 Liberal leadership changes, angry letters to the editor and many 7.30 report appearances later, an even more watered down, delayed, yet still un-passed ETS bill, hovered somewhat like a plague in Canberra. 

Ultimately Rudd could have called a double dissolution to try and pass the bill. Even though he didn't sell it to the public that well, he still would (most likely) have remained in government to be able to call a joint sitting of parliament if need be. From all opinion polls, public support was strong enough to carry the government through to another term if a double dissolution was called. But Copenhagen loomed and we waited to see what came of it. Nothing. Big surprise. Australia took nothing to the table but empty rhetoric, and so did everyone else. From here more squabbling, name calling, amendments etc, etc, etc, were made, until recently. The clocked turned over and it was 2010, an election year. With too much controversy and failings surrounding the Rudd government on numerous policies, including the CPRS, political salvation was needed. Hence the government has come out and "delayed" (scrapped) the CPRS bill, but on the bright side $2.5 billion has been saved. Rejoice! $2.5 billion is figure more easily represented on a graph than Australia's moral obligation to act on climate change. 

And here, the poor dead horse, which had now been flogged, whipped, damned, herald and abused, is used as fertiliser for this years budget. So, still reveling in the beauty of hindsight, what should have dear Rudd have done right from the start. 

First, be tough. A first term government with large reserves of political capital and public support should not be beaten around by a (then) fragmented and cannibalistic opposition, or wealthy and morally bankrupt coal and energy sector lobby groups. The policy would have had the Greens support, and a few progressive Liberals may have crossed the floor in the Senate, enabling the bill to pass. Even if not enough support in the Senate was reached, an early double dissolution would have easily seen the Rudd government back in office, and a double sitting of parliament would have easily passed the bill. Though even if all of this hadn't been done; an ETS, despite being watered down, should have passed to ensure that Australia is continually taking action, but mainly, to motivate the main emitters like the US and China to take action. New Zealand rapidly passed an ETS scheme hours before Copenhagen, just to prove that they too are taking action and that they will hold the larger emitters to account. This form of environmental foreign policy is something that is sadly missed across this side of the Tasman Sea. 

Even as Rudd said himself, "inaction costs more than action". So shake that sauce bottle again and take a bit of your own advice. Despite the unlikelihood of the Rudd government loosing office in the next election due to the major CPRS policy and election promise backflip, continuing on the historical path of inaction, will lead only to regret.

Links:

Poor political skills doomed Rudd's climate policy - The Australian (opinion and blogs)

PM left to stew in his own juices - The Age

Government admits failing to sell ETS - The ABC online 

Greatest moral challenge turns out to be Rudd's dearest folly - National Times

Appearing to act on whales

It is an election year. Need I say more! And suddenly whales are on the Government's agenda. Kevin Rudd took to the 07 election, the promise to clamp down on Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. However during his time in office until now, the closest he got to Japan on the issue of whaling was, 'an agreement to disagree'. However despite this recent, very strong threat to Japan to take them to the International Court of Justice, effective action is unlikely to be taken.

With Tony Abbott creeping up in the polls, a dead ETS and Peter Garret about to fall of his political perch, this is not a safe time for the Labor Government. Rudd and Labor have the election this year in their sights (along with the opposition as well), and so they need to polish up their record of election promises. Hence, enter stage right, whales!

The Rudd government's inaction about Japan's whaling just outside of Australian waters and in the Antarctic is a 'small matter' that they want to easily fix. When it comes to an election, having the public faithfully believe that you are going to deliver on said promises is critical. As such, whaling is an unfulfilled promise that the Labor government is trying to quickly resolve (or appear to resolve), so it's fresh in the back of the minds in the public when the election really heats up. Delivering on promises about stopping Japan whaling is not going to be the hot election issue of the year. Instead, the government is hoping to use it as a platform to build up credibility. It's just ticking off the check list, so to speak.

Delivering on foreign policy right before an election is never advisable. Foreign policy is a slow, fickle process that can't easily be wrapped up by the time an election is to be called. However, appearing to be active and effective in implementing foreign policy, is relatively easy. Rudd is threatening to take Japan to the ICJ (International Court of Justice) in the next whaling season if it doesn't promise to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean. Firstly, getting to the ICJ and getting a ruling against Japan is a slow and difficult process (something that is going to take more than a year). Even if ruled against, Japan will still not adhere to the ruling (as all rulings by the ICJ are non binding - hooray to the effectiveness of international justice!). But secondly, Japan might win the case and increase whaling, or just as worse, loose, then walk out of the International moratorium on whaling altogether, allowing Japan to whale whatever, and whenever it pleases them. Taking Japan to the ICJ is a risky business, and one that could go horribly wrong just before an election

However Kevin Rudd's strong new rhetoric about taking Japan to the ICJ is not about stopping whaling, it's about appearing to be stopping whaling. The very process of filling out the paperwork, sending diplomats to Japan and the Hague, as well as Australia's Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, meeting up with Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada in Perth is enough. In an election, appearance is everything, and this is no exception. Whales are not the issue here, the election and appearance of being active is!

Kevin Rudd has been criticised for almost everything; pushing legislation through parliament too fast, being the political spin doctor, not spinning and being able to sell the ETS, not being able to manage the economy, being too concerned about the economy....etc. Politician's can never get every promise and piece of legislation they want through parliament just as they want it be. However, what differentiates a good politician from the rest, is not how grandiose their promises are, but how effective they are within office, dealing with legislation and all the other hurdles that come their way. Pity its called hindsight. 

LINKS:

Australia tells Japan: Stop whaling or face court - BBC news
Rudd issues whaling court action deadline - ABC online

Rudd sets whaling deadline for Japan - The Age

Filtering the internet, but not choice

The Rudd Government is currently coming under heavy fire from the public about its proposed mandatory internet filtering for all ISPs, (Internet Service Providers) which would effect every Australian and content they could "possibly" view on the internet. But while some are heralding such a plan as a proactive step towards protecting children, others are claiming it gives the capacity for the government to become an overbearing big brother, diminishing our democracy. With the proposed policy in its current form, both sides of the argument have valid points. Though there is an effective solution, that could appease both sides of the debate.

The proposed policy, in its current form, will force all ISPs to block all RC (refused classification) websites on international servers. RC websites are not legally permitted to be hosted on Australian servers and are currently removed or blocked. However this policy classifies sites hosted internationally, and blocks these. Who chooses which sites to block was originally up to the government, but it appears they will opt for an independent organisation to review or choose which sites to block. The types of sites to be blocked are meant to be "offensive", though they range from illegal pornography and bomb making sites, to currently legal pornography and pro euthanasia sites. The list of sites to be blocked is not to be released publicly (which has caused just as much controversy as the blocking of sites), but earlier on in the year a list was leaked, which included a non harmful, not offensive, Queensland dentist's website. The main aim of the filter is to protect families and children from accidentally accessing "offensive" and dangerous websites. However the government has acknowledged the if people want to 'illegally' get around the filter, they can.

The main argument against implementing the filter is that the government has, and can, secretly block websites of its choosing. Former High Court judge Michael Kirby has criticised the proposed policy, as he, along with over 90% of the Australian public if news polls are to be believed, see an opportunity for government abuse to arise and the stifling of democratic process through restricted access to information. This is because it gives the government power to block sites it doesn't see as appropriate, such as pro euthanasia sites. Hence reducing the amount of information available to the public to continue fueling public debate and opinion. However if people can easily get around the system in an illegal way, it will still be ineffective in its purpose. And in this tech savvy world, it doesn't take much to get around firewalls. All this filter really does is stop people accidentally stumbling across such information.

The debate surrounding this particular piece of the Rudd government's "internet" policy, which is to be introduced into parliament next year, is also muddied by arguments that internet speed will decrease and that not all offensive material will be blocked. On the subject of speed, an internet filter will most likely slow down speed, but only by an insignificant margin. Though the belief that not all offensive material will be blocked does hold a lot of weight. While most RC sites can be blocked, it is easy to circumvent the filter, but also new sites can pop up, to which it comes a game of 'website creation' vs 'government finding and blocking'. Breeding complacency among the public with an internet filter is also dangerous. People still need to be careful about what sites they visit, and the content their children have access to.

So if the current proposal is ineffective yet to intervening, what's the solution? Firstly, to increase the range and type of RC websites to be blocked; which would include all pornography, scam and virus sites etc. (just think, any website you wouldn't want to be associated with opening in public). Secondly, list the websites blocked; transparency and accountability will not hurt here. If people want to find and access these sites, they will find away to do so. Thirdly, make it an "opt out" system; households and internet users who wish to remove such a filter, must register with their ISP to have it removed. This means the 'average' family has a safer internet, the complacent internet user who couldn't be bothered contacting their ISP is safer, and those who are wishing to access such information will be able to access it (because they would be able to with the proposed policy anyway)

The internet is the 21st century's digital figure-head for liberalism and democracy. It is also the greatest source for illegal and immoral content. However while governments should not be able to dictate what's morally acceptable (with legal exceptions), or diminish the capacity for individuals to access information consensually, they should be able to provide the choice for people to protect themselves and their families. 

Links

Net filters 'thin end of the wedge': Kirby - SMH online

Critics blast 'great firewall of Australia' - ABC news

Green light for internet filter plans - ABC news

Computer says no: Google slams filter - ABC News

Nuclear the way, but not for Australia

With all this hype recently in the media about how Australia should go nuclear to help clean the world of carbon emission, taking a global perspective and stance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be the most effective way of combating climate change.

The proposal and renewed focus on nuclear power in Australia has come from an opinion poll stating that 49% of Australian's would accept nuclear power. Possibly not enough of a swing to change the Labour government's mind on the subject, as they directly oppose it. However public support for nuclear energy falls like a lemming off a cliff when the subject of location for the plants arise. This is because the Australian public doesn't fully support the science of nuclear fusion, and changes in the way nuclear reactors operate in order to prevent another disaster.

Though developing countries are quite comfortable with the science of nuclear fusion, because their insatiable demand for energy outstrips public or government concerns, and also because these poorer nations would prefer to have electricity than nothing. Nations such as China and India are soon to become the worlds largest emitters because of their tremendous growth. Ironically Australia produces less than 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, though we are trying to stop climate change by enacting policy (CPRS) to reduce our emission. If Australia really wants to make a difference, we need to help tackle other developing countries, like China and India's emissions not ours.

The main source of greenhouse gas emissions from Australia come from the burning of brown or black coal. However 80% of the coal we mine is exported, hence exporting and covering up our true effect on the climate. Instead of Australia becoming a nuclear nation, we should be encouraging through all avenues possible for developing nations to only built nuclear power stations. Because nuclear power is low in carbon emissions and is a proven technology that is effective in supplying power for the next hundred years or more, and it is perfectly suited to their situation. But because Australia has the worlds largest source of uranium, it also means we don't loose, but economically gain from such a pollution reduction deal. Furthermore from this, it also frees up financial and political capital which can be spent on renewable energies, to which Australia's climate and location is well suited.

For Australia to transform its energy industry from coal to nuclear power is a mistake. We can continue burning coal in the interim, because stopping it is not going to save the world. However Australia lobbying and supplying uranium to nuclear reactors in developing nations (hint hint Rudd, India), will be key to reducing global emissions as quickly as possible...not to mention avoiding Copenhagen at the end of this year. 

Perception is reality

I read a book awhile back called Syrup by Maxx Barry, which highlighted one of the most important rules for advertising, "perception is reality". That being that if something appears to be clean, or good, then it must be good or clean. The very power of advertising is enormous. It's what makes a Mercedes different from a Ford. One is perceived to be a better car than the other, despite sometimes their similar construction and driving ability. Advertising however, is entering into the political sphere more profoundly these days.

Barrack Obama created and marketed his catchphrase, and turned it into a powerful icon: "yes we can". His campaign symbol was cleverly marketed and designed, to the point where it has been trade marked and other people were trying to scamp off on the 'Obama high/craze' that swept the US at the very start of his presidency. Kevin Rudd was elected under the banner "Kevin 07", and his whole political advertising campaign was run by a professional advertising company (who are now running the latter mentioned). This is nothing especially new, but both these campaigns were the largest ever run (by size and monetary value). Thus the connection between large expensive and successful advertising campaigns and changed public perceptions (which creates a new reality).

Hence someone else who has a lot of money to spend, and a dirty public image is now going to great lengths to turn their perceptions, into the public's new reality. We're talking about the Coal Industry. They have spent millions across the globe advertising how they're investing in carbon capture and storage (even though it is a far off, untested science that only a handful of small scientific plants are actually doing), making the world a greener place (by putting up green posters, replanting the lawn around the power plant etc), but now they're running a campaign claiming that an ETS in Australia could risk thousands of jobs, cost $14 Billion in lost revenue and not cut emissions. The coal industry is running this advertising campaign in marginal Labour seats to try and force the government to disband the ETS (despite the coal industry already getting massive concessions)

Despite the overwhelming economic, engineering and scientific evidence to prove that a) emissions will be reduced (from marginal to dramatic, depending on who you ask), b) the lost revenue will be minimal, followed by increased revenue from a lowering emissions economy and c) more jobs will be created over 10 years than will be lost, through the creation of new jobs (like building new power plants)

So will this new advertising campaign "Let's cut emissions, not jobs" be powerful and effective enough to change public perceptions about the ETS and coal industry?  Or will it be like McDonald's trying to change its ever sticking image that it is an obesity factory outlet? My personal belief is with enough advertising and money, little public knowledge (and interest), plus mentioning 'jobs', the 'economy', and 'bad' at this time will change enough of the public's perceptions, to change reality. That is the sad power of advertising.

Links
Coal industry launches charm offensive - The Age
Coal firms advertisements hit emissions plan