And the Canberra Games go on and on

NT News keeping it real
Source: Guardian.com

I don't know about you, but the last few days in Australian politics has been kind of fun. I've been addicted to the nonstop rollercoaster ride that is the "Canberra Games". Who cares about shows like Survivor, The Greatest Race or The Bachelor - this is reality TV at its finest. It's a show where you kind of get a say in the process, but not really. People get eliminated. Hearts are broke. Tears are shed. New alliance made and bitter parting speeches are given. There's even the dramatic recaps, speculative commentary from experts and guests, and montages of how far we've come. While it may seem important at the time who gets kicked off an island or given a rose, here it (may be) a substantial change in how the country is governed. Who knows, we might actually have legislation passed by the senate now!

Due to the course of these events, I felt it was necessary to transcribe some of my thoughts on the Turnbull take over. (I hate calling it a coup. Where was the military!? Where are the pictures of people being dragged out of office?! Has the excitement of a change in PM reduced the ability of the media to reach for a dictionary?)

Coup: (noun) [also coup d'état] - a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. Take Burkina Faso for example. 

As much hype as there is about the "shambles" that is the revolving door of our Prime Ministership (thanks Karl and Ray), very little actually matters. Because it's the exact same members of Parliament who return the next day and continue with business as usual. It's a reshuffling of the deckchairs, be it on a the Titanic, or the green Canberran' lawns. What is noticeable is how people reacted and pledge their allegiances. Abbott didn't give a press conference after he was ousted, a sign of very bitter resentment and self pity. Before the spill, many MPs didn't give press conferences, but those who did open their mouths to the microphones and camera lenses leaked out their emotional sentiments on the issue. It was like seeing the live crosses to politicians when they win or lose their seat during an election. There's a moment where they let down their guard with all of the emotional turmoil and show their true personality.

As for what the future holds, I can't envisage Australian democracy crumbling and falling apart from this latest bout of "treachery". There'll just be continued speculation about leadership on both sides, and the ABC will get a to run new episodes of The Killing Season.  Malcolm Turnbull has a lot more panache than previous political leaders, something the Australian community either loves or hates (do I even have to mention Kevin Rudd?) Style aside, there needs to be some substance to keep the viewers interested people voting. Or people will follow the Channel 7 model and not give a damn. That's something I'm much more concerned about! How did James Blunt become popular again?

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.

Small cuts are still cuts Tony Abbott

Before reading any further, watch the video (27 sec) above. 

It was the night before the 2013 Federal Election and Tony Abbott, on TV, confidently outlined areas of Government that would not receive cuts under his first term of Government.

Though today it has been announced that another $50 million may be cut from the ABC and SBS, after the budget already slashed funding to the public broadcasters by $43.5 million. At the time when this was announced, some commentators were relieved to find that sum smaller than what was originally expected (despite the coalitions promises leading into the election). Yet it seems the fallout from the 2014 Budget is continuing, with the ABC and SBS taking another hit. 

Regardless of your opinion on the ABC and SBS, there is something inherently wrong when a leader of a party so clearly articulates a policy position, and less than 12 months later has to do a major backflip. Defence and the School Chaplaincy Program were not budget promises, though they got boosts in funding! Neither does it make economic sense. The ABC and SBS are two of the most efficient broadcasters (that's comparing all broadcasters, public and private) in terms of quality output per dollar input. So making them jump through more hoops is unlikely to make significant savings, which would be needed in a "budget crisis". 

This round of cuts though has been defended as cutting 'back end' operations. That's a lovely vague title that doesn't appear attached to any form of employment! It also ignores the reality that the majority of work in TV is 'back end' work; legal teams, writing teams, consumes, catering, set production etc. Take away some of those roles, and it affects programming quality. The ABC was scrutinised for its handling of the students protesting on QandA, but security guards and risk management planning also fits into the 'back end' category of work as well. 

The more and more this government releases details about its budget, the bigger hole it seems to dig itself into. It set the bar for accountability and honesty when coming into the election. Though it's about time they listen to what they said themselves, and follow the values that they were voted in for! 

              

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

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

The inane sport of criticising politicians' sincerity

Gillard's 'sincere' response to the floods,
albeit with a prop. Image source: The Australian

Julia Gillard welled up in Parliament yesterday over the disaster that has been the Queensland floods. Tony Abbott was confronted by Channel 7 news reporters, asking for a response to his "shit happens" comment about the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. Yet again, politicians are being judged on their style, spin and acting abilities, rather than the policies they are proposing. Politician baiting is becoming a tabloid sport; catching out unsuspecting politicians about their personal lives and minor gaffes, in order to elicit a response to make the front line-up of the nightly bulletin. It is a sobering thought to think that such insignificant trivialities about our politicians is what interests the general populous the most; and ultimately influences the way they vote.

After Gillard's condolence speech in Parliament yesterday, some political analysts and commentators are claiming that Gillard is finally showing her sincere and warm-heart to the flood victims. Others are more sceptical, claiming that this is just an elaborate act. People seem to be genuinely concerned about Gillard's lack of emotional response whilst she had been touring the flood affected areas. In a pure political sense, Gillard's emotional and personal response to the event shouldn't be of relevance; only her policy actions. Gillard welled up whilst reflecting on what had happened during the parliament's official condolence. Though even that is of little relevance. The PM personally cares. It's a nice thought, but it is not one that is fundamental to the overall objective of her job: to lead a government reconstruction effort. It doesn't matter how moved, touched and emotionally responsive Tony Abbott is to the Queensland floods, if his methods of reconstruction are subordinate to Gillard's. Furthermore from this, it is disgusting for the public to expect specific emotional responses from political leaders during times of crisis. Not everybody cries when they tour the aftermath of a natural disaster. Not everybody cries when they meet people who have been physically and emotionally traumatised and are desperately seeking assistance. Lots of water in Queensland, shouldn't correlate to lots of water around the eyes. Everybody has their own unique way of coping with grief, loss and trauma. Tony Abbott didn't well up in front of a TV camera, though no comment has been made about that!

Tony Abbott's recent gaffe of "shit happens" has called into question how genuine he is about the death of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Both sides of politics are very humble and sincere when it comes to Australian soldiers who have died whilst overseas. It is political suicide not to be. So under no circumstances, whilst Tony Abbott was chatting amongst Australian and US soldiers in Afghanistan, would he ever be flippant or disrespectful to any deceased Australian soldier. However "umm....well sometime shit happens doesn't it" sends a different message. It's one of flippancy and disrespect. Thus it is great for a short clip on the 6 o'clock news. Though such a comment was not taken out of context, only the "act" of him saying it was. Abbott would never utter such a phrase in Parliament or at his local church, but when having a casual chat out in a desert with Australian combat personal, Abbott changes his vernacular and actions to "extra blokey" mode.

His response however, to Channel 7s Hollywood-esque surprise interview, was completely inappropriate and personally damaging. Whether it be rage, surprise, or fear of answering a question that will make him look guilty, a Julie Bishop death stare for over 20 seconds is never good. His curt response of "you got the answer you deserve" highlighted how out of control he was within that situation. It was inappropriate of Channel 7 to accost him in such a way, though it is a politicians job to answer tough questions. He didn't answer this one, or deflect and avoided it well. It is ironically timed that Abbott should fall upon his own sword after chiding Gillard for her "tin eared" response to the Queensland floods. But such footage of Abbott saying "shit happened" shouldn't have been repressed, like the Liberal Party did with footage of Abbott shooting a firearm with Australian soldiers. They claimed it would "send the wrong message". Political parties shouldn't be able to control the public image of their constituents if they're running for office, and if that is what the public (regrettably) wants to know about.

What is becoming increasingly clear however, is the media and publics fixated attention on Gillard and her appearance. If she is not being criticised for a lack of crying and being emotional, the Australian or a tabloid will criticise her ever changing hair or whether she carries a purse. Even her dress was criticised whilst she toured flood affected Queensland towns. Since Gillard is a woman, whose dress sense will alter unlike the standard suit and tie for men, in the eyes of the public, there is more to critique. If Gillard is being too masculine in her dress sense and attitude in the chamber, she will be criticised for being bullish. Though if she lacks the "effeminate capabilities" of crying, she doesn't have a heart. Whilst never explicitly exploiting her gender in her campaign to become PM, people are happy to do that for her. Amanda Vanstone's only positive comment about Julia Gillard on Q&A (7/2/11) was that she was "a role model for young girls to look up to and say.... I can do that". If all young woman have to look up to is a PM being constantly criticised for her appearance as a result of her gender, then it doesn't offer much encouragement for ambitious young females wanting to enter the world of politics.

Julia Gillard's tears in parliament yesterday may be genuine, or they may have been put on after much criticism about her emotional response to the floods disaster. Her political commitment to help reconstruct Queensland however, is sincere. Tony Abbott's choice of phrasing whist talking to soldiers in Afghanistan was a strategic act. Though his political position of respecting the family and dignity of Australian soldiers killed in action, is sincere. Politicians act. But when the public deeply care about appearances and spin, the substance starts to get lost. This inane sport of critiquing the theatre of politics and judging the politicians of their performance, is damaging to government, and ludicrous at best. Don't text in your views about Gillard or Abbott's media performance. This is politics, not 'Canberra's got talent!'.

Links: 
Tears flow as Julia Gillard gets real - National Times

Flood victims bring Prime Minister Julia Gillard to tears - The Australian 

PM defends response to flood - The Age

Gillard the actor: Q&A Question 7/2/11 - Q&A website
Reporter asks question, Abbott loses it - National Times

Abbott's frozen fury lingers beyond his words - National Times

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

Mad Hatter Katter

The election has come and gone. Well, sort of. A hung parliament is guaranteed and people are still in shock about the dramatic swing in favour towards both the Liberals and the Greens. The message for Gillard is loud and clear. But time will only tell if she's prepared to listen. Though in the meantime, the 3 independents; Bob Katter, Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor get to play "pick the government". The Greens and Wilkie have pledged their allegiance to the ALP, which at this point, puts them 74 to the Coalitions 73 (including all already pledged allegiances). But it's Bob Katter who's kicking up a media storm in Canberra. The infamous independent politician that has made eyebrow raising remarks about the appearance of women in the outback, to advocating stronger protectionist policies and government controlled interest rates, may make or break a minority government. Though while Bob Katter and I disagree on a number of issues, there are some benefits that will arise from this political mess. But firstly, on the points we disagree on. 

Apart from being a politician that is a pleasant to listen to as fingernails down a blackboard, Bob Katter can occasionally crack out a smile which then makes you wish he hadn't. After seeing his endless rambles on the 7.30 report and other programs, I've come to the conclusion that it's his policies that really grate with me. As Katter gets to be one of the lucky three to choose who is going to be the next government, a brief view of his proposed 20 point plan, submitted to both major parties, is something of an eye-opener into the 'mad hatter Katter' world of politics and policy. 

1. No carbon tax, no ETS - not being a believer in climate change, his view fits perfectly in line with the right faction of the Coalition. Thus his ability to squash any new environmental bills the Greens want to submit will make for entertaining, yet ultimately depressing politics. 
2. No mining tax - despite its numerous economic benefits and support from economists around the globe, this is another example of a politician in the pockets of the big miners. 
3. More protectionist policies - while it's always good to make sure Australian industries are not swamped by overseas competitors, such staunch and rigorous protectionist policies would cripple other industries ability to access free trade deals (like mining!), let alone raise the cost of imports, which would add to inflation.... and the list goes on. 
4. Greater government control of interest rates and the lowering of the dollar - I agree with the point our dollar should be lowered, but government intervention to do so... that's heading down the China road (and they're not too popular at the moment for that very reason). But government controlled interest rates! I question Katter's basic understanding of economics. The Reserve Bank sets interest rates according to Australia's rate of economic growth to maintain low inflation over the long term. Giving this power back to government's would result in governments manipulating interest rates in the short term for political reasons, without having much regard for long term economic effects. 

Another interesting Bob Katter reference includes his views on gay marriage. When asked what his stance was, he said "There are no gays in my electorate". I guess that's a no. But it's Bob's election advertisement that's something to be seen. 

But while 'mad hatter Katter' may be the new Wilson Tuckey of the parliament, but with a serious grip on power, what he represents as a powerful independent MP can't be denied. He's a breath of fresh air in a staling political system. 

Being an independent and not beholden to party lines, he is able to truly represent his electorate. He stands for land rights, fishing and shooting rights, rural benefits and parliament reformation. Having previously sat as an independent in parliament with little air time or ability to affect legislation, he's taking the chance to reform the system so even when there isn't a hung parliament, the government doesn't get to always dominate in the House of Representatives. But he's also introducing new ideas and policy. A national energy grid, elimination of biofuel excise and new policy about regulating the food retail industries oligopoly, just to name a few. He's a man with different ideas. Some are that right or left of field they take you by surprise, but others are serious issues that have been ignored by the major parties for fear taking a too hard a line. 

But now it's time for both sides, the ALP and Coalition, not just to work out what they can offer these three independents (now affectionately as the "block"), but what they can deliver for them through this vastly different parliament. Going back to the polls sometime soon is the most likely situation, because of the independents holding the balance of power in the House or Representatives, and the Greens (next year) holding the balance of power in the Senate. But until then, let's hope Bob Katter not only makes an informed choice about whom to make a minority government with, but that he also sit down and have a chat with someone from Treasury, regarding some of his proposed economic polices. 

Links:

Bob Katter's 20-point wish list - WA today

Bob Katter says jury still out on whether he'll support Labor or Coalition - The Australian 

Abbott digs himself a hole - National Times (not an article specifically on Katter, but a general overview of this week in politics)

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

Abbott in - more than just the ETS put out!

It's not often I find myself detesting a particular politician. The one Australian politician that really grinds my gears would have to be Tony Abbott. So while my jaw hit the ground when the news broke that he became "leader" (and I do use the term very loosely) of the opposition, it's now firmly back up in its place, grinding away at my teeth.


With Tony Abbott winning the position as Liberal Party leader, the conservative faction of the Liberal Party has taken over again. But at least they have stopped pining the Howard years (I hope). This is in line with his view not to implement the Emissions Trading Scheme within Australia, claiming that it was a pointless tax that was only going to ruin the economy and not cut carbon emissions. However he also takes the position "we won't be having a tax as part of our policy going to the next election". Instead, Abbott has taken the stance of supporting nuclear power for Australia, and is wishing to start up the nuclear debate. 


Firstly, (and also strangely), I support his view that we should reverse the current policy of not selling uranium to India. As one of the fastest growing economies in the world and an equally growing contributor to climate change, having access now to a low carbon energy source is a necessity for environmentally friendly growth. Because without it, growth will still continue but with more emissions!
Secondly, as discussed in Nuclear the way, but not for Australia on this blog, with Australia having such a relatively small impact on climate change, more long term solutions, such as investment in renewables that thus far can not deliver base load power, is a responsible (and less costly) option. 
But thirdly, Tony Abbott, playing politics as he does, is just muddying the waters around the debate of Australia's responsibility for action and the implementation of the ETS. This magical alternative, is also not to be "rushed into". Methodical debate and planning is necessary for a plan to reduce Australia's carbon emissions, though that's occurred with the ETS. I'd point out an example that didn't have scrutiny or debate, like 'Work Choices', but as John Cleese eloquently put it, "Don't mention the war!"


And even despite the current stance for inaction and a challenge to a verbal joust on nuclear power, a clause for further inaction has been revealed by Abbott - "The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America." While it may sound like a good stance on environmental policy, the 'Pope of the Parliament' knows that the blocking of the ETS only further cements in the likelihood of an unsuccessful international agreement at Copenhagen. Here's how.

China is the worlds largest emitter, followed by the US. If both come to an agreement to cut emissions, other countries will most likely follow suit (or be made to). However the US and China haven't come to an agreement (despite small cuts and agreements, signalling some hope) , and instead insist on the other a) taking the blame and b) making cuts. When they get tired of this, they look to the rest of the world, claiming no one else is doing something. Those who take the first steps to cutting emissions are leading, are making a difference and most importantly, setting a precedence and signal for the rest of the world to act. This is why the EU trading scheme has been successful. It has had the most impact in forcing China and the US to engage and act! By Australia acting and making cuts, it encourages other countries to do the same, to stick to rules of the "international community". Actions will speak louder than words


But with the recent rhetoric from Tony Abbott and the more outspoken right wing of the Liberal Party, the hot air will continue to flow. So while Abbot may believe "to become leader, you make a new start" and have a "clean break", yesterdays Abbot wasn't good, today he's OK, and tomorrow he'll be gone, and that day, will be "good". (apologies for the very bad religious reference)


Note:
The Copenhagen conference will run from the 7th to the 18th December
The Government plans to reintroduce the ETS on February 2nd, the first sitting of Parliament.

Links
Tony Abbott backs nuclear talks after senate block Labor's ETS scheme - The Australian
Liberals get "one last chance" on climate laws - ABC online
Dead ETS to rise again - SMH online

Only in Australian Politics

Where else would you ever hear claims of the Prime Minister doing dodgy deals over a second hand ute? Yes, it has been a great month for Australian politics, as MP's sling their last hand full of mud before the winter break.

So what is the issue?

In a nutshell: The Government has a scheme (called OzCar) where it gives financial assistance to struggling car dealers. The opposition alleged there was an email stating that Kevin Rudd recommended giving assistance to an Ipswich car dealer, and that details of such a deal were faxed to Wayne Swan's home. Malcolm Turnbull called for Rudd and Swan to resign, and Rudd called for Turnbull to produce the evidence or resign. No evidence was produced, and after an investigation by the government and the AFP, it was found that the email was a fake. But the mud continues to fly.

So while accusations and mudslinging continue, it appears that no heads are going to roll. There was no substantial evidence to prove that Rudd had given preferential treatment to the Ipswich dealer. The AFP cleared Swan from receiving the email/notification of the deal, plus it was also a fake. Turnbull was clever from the start, by claiming that he never saw the email, so he could accuse Rudd and Swan all he liked.

But aside from this, the timing of these accusations were perfect. Too perfect. The CPRS is about to be put through the Senate, and it appears that it is not going to go through. The Greens are demanding greater cuts, the Liberals lower cuts, and Steve Fielding has to be different, and so is denying climate change (partially anyway). The Liberals are wanting to have a united front when it comes to this particular policy, as they were crucified on this subject at the previous election. So the whole ute/OzCar/email fiasco may not just be muddying the politicians, it may be trying to distract the public from any political 'meltdown' over this piece of legislation.

The sooner this mess is cleaned up, the better! But I wonder, who's got the ute?

LINKS

The Age - Email a fake

ABC - AFP confirm OzCar email