Bugger off Bolt

Source: Flickr

Opinion articles of seething rage don't often attract my attention. It's interesting to read scathingly wicked prose written behind the protection of a keyboard, but it does not often change my mind about anything. So I hope to do something different here and provide a little more detail, even though the essence of it is Andrew Bolt, bugger off you attention loving, small minded git! 

I'm probably preaching to the choir here but there are a lot of reasons why people don't like Andrew Bolt. Let me just focus on one thing; this article. It has all the hallmarks of a very informative [read: trashy] article from the Herald Sun. A catchy simplistic title that appeals to "us all", pictures of footballers training and a good opinionated dash about Bolt's own family history and innocence. That, and it's riddled with rage inducing crap. Yes. Crap. 

1. The way Bolt clearly misinterprets Goodes' words: (Read Goodes' actual comments here). 

"That process starts with understanding our very dark past, a brutal history of dispossession, theft and slaughter. For that reason, I urge the many fair-minded Australians who seek genuine prosperity and equality for my people to find the courage to open their hearts and their minds and watch Utopia." - Adam Goodes

Nowhere does it say that you should feel shame, guilt and a personal responsibility for what occurred. Understanding is the key word that is employed here. Yet you, Bolt, take it as a personal attack upon yourself to feel guilt and shame. Goodes is appealing to the rectification of a historical event and ongoing inequality. You Bolt, are just trying to deny the existence of the issue.

2. Making the issue about Bolt's own views, and not the issue at hand

 "Adam, my grandparents committed no thefts, rapes or murders." - Andrew Bolt 

Adam Goodes never claimed your grandparents did any of those things. He neither claimed that it was an entirely 'foreign' force that is to blame and that his entire linage is innocent. He states that it is

"Europeans, and the governments that have run our country, have raped, killed and stolen from your people for their own benefit" - Adam Goodes

So why personalise things Bolt? Is it because you want to try and remove yourself from the issue by laying a duty of responsibility upon a few, which you then go on to say were a minority? Then you go ahead and implicitly (and explicitly) defend their actions. Andrew Bolt, you have misconstrued Adam Goodes' writing to make an issue that is just really you voicing your own opinion and trying to pin blame on others. No one is attacking YOU, yet you see it as so. For that I just pity you.

3. Hypocrisy and half told truths. 

"So why didn’t he praise the good as well as acknowledge the bad of our past — a bad that he seems to have grossly exaggerated" - Andrew Bolt

A) Ummmm, Goodes does! Did you even read his article!?
B) The little fact you get from Geoffrey Blainey's positive book about the successful lives of Indigenous Australian's pre European settlement, is GROSSLY EXAGGERATING your case. Not to mention the "per capita" reference.
C) In the same decision where the South Australian Supreme Court found that ruling, they also gave $755 000 compensation to Bruce Trevorrow, a victim of the Stolen Generation, for being forcibly removed from his family. That court decision doesn't prove the Stolen Generation didn't exist. It just cleared one party (the SA government) from orchestrating it.

4. Worst of all, the way Bolt obfuscates the issue to deny the existence of inequality. 

The start of Bolt's article highlights the benefits that Adam Goode's has received, and how positive his life is. This statement is also true

"Life for many Aborigines then was brutishly harsh and often included appalling rates of violence against women, as established by paleopathology expert Stephen Webb from the evidence of fractured skulls" - Andrew Bolt

But police and hospital reports from 2014, not 1700, show that an alarming rate of Indigenous women are subject to violence. Today, there is still massive inequalities in healthcare, education, and employment between Indigenous and non Indigenous Australians. Yet your small minded focus on proving that things have improved from being "brutishly harsh" misses the fact that life for most Indigenous Australians isn't even acceptable by Australian government or international standards.

"Our history is not as simple as Goodes claims. Nor is our guilt" - Andrew Bolt

You have the audacity to say that an issue is complex, though only deal with terrible facts that suit your case, and IGNORE the blaring issue of inequality existing today; a major theme of Goode's piece. 

Andrew Bolt, your weak attempts at looking like a professional journalist and commentator only serve to highlight how narrow minded and convoluted your theory of Australian history is, and your ongoing agenda to ignore the attempts at rectifying Indigenous inequality. 

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)

US debt ceiling woes

"I told you so" 

The US has always had a morbid fascination with its debt. Clocks had been set up around the country decades ago, showing the slow but steady increase in US public debt. With the 11th hour nigh before the US debt ceiling is reached on August 2nd, there is a strange, discomforting irony in going back and looking at the clocks that were originally passed off as a scaremongering tactic for conservative candidates. Though with Congress still not having come to a decision as to whether to raise the debt ceiling (and if so by how much), there is the ever growing possibility that the US may default.  And even if it doesn't, the US may still dip back into recession because of bad economic policies were rushed through at the last minute to avoid default.

The very idea of a debt ceiling for government makes perfect sense. It's a cap (the ceiling bit) on the amount of money the government can borrow. This in theory reduces the ability of a government to act irresponsibly and charge up the national credit card on irrelevant, pricey policies. Though in this circumstance, the US debt ceiling is acting as anything but a protection measure for the US government and economy. It has become a mere obstruction to the ability for the US government to make both timely policy, but also not to default and loose its AAA credit rating.

To take the view of the "Tea Party", Barack Obama - being as fiscally and politically irresponsible as he is -  is trying to ruin the US economy. In this situation, the debt ceiling wouldn't stop an economic disaster. As soon as the government over borrowed, either the government would have cease from acting on anything that cost or the US would loose its AAA credit rating and economic strife would ensure. The President could also ignore the ceiling and open up the possibility for impeachment, thus economically and politically disabling the economy. In no way does the US debt ceiling manage to avoid or mitigate bad political and economic decisions in relation to debt. It acts more as a guideline, a point of reference to which governments would not like to reach because of what it symbolises; bad economic management.

Though for Barack Obama, who is trying to stimulate the struggling US economy and also push through major yet costly healthcare reform, the debt ceiling acts only as a blockade to action. It prohibits the President from using his executive power to make decisive action where Congress dithers and dawdles.  Though the closer the US gets to hitting the $USD14.3 trillion ceiling, the more pressure is placed on him to take decisive action.

On the current course, if no action is taken, the US will break through the ceiling on August 2nd, requiring Congress to limit government expenditure, resulting in the US defaulting on some of its loans. The impact of this would not only likely plunge the US back into recession, but it would trigger a wave of instability over financial markets around the world. With the already unstable Eurozone, a US default would only worsen their situation. The other option is that the President ignores the ceiling (and continues spending) or priorities some payments so as to avoid default. Though this would cause a political/constitutional crisis with the President using his powers in the manner, creating even more uncertainty and instability. Hence the only real option that remains is negotiation and deal making with the Republicans. As the Republicans hold the majority in the  House of Representatives, and could realistically pass their own policy of heavy spending cuts through with a filibuster, politics in Congresses is getting very terse, tense and nasty.

It's 11th hour of Capital Hill with the 2nd August fast approaching. It is unknown whether it will be the Democrats or Republicans who become victims of circumstance by agreeing to a last minute deal in Congress. The one unknown variable in this political equation is the markets knowledge that the US economy is at its most fragile state since the 2008 GFC (Global Financial Crisis). This may be the hour for bold decision making and strong leadership; or a drawn out filibuster, political backstabbing and a solution that no one is really confident in.

Links

US House and Senate divided over debt ceiling issue - BBC news 

Q&A: Why has the US not agreed a new debt ceiling? - BBC news 

Talks resume as Senate kills off debt bill - ABC news 

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

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

WikiLeaks is not helping this war

WikilLeaks founder Julian Assange - Image source Washington Post

WikiLeaks recent decision to release more than 250 000 confidential diplomatic cables has yet again created international political and media hysteria. Media organisations around the world have publicly (and secretly) applauded them for releasing information that has fed news-cycles for weeks. Politicians, especially those from the US, have called for his arrest on grounds of breaching national security. While in the past WikiLeaks has released videos and documents that could arguably pose a risk to US national security, it chose to do so because it believed the information contained within those videos and documents would protect the international community. However in this recent release of diplomatic cables, the information that is contained within them is comparably trivial to the other documents that exposed US atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as systematic failures in the US military. The leaking of a video depicting US soldiers opening fire on civilians was meant to help save lives by bringing greater public attention to the war. But what this leak has done instead is damage the integrity of diplomatic relations amongst all countries, and may in fact heat up an old 'cold' war. The exposure of diplomatic tensions between China and North Korea will only aggravate the increasingly aggressive state who doesn't like to be publicly denounced, especially by its closest ally, China.

The documents leaked outline China's growing unrest with North Korea, especially with its nuclear program. Colourful language - as colourful as diplomacy gets - such as China referring to the North as a "spoilt child" attracts headlines and attention. Though the issue here isn't what China actually thinks of North Korea, but how the DPRK (North Korean government) perceive the ensuing media attention. China has always been the negotiator between the US, Japan, South Korea and the unpredictable North Korea. It has been China who has repeatedly encouraged North Korea back to the six party talks after it has walked out because no one accepted the North's right to pursue nuclear weaponry. It is well documented that China supports North Korea because it stops 23 millions refugees from flooding over its boarder, and also keeps China, geographically speaking, an arms distance away from South Korea. Though China's unwavering support for the North was most recently seen when, in defiance of a reputable international finding, it supported North Korea's denial of the sinking a South Korean ship. Yet China doesn't like North Korea playing around with nuclear material in what it perceives as its backyard. In 2006 when the DPRK was flouting international law and openly testing its nuclear capabilities, China temporarily shut down power to Pyongyang (which it supplies) - a strong message for North Korea to keep it quiet. Then it also supported a UN resolution to impose further sanctions on the recluse state, despite its continual trade links and dodgy deals with the DPRK. China keeps its position ambiguous so as to avoid serious scrutiny, but also so it can reap the benefits of a US alliance and still have occasional shady dealings with North Korea. Though these diplomatic cables highlighting government tensions between China and the North will make both the US and North Korea question China's standpoint. To best serve its national interest, but also based on precedence, China will remain silent. Though the political skirmish that could ensue in both North and South Korea, may disastrously result in the end of a very tenuous Korean peace.

North Korea is very touchy to international condemnation. When the UN passes a resolution prohibiting it from pursuing nuclear weapons, the DPRK orders for missiles to be fired into the sea of Japan. When  South Korea and the US plan on having "war games" just outside North Korean territory to demonstrate the military prowess of the US and South Korea, the North shells a nearby South Korean island. Basically, North Korea and the DPRK don't like to have their power or image threatened. So the consequence of its closest ally, China, tittle-tattling to the US about how mischievous it is, will not go unnoticed. China and the North may be really chummy at the moment and this is China's way of feeding the US what it would like to hear, though it could also be an under representation of a very fragile relationship between China and the DRPK. Regardless, it is the airing of either fabricated or factual dirty laundry that will insight North Korea to demonstrate its military capabilities yet again. Because of the WikiLeak, North Korea's sovereignty is diminished because the main other state upholding it, is showing wavering support. Thus it will most likely demonstrate to the world that it a nation not to be reckoned with through the only way it knows how - military power and missile 'tests'. And it could well be China who will be in the firing range of North Korea's latest military display, for its unintentional public display of insubordination. WikiLeaks intentions of peace, honesty and accountably, may only provide further fuel for another Korean war.

What WikiLeaks has done is change the course of diplomacy for the forceable future, and ultimately damaged the ability for countries to form diplomatic and strategic alliances. Diplomacy is something that doesn't always need to be made public, mainly on the basis that it is ever changing. Shooting civilians in wartime or making obvious strategic mistakes when at war are actions that should be held to the highest account. The mentioning in a cable that North Korea is "a threat to the whole world's security" is hyperbolic diplomatic nonsense. The Economist very neatly summarised the necessity for diplomacy to be kept confidential.

At this point, what WikiLeaks is doing seems like tattling: telling Sally what Billy said to Jane. It's sometimes possible that Sally really ought to know what Billy said to Jane, if Billy were engaged in some morally culpable deception. But in general, we frown on gossips.

If the documents outlined the US secretly supporting North Korea, that would warrant public attention. Though having every menial detail of almost every US diplomatic cable since the 1960s released, only brings attention to the juicy, somewhat bizarre conversations that have occurred. China's sideways comment to the US about it not being so friendly with North Korea, suddenly becomes China's foreign policy in the eyes of countries like South Korea. This is because South Korea is under enormous domestic pressure to resolve the ongoing conflict, most preferably by uniting the North under South control. This gives politicians in South Korea who want to take a harder, more militarised stance against North Korea, greater political capital to do so. They have a few phrases from a couple of 'WikiLeaked' documents to prove it. This is where WikiLeaks intentions of creating accountability and transparency falter. The documents reception in mainstream media and politics is patchy and only focuses of the visceral, entertaining parts. Like the fact that mainstream media hasn't questioned why more US cables have been in direct reference to the state of Tasmania rather than the whole country of Australia? It's these entertaining and 'newsworthy' lines that'll attract media attention and change public attitudes, not the other plethora of documents that are the diplomatic equivalent of foreign ministers sending smily faced text messages to each other.

The intentions of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was inherently good. Transparency, honesty and accountability are values worth pursuing. Unfortunately for Assange that comes at the cost of being pursued by the US government for "endangering national security" and most likely, being charged for espionage. But the release of diplomatic cables is very different to war logs or footage of soldiers firing upon civilians. The benefit that occurs to the global population on behalf of this release is minimal. It doesn't foster transparency, it only shuts down diplomatic channels and harbours distrust amongst governments. It doesn't encourage honesty, governments will only deny the authenticity of the cables (like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done). Neither does it promote accountability, as the information it contains doesn't expose any one person or any government of serious wrongdoing. The only thing this leak has done is aired the private conversation of countries and diplomats, which in turn feeds the news-cycle and most likely, aggravates overly pretentious countries like North Korea. This leak only insights unstable countries like North Korea to demonstrate their military capabilities through missile strikes and war.

Links: 
WikiLeaks degenerates into gossip - The Economist

At-loss China accepts unified Korea: WikiLeaks - AFP

China ready to abandon North Korea: WikiLeaks - ABC Online

WikiLeaks cables reveal the problem of Pyongyang - Guardian 

Analysis: WikiLeaks reveals China, N. Korea tensions - CNN International

Wikileaks cables reveal China 'ready to abandon North Korea' - Guardian 

A very slow succession

It's been a long time coming, but it finally may be here. Kim Jong il appears to be stepping down and installing his youngest son, Kim Jong Un. For many years, King Jong Il's poor health and reckless nuclear ambitions have indicated such a transition was imminent; but nothing ever materialised. Though a couple of months ago, Chinese media sources reported the creation of a statue of Kim Jong Il. There are many statues of Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il's father and technically, still the ruler of North Korea. Though they were only erected after his death. This is because North Korean juche culture stipulates that statues of leaders can only be built and displayed after they've died. So either Kim Jong Il is shaking things up in the north, or he's finalising his affairs before steps down (or dies).

I've reported before on the future leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, but this time, his succession finally appears to be occurring. The health of Kim Jong Il has been like a roller coaster ride. One day he's reported to be seriously ill after a stroke, the next he is about to die of pancreatic cancer, and then a few months after never being seen, he meets up with Bill Clinton to negotiate the release of US journalists. Being the mysterious leader of one of the most secretive states in the world appears to be one of his greatest accomplishments. He's accredited with transforming the North into rogue nuclear state, however North Korea has no ability to project that power any further than South Korea. It's numerous nuclear tests and sinking of the Cheonan have angered it's closest and most powerful ally, China. Following North Korea's latest nuclear tests, which were in clear defiance of international law and UN condemnation, China cut the transmission line between it and Pyongyang. This resulted in around 80% of North Korea being plunged into darkness. China, usually the moderator between the western world and the North, actually took an active step to prevent North Korea from exercising its nuclear power, even at the possibility of creating social and political instability. China and the North have always had a love/hate relationship, but with a new leader soon to take charge, that relationship will be critical in ensuring a peaceful transition.

Aid being given to North Korea has been in a steady decline since 2005. Defying international law and acting like a recalcitrant cretin with nuclear ambitions does that. But with more famine and death being caused by natural disasters and consistent North Korean government neglect and mismanagement, more aid is being offered. Previous aid agreements, most notably between US president Bill Clinton and North Korea, saw the closure and abandonment of the North's nuclear reactors...for a while. It appears that any attempts by any international institution or government to quell the North's nuclear aims, has proven fruitless. Carrots don't tempt the North to do good, and the using the stick would result in war. Though there is one exception to this rule: China. It's China who not only keeps the North's few lights running, but it's entire economy as well. It's North Korea's largest trading partner, political ally and sympathiser. It's China who is either going to make or break this succession.

The main thing China wants is regional stability, hence it's warning to the North about playing too much with the nukes. So it's obviously going to accept Kim Jong Un's rule, just to prevent a regime collapse and 24 million refugees flooding across the boarder. But North Korea is still stubborn. It doesn't want China to micro manage all of its affairs, run its economy and plumb the land for all the resources it has got. Similarly, China sees the North as an inefficient, unstable state with an economy going nowhere. Under a new leader, I'll be China who gets the undivided attention of Chang Sung Taek (Kim Jong Un's uncle) and Kim Jong Un himself. This leadership change is the perfect time for China to capatilise on new trade relations; ones that encourage industry, more open markets, more free flowing of information. It's these small steps, that may help stabilise the North by making it less reliant on nuclear power to prop up its regime.

This hypothesis really does fall short thought when you look at it in the context of Iran. But then again, there's no super power "mother country" sitting next door to Iran, telling it what to do. North Korea is at its most politically unstable point in decades. Kim Jong Un isn't being paraded around as a national hero just yet. The pomp and grandeur being delayed is just a sign of ineffective and unstable government, let alone bad event management. So for all it may be worth, this very slow succession in North Korea could turn out to be an opportunity for China to make inroads into this recluse state, to the benefit of all.

Links:
Third Kim lucky? - The Economist
The unconference - The Economist

US watches 'leadership process' in North Korea - AFP

South Korea Offers Aid to North - Wall Street Journal

North Korea, in Secret, Moves Toward Anointing a New Kim - Time 

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

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

From "Super Tax" to super spin.

As soon as the Rudd government announced plans to implement a 40% super profits tax, the big mining companies automatically opposed such a plan. And why wouldn't they? The more money they make, the better the Australian economy is, right? Or as with all profit driven businesses, they do it for personal reasons, with altruism long forgotten. The 40% super profits tax is a tax long overdue. While the Australian mining sector is critical sector within our economy, maintaining its longevity and retaining benefits for all Australians, not just those who are employed by Rio Tinto or BHP, is critical. 

While the Henry Tax review didn't explicitly make the recommendation to implement such a tax, it does endorse it. With economic modeling demonstrating that there will still be, continued foreign and national investment into mining and resource ventures within Australia, this demonstrates that this new tax is not going to destroy the whole Australian economy, as some would have you believe.

The main question within the debate over the tax, which has been softly put by the government and not 'spun' enough in comparison to the oppositions "big new tax" catchphrase, is the question about the ownership of these resources. While the major, international conglomerate companies such as Rio Tinto and BHP find the resources, the owners of these resources is still the Commonwealth, thus 'public property', owned by the Australian people. The government, representing the views and values of the majority of the population, decide which way to disperse these precious resources. A company who finds resources, whether coal, gold, oil (even trees), can't start digging until it's granted government permission through license. So the Rudd government has the full capacity to stop particular mining ventures, and/or impose whatever conditions they believe necessary upon them. This includes environmental conditions, to taxation on profits. It is done to make sure the financial benefits of these resources, are spread amongst the Australian people equally. So while these companies are running campaigns about how they already do so much for the Australian economy, under this tax, they will be doing more.

Though one of the most asserted comments, coming from both the floundering Abbott opposition and cashed up resource industry, is the asserted statement that investment within Australia will stop. But unless the mines and resources magically float overseas, how can this be possible? Companies want to mine in Australia, not because they like our working ours, red sand or ultimately, even our tax rate; it's because we have the resources in quantities that no other country has. In both coal, uranium, aluminum, natural gas, gold and diamonds, we are almost world leaders for the amount of resources we have. And when the notion of Australia becoming less "internationally competitive" arrises, I encourage you to laugh. This is a "super profits tax", not a normal tax that takes a percentage cut out of every dollar earned. This takes a cut not out of the final profits that are made, but the absurd multi million/billion dollar profits that are made. These companies will already be making multi million dollar profits, so the incentive for them to continue investing and digging up resources within Australia are still there.

Though lastly, and on a point of politics, the opposition claiming that this is just a "cash grab" for a Government heavily in debt is just ludicrous. The IMF supports the mining tax, on the basis that it believes such measures will help prevent Australia slipping into recession if the world economy turns sour again. But the Rudd government isn't going to be sending you the money from the tax, directly in the mail, or spending it on a dodgy insulation scheme, but instead will be co-contributing it to your super. This will assist Australia's long term economic growth by allowing more people to be less reliant on the government for pensions. And then there's the added bonus of having more savings and investment within the Australian economy, though superannuation investments.

So while the Rudd government hasn't spun this new "super tax" to make it a completely 'won' political issue for them, all independent economic modeling and investigation has highlighted that this super profits tax will have a positive effect on the Australian mining sector, which is still be one of the most heavily subsidies industries within Australia. While the industry is obviously worried about missing out on a few extra million from their multi billion dollar profits, they are going overboard in their response, claiming that they are 'reviewing' projects within Australian and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising campaigns. They're spinning themselves and the Australian people, into a pointless frenzy. Hopefully the Rudd government wont' let this policy slide into oblivion, outdone by selfish groups prepared to shout "big new tax" and "economic Armageddon", despite facts being otherwise.


Links:
Growing rich pains: the downside to mining boom - National Times

Rudd's resources super profits tax will hit food: Tony Abbott - The Australian 

Resources tax - cracks widen - The Australian Business

Wayne Swan sells mining tax to states amid marginal seats risk - The Australian 

Miners reject the Resource Super Profits tax grab - The Age Business Day

40% of minerals go to the nation - The Age 

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