Showing posts with label John Howard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Howard. Show all posts

2007 Federal Election Conspiracy

The Australian Government has conspired with the United States to devise a plan of freeing David hicks that will ensure the impact of his case has an absolute minimal effect upon the impending Federal election.

Bold words perhaps, but lets look closely at the facts:

Detention
Hicks was captured in Afghanistan in December 2001 and was among the first prisoners the United States sent to Guantanamo a month later. Washington defined Hicks and others as unlawful "enemy combatants" who could not be treated the same way as prisoners of war and would not have the same rights under the Geneva Convention.

PM Reacts to National Outrage
A poll in December (2006) on the Hicks case itself rocked the government. It showed that about two-thirds of Australians thought Mr Hicks should be returned to Australia, and only one-quarter supported Mr Howard's hands-off approach. Since then Mr Howard has changed his public tune, blaming America for the delays in bringing Mr Hicks to trial. That may not be enough to assuage public anger, which probably runs deep enough to affect elections in a few months' time.
The Economist, 29 March 2007


Charged and Convicted
A US military tribunal has sentenced him to seven years in jail but he will only have to serve nine months with the rest suspended. He will serve the sentence in Australia and the USA must send him home by May 29.

The Deal
Hicks's plea agreement bars him from speaking to the media for one year and says if he ever sells the rights to his story, the Australian Government will get the money. He was also banned from taking legal action against the United States. Hicks had previously said he was abused by the US military but said in his plea agreement he had "never been illegally treated while in US custody".
ABC Online, 31 March 2007


So clearly the government has one full year in which to be saved any embarrassment from Hicks' contact with media ... and the election will have been fought and won by then!

Bob Brown agrees
But Greens leader Bob Brown says Hicks's sentence is designed to keep him out of the political spotlight during this year's federal election campaign.
"This is an astonishing political fix between the Howard administration and the Bush administration," Senator Brown said.
"This is carefully choreographed to have Hicks shut up until after the election.
"That's because they know that this is an illegal process. It breaches Australia's standards of democracy, human rights, civil rights."

ABC Online, 31 March 2007

Australia's core beliefs

Here's a draft of a post I was working on last year ...

Apparently average Australians have seven core beliefs, at least according to our moral-driven upstanding Prime Minister.

In a speech at the launch of The Conservative in September 2005, Mr Howard claimed that the following were our common beliefs:

We live in a very successful nation.
Tell that to hundreds of thousands who live below the poverty line, and especially our indigenous peoples who are battling to survive

We do not have much to be ashamed of
True ... except for our poor record on indigenous health & welfare, our cow-tailing to the USA, and our arrogance towards the Kyoto protocol

Australia was well-regarded around th world
see above comments

Individuals should be given a fair go if down on their luck but, once helped, should not expect continued community support
a fair comment unless it is advocating only helping people once and then writing them off for the rest of their life

Traditional institutions like the family were central but people with alternative views should not be persecuted
well ... should they be faced with discrimination too? And whose definition of family are we using anyway?

People should be very tolerant, but also believe in unity when facing a common threat
Stuff tolerance ... how about respect, acceptance and understanding ... and what if the threat is John Howard or the Liberal Party?

Society should be classless where a person's worth was determined by personal character and hard work, and not religion, race or social background
Newsflash!! How about if a person's worth was equalto all others and there were no determining factors at all?

Clearly, Mr Howard is now the spiritual leader of 20 million Australians, or at the very least considers himself to be a modern-day Moses in direct communication with a burning Golden Wattle tree!

Brethren influencing politics

The following article highlights the increasing challenge we face in upholding the separation of church and state. There is a fine line between ideological-based politics and campaigning for a theocracy. We must be ever-watchful that the line is never crossed.

It is also important to note that the Exclusive Brethren mentioned in this article is NOT the same as other Brethren churches. In fact the New Zealand Open Brethren Church has been quick to distance itself from their more extreme colleagues. More information can be found at SourceWatch


Step to the right as the Brethren gather force
Sydney Morning Herald - September 14, 2005

A scandal in New Zealand over election money from a fringe group reflects a trend, writes Marion Maddox.

The women wear headscarves in public. Their religion opposes assimilation, and they educate children at home or in their own schools. Fearing the taint of the godless, they refuse to eat with unbelievers. They reject democracy, and work towards God's rule.

Yes, it is the Exclusive Brethren, a conservative Christian fringe group whose more than $NZ500,000 ($457,300) in electoral help was denied initially the by the New Zealand Opposition Leader, Don Brash. Brash's embarrassment has brought a frisson of scandal to an election campaign otherwise strictly about tax cuts.

The Brethren's glossy, professionally produced anti-Green and anti-Labour leaflets look familiar. In the weeks before John Howard's re-election in October last year, half- and full-page advertisements appeared in local and metropolitan newspapers endorsing his Government and attacking the Greens. The advertisements echoed the content and style of Liberal Party advertising, but none of the endorsers' names and addresses belonged to the party.

In the US elections, the Exclusive Brethren spent more than $US500,000 ($649,900) on newspaper advertisements supporting George Bush and the Florida Republican Senate candidate, Mel Martinez, known for opposing gay marriage and hate crimes legislation, and linked to the Republican strategy for turning Terri Schiavo's 15-year coma into a "great political issue".

The Exclusive Brethren is a branch of a British movement formed in the 1820s. Its founder, John Darby, was a developer of "premillennial dispensationalism", a set of beliefs about the end of the world made famous by the bestselling Left Behind novels. Followers expect an imminent "Rapture" of believers to heaven, heralding the return of Jesus.

Exclusive Brethren take a dim view of government by the people, traditionally eschewing politics. Since government properly belongs to God, they do not vote. But in recent years they have moved closer to the political activism of other fundamentalists and pentecostalists, including enthusiastic lobbying. According to them, God's law rules out homosexuality, single parenthood, hate speech legislation and "big government".

The restoration of Israel is crucial to Christ's return, so they endorse pro-Israel policies. Holders of such views welcome authoritarian Christian government as setting the stage for the final showdown between God and Satan. They also incline to a "prosperity gospel" in which wealth is a sign of God's favour, and the poor have only themselves to blame, so taxes and welfare subvert the divine order.

The Exclusive Brethren irruption into the New Zealand election points to a broader coalition of right-wing business, political parties and religion.

Bush relies on the votes of evangelical, pentecostalist and fundamentalist Christians, who want conservative government in the Last Days to oppose evil abroad (Iraq) and at home (by cutting taxes and welfare).

Howard's support base for his 1995 return to the Liberal leadership included the conservative Christian Lyons Forum. The religious right has become increasingly outspoken within the party, with the Treasurer, Peter Costello, arguing that Australia's problems will be solved not by legislation but a return to the Ten Commandments, and John Anderson declaring while deputy prime minister that without Jesus, "we're a mob of dirty rotten sinners and we're on the path to hell".

In New Zealand, a loose coalition is now pushing New Zealand down a right-wing path, as seen not just by the emergence of the Exclusive Brethren, but by the rise of the pentecostal church-based Destiny Party, the "family"-focused United Future (formed from a 2002 merger of the centrist United party with Future NZ, an explicitly Christian party), the largely evangelical-funded conservative Maxim Institute think-tank, and even a branch of the Christian supremacist Parliamentary Prayer Network.

With conservative politicians, business and Christian leaders finding common ground, and heartened by electoral success in the US and elsewhere, no wonder even moderately religious politicians such as Howard and avowed agnostics such as Brash, the New Zealand National Party leader, are hitching their stars to the conservative Christian comet.

Dr Marion Maddox is senior lecturer in religious studies at the Victoria University of Wellington and author of God Under Howard: the Rise of the Religious Right in Australia (Allen & Unwin, 2005).

Extremism ... win or lose?

Extreme path will leave voters by the wayside
By Adele Horin, Sydney Morning Herald
10 September 2005

In the days when the NSW Liberal Party was a run-of-the-mill conservative party, John Ryan got flak for being too Christian. The opposition spokesman for disability services, commerce and western Sydney once told Parliament that "Jesus is my friend". And last year he told Radio National's Religion Report that "being a Christian is an important part of who I am as a politician". But he added that some of his Liberal colleagues criticised him for being religious.

That was then. Now Ryan, a highly regarded, hard-working and effective member of the Liberal front bench, is in danger of losing his preselection. In the eyes of the new
powerbrokers, he is not their sort of Christian.

The treatment of Ryan, it turns out, was a factor in spurring the Liberal MLC Patricia Forsythe's remarkable candour on the ABC's Stateline last week when she exposed the grip of "zealots" and "extremists" on the Liberal Party.

At a time of hysteria about Islamic extremism in Australia, it is of great concern that the NSW Liberal Party has been hijacked by Christian extremists. Democracy is in peril if the opposition party is rendered unelectable.

Let's be clear about this term, extremists. Social conservatism, encompassing opposition to abortion, to equality for homosexuals, to stem cell research, and to the King Cross heroin injecting room trial, reflects legitimate views held in sections of the community and in sections of the Labor Party. The Liberals' social conservatives have a right to these views - providing the electorate understands
this is what drives them. Holding such views openly and passionately does not of itself make them zealots.

It is when these issues - usually matters of conscience within the party - become the touchstone of being a good Liberal that red lights should flash. It is when a moral agenda, rather than efficient, compassionate government, is the overriding obsession of politicians that alarm bells should ring. It is when people who don't fit into a prescribed box are seen as having no place in the Liberal Party that terms such as zealot and extremist are appropriate.

If even moderate Christians such as Ryan - let alone atheists - are to have no future in the Liberal Party, then that is an alarming development.

At the federal level, John Howard marginalised the economic wets, and enforced rigid unity on issues such as detention centres. But despite the efforts of Tony Abbott and his evangelical colleagues, Howard has not demanded fidelity to a conservative morals agenda. Reading the electorate well, he has allowed a diversity of views on abortion and stem cell research to co-exist within the party.

But the story is different in NSW. The MLC David Clarke, leader of a powerful group of Liberal arch-conservatives, is associated with Opus Dei, a controversial evangelical movement of the Catholic Church - "a co-operator of Opus Dei", he called himself in an interview with Radio National's Stephen Crittendon last year. Crittendon noted a crucifix on Clarke's parliamentary office desk, and a picture of the Virgin and Child on the wall, along with a photo of St Josemaria de Balaguer, the founder of Opus Dei, and a commendation from the Croatian community.

In his maiden speech Clarke vowed to advocate Christian-based truths and values with "missionary zeal". Later he urged anti-abortionists to get themselves on the
party's preselection panels.

The Liberal Party has been a broad church, drawing the line at admitting avowed racists. But it has seen its primary business as running the country - or state - not as imposing a moral agenda. For all the inroads of the religious right into politics, they have not triumphed as have their US counterparts in inflicting their program on everything from sex education to foreign aid.

But now NSW Liberals who don't ascribe to the program are being forced out of the party. Those whose main concerns are taxes, the state economy, trains, hospitals, the usual business of government, are being sidelined, no matter how competent.

Alex Hawke, the right-wing national president of the Young Liberals who is on Clarke's staff, has said, "If people want to legalise drug injecting rooms, lower the age of consent, go with all these trendy things, this is not the party that believes in those things. We're not that broad." They could, Hawke said, "choose the Greens, Labor or Democrats".

Ryan voted in favour of the heroin injecting room trial, and, after consulting the Bible, in favour of lowering the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16. He said last year he did not believe the Liberal Party should be a vehicle for "propagating the gospel". Nor did he think that "simply because you're a Christian, therefore you have to have a conservative view about society".

Now he is being punished. He is under threat of being dumped altogether in coming preselections for the Legislative Council. At best, he is to be moved into a new
province where preselection rules are more difficult. His old area will be handed over to the moral conservative Charlie Lynn, Clarke's right-hand man, an MP who has
achieved little in a decade.

These are sad days indeed for NSW Liberals, and NSW citizens generally. The state badly needs an electable opposition.

Aussie demagogue

Word of the Day ...

demagogue \DEM-uh-gog\, noun:
1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
2. A leader of the common people in ancient times.
A consummate demagogue, McCarthy played upon cold war emotions and made charges so fantastic that frightened people believed the worst.
--Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy

Even when he showed his true colors as a demagogue and trickster, Stalin did so in such a crisp and weighty, confidence-inspiring manner that he bewitched not only his conversational partner but himself as well.
--Milovan Djilas, Fall of the New Class

John Howard may not have gained the Prime Ministership by being a demagogue in the 1996 election, but he has certainly acquired and eloquently used such a status to win successive elections. He continues to use emotions and prejudices to erode the civil liberties of Australian citizens; reinforce his position of leadership by lying to the populace; and otherwise manipulate world events to support his cause.

Has Australia ever witnessed a greater demagogue than John Winston Howard?

David Clarke on the backfoot

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
LATELINE TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
Broadcast: 05/09/2005

Clarke denies denigrating Jews, homosexuals
Reporter: Tom Iggulden

TONY JONES: Tony Abbott's comments and subsequent apology are just the latest events in a row which has engulfed the NSW Liberal Party. John Brogden's political demise revealed divisions and disunity and claims that a far-right wing, religious faction was engaged in a bitter battle for control. The man said to be at the centre of that conservative push is David Clarke. Tom Iggulden reports.

TOM IGGULDEN: This was David Clarke, the suburban solicitor, in the late 1970s, posing at a function for the Liberal Party's ethnic council with this man, Ljenko Urbancic. And this is Mr Urbancic in 1986, admitting to the ABC's 'Four Corners' of his involvement with Leon Rupnik, the World War II Slovenian Nazi General.

LJENKO URBANCIC: I did follow Rupnik and I thought it was correct thing to do at that particular time.

TOM IGGULDEN: These pictures are from last year's inaugural meeting of the Bankstown branch of the Liberal Party, attended by David Clarke after his election to the NSW parliament. Police were called when the meeting decended into fisticuffs after conservative Liberal followers of Mr Clarke clashed with moderate party members, who had accused them of branch stacking. And when moderate Liberal John Brogden quit as leader, he made no secret that he held a senior staff member in David Clarke's office responsible.

JOHN BROGDEN, FORMER NSW LIBERAL PARTY LEADER: The federal president of the Young Liberal movement, Alex Hawke, has been named as pushing it. He needs to take a long, hard look at himself.

TOM IGGULDEN: Now there's new claims by a former Liberal Party colleague who's told Lateline that Mr Clarke proposed exploiting Muslim sentiments about Jewish people and homosexuals to recruit Labor-voting Muslims to the Liberal Party.

IRFAN YUSUF, FORMER LIBERAL PARTY MEMBER: I guess in my case, or in the cases that he could side with Islamics, he sort of presumed that, "Oh, well. If you want to get the Arabs in or the Muslims in, then you just tell them that the Howard Government -" or that he in particular, or the people that he is associated with, perhaps -
"weren't all that fond of people of Jewish background."

TOM IGGULDEN: Tonight, Mr Clarke released a statement to Lateline declaring: "I first met Mr Irfan Yusuf a number of years ago when he was a member of the Liberal Party. He has sinced parted company with the Liberal Party and for some years has been running an escalating campaign of denigration against the party and in particular against myself. I categorically deny making derogatory remarks to him about Jews and homosexuals, or encouraging him to sign up Labor Party members as member of the Liberal Party. His allegations are outrageous lies.

TOM IGGULDEN: Mr Clarke's activities have made enemies among current colleagues.

PATRICIA FORSYTH, NSW MLA: When I talk of extremism and I talk of zealots, I'm talking about a group of people who in my view seem to lack a focus on normal, human decency.

TOM IGGULDEN: But Mr Clarke, a member of the catholic sect Opus Dei, has some high-profile supporters.

TONY ABBOTT, HEALTH MINISTER: There is nothing wrong with the NSW Upper House member David Clarke simply because he goes to church on Sunday and simply because he shares some views not uncommon among some decent members of the political party sitting opposite me now.

TOM IGGULDEN: But former federal Liberal leader John Hewson says that claim by Tony Abbott has a dangerous precedent.

JOHN HEWSON, FORMER LIBERAL LEADER: No, they said the same thing about Pauline Hanson.

TOM IGGULDEN: And Dr Hewson says the religious right is a growing influence in the NSW Liberal party. Tom Iggulden, Lateline.

Lay off Douglas Wood!

The current debate on whether Douglas Wood should contribute to the costs of his "rescue" is insulting and ridiculous!




Firstly, by the mixed and loosely factual accounts presented in the media, his release could, at best, be described as accidental good fortune. There appears to be little, if any, corroboration of specific intelligence that led to his "rescue". Any such intelligence was more related to the location of insurgents, who just happened to be holding Mr Wood. Their mission was to engage some suspects. Finding Mr Wood was a bonus.



Secondly, and probably more importantly, he was released by Iraqi forces, with the aid of coalition (presumably all US) military. Not a single Australian seems to have been involved in that manouvre. There seems to be no suggestion that Australians were even responsible for the intelligence that sparked the routine mission.



The third point is that, despite Mr Wood being a resident of the USA, it is the duty and reponsibility of the Commonwealth of Australia to protect and serve its citizens, no matter where they are or what their circumstances. Be it Schappelle Corby in an Indonesian prison, Douglas Wood in Iraq, or John Howard visiting the Whitehouse! There should be absolutely no expectation for any citizen to be faced with a bill for what is their inarguable right.



Before I conclude, I will point out, if you can't already see, the hypocrisy of demanding that Mr Wood not be able to profit from his traumatic experience while not a single complaint was heard about similar profiteering by victims like Stuart Diver. What is next? Will the emergency services be sending a bill to people rescued from armed hold-ups or if they fall over a cliff in a national park? Crazy stuff!



We have laws in Australia to prevent criminals from profiteering from their crimes, but Mr Wood is not a criminal, so why should we treat him like one? It is deplorable that we do!



I can only conclude that this is some form of bizarre tall-poppy syndrome. Douglas Wood is safe and seems to be physically none-the-worse for wear. Had he been brutalised, had a limb or two chopped off or suffering severe mental trauma, our sympathy would have overridden any whisper of reimbursing tax-payers. Perhaps it is because he and his family appear to have more than enough for themselves that we want a little for us.



Is it jealousy or greed that is fuelling this obscene call to diminsh this man's harrowing experience? Either way, it has to stop!




[+/-] show/hide this post

The Tsunami


I've been waiting to write something about the Tsunami. Words are often meaningless in such tragedies. Actions are the only comfort.



For once my admiration goes to John Howard and the Liberal government for their ability to comprehend the enormity of the situation and commit to a pledge of at least $1 billion for Indonesia. Finally Australia is showing signs of growing into a mature and responsible nation.



The death toll is sure to exceed 200,000 when the count is finalised with many more (probably running into the millions) who are seriously injured, homeless, grieving loved ones, or affected by hunger, thirst and disease.



Peace to those taken by nature's chaos, and peace to those left behind to rebuild their lives.

PM admits donations influence policy


This quote from John Howard in an interview with Laurie Oakes on Sunday says more than intended:



"The old idea that big companies only gave to the Liberal Party is no longer the case. Many of them don’t give at all now, which I think is a shame because they are affected by government policy."



The context was in reference to a proposal by workplace relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, to legislate against unions making political donations without their members consent. But clearly such a proposal would require a similar consent from shareholders for corporate donations, as pointed out by Crikey today.



None of this is particularly intriguing, however the inference and/or implied fact of Howard's statement places the lid of Pandora's box slightly ajar!



Why does Howard find it a shame that large corporations no longer make substantial political donations given, as he states, that they are "affected by government policy"? I think he is doing more than just stating the obvious. Howard is unoubtedly saying that corporations should donate if they want a say in policy.



What else could he possibly mean?






[+/-] show/hide this post

It's Maslow, stupid!


It takes a rare piece of journalism or opinion to make me stand back, reassess my own attitudes and finally to change my stance.



This piece in The Age today, does just that.


What Australian and US voters now crave

The Age - November 11, 2004

The left has failed to recognise society's need for a sense of social and moral order, writes Gregory Hywood.


But I'm going to take it further than the author does. It is more than just morality being sought, it is the wider umbrella of safety and security - the need to be protected.




It is clear to me now that we (the libertarian progressive left) have been going about the last few months (years even) with our heads stuck so far up our arse that we couldn't see what was really changing in Australia, let alone the rest of the world.



I'm not saying that we are wrong, just that we need to rethink the issues that are important to voters. I think Abraham Maslow might have the answer.



When an economy is doing well (as has the USA and Australia) basic needs, such as food, water, sleep etc, are mostly met and few want for much. Such is the first level of Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" - the physiological.



The next concern is that of safety. We desire the need for a secure home and a family. Refugees stuck in a detention centre are clear examples of those who desire this basic need. But middle Australia also, in its own way are being failed at this basic level, because national security and moral grounding are also tenets of safety.



When both physiological and safety needs are met, we tend to aim for love or inclusion - we need to feel we belong. That is part of the reason for creating a family. It is also why people joing sports clubs, community organisations and churches.



After that is met we focus on our esteem and we seek to improve this by the clothes we wear, the car we drive, the house we live in, the job we have. The luxuries in life that tell society "what and who we are". We give ourselves status.



Finally, if we can ever fulfil those four needs we can then seek 'self-actualisation'. We seek to improve ourselves, not by physical stuff but mentally and spiritually. Self-fulfilment, peace, knowledge etc.



It is becoming clear to me that the stereotypical "leftie" is predominantly coming from a higher level on Maslow's hierarchy. We are campaigning for how WE want the world to be by fighting for human rights and debating high-brow issues like stem-cell research and the war in Iraq. We are the Chardonnay set.



However, middle-Australia (as with the majority middle in the USA) are still scrambling to meet their needs for safety and belongingness. Quite often they are trying to aim for esteem needs (by purchasing plasma screens with surround sound) in the hope that it will fill the other hole in their life. But they are ahead of themselves. They turn to materialism because they cannot answer the need for safety and security for their family.



They are so hocked up (average debt is 140% of the average Australian's income compared with 50% two decades ago) that if interest rates rise by 1/4 of a point they will need to work an extra shift to pay for it.



These people, the majority of voters, do not care that Howard lies, as long as he keeps the economy safe. They've had enough of saving the trees and the rivers, they want someone to keep interest rates low and employment high. They have no need to understand the plight of refugees or the Sudanese because they are rightly concerned about their own plight. Charity must begin at home.



So how do we, the high and mighty lefties turn the focus from our pet projects (war, free trade agreements, old growth forests, medicare gold, gay rights, Telstra, ABC funding, etc) and towards the things that matter to THEM?



It's their sense of security, stupid!



Until all those millions of middle-Australia voters feel secure enough with their lot to comfortably move onto the esteem train, or even the self-actualization shuttle, we will be fighting a lost cause campaigning for the esoteric, the altruistic and the utopian.



The reason that we had the human rights boom of the 50's and 60's is precisely because the economy was sound and families were not under financial pressure. They had the time, the money and the desire to move past esteem-building and into promoting self-actualisation.



At the moment we are trying to pull down the upper-class in order to
haul the lower class up Maslow's ladder - over top of the middle
class, even! If instead we choose to help middle-Australia to move
beyond their safety-net concerns, they will undoubtedly turn around
and assist the lower class to move up.



How do we do it? I'm honestly not sure. But sitting in our ivory towers drinking Chardonnay and discussing the rights and wrongs of the world ain't cuttin' the mustard.



We need to be forming progressive economic policy that can be implemented step by step. E.g. While a Tobin tax is a great idea we need to realise that it isn't going to happen soon. However, income splitting is plausible and possible. An overhaul of the tax brackets to link them with CPI is a valid proposal. But these are just some of the ideas that need to be promoted and they require strong campaigns.



As much as I despise the religious right, I must admit that Family First seem to be on the right track. Their policies are in line with the strategy I've outlined above. They are off the blocks and racing ahead while we are left scratching our heads and wondering why everyone has shifted to the right.



They haven't! They've just voted for the people that are listening. We've stopped listening because we are spending too much time preaching about the things that DON'T matter (at the moment) to the average Australian. Us lefties are simply ahead of schedule in being too progressive for the issues that are not high priority and we've forgotten what really matters to the voters that count.



It reminds me of a human resource philosophy I learned many years ago ... a happy employee is an effective employee. If an employee is having trouble paying the mortgage, it will reflect in their work and they are less likely to be enthusiastic, effective or charitable to colleagues that may need help.



The same goes for voters - the Australian public. A happy Australian will be more enthusiastic, more effective in their work and home life and more likely to take an interest in current affairs, social issues and the plight of those less fortunate.



To that end, I'm making a big commitment to focus my energies on assisting the necessary reforms to shift mainstream Australia out of the safety mindset and into the esteem and self-actualisation phases. That can only be achieved by focussing my energy on domestic issues, especially pertaining to the economy.



I'm basing that strategy on the hope that once in these higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy, Australians will be content to support the greater causes in life. I could be wrong, but I'm hoping I'm right.




[+/-] show/hide this post

News Wrap


Here's a few quips relating to current news items:



Aussie jailed for Nigerian email scam

GOOD! But it won't stop others from continuing the spam and convincing more suckers to part with their money. Try as hard as we might, we can't legislate against common stupidity.



Local councils vote to boycott James Hardie over compensation fund.

Great! At least the local government sector knows how to make their opinion felt by the corporate crims. Is there any way we can boycott the Howard government by not buying their crap? Oh, that's right ... we had our chance a month ago, didn't we? DOH!



The Reserve Bank holds interest rates until 2005.

Phew! Thousands of debt-ridden families breathe a huge sigh of relief ... now they can max out their credit cards over Christmas completely guilt free!




Howard Pulls Reins in Senate


Credit where it is due, the Democrats have come out slamming the government for its contempt of the Senate by allocating merely 55 days of sitting time for next year.



The ABC reports that Senator Bartlett accuses the Government of progressively weakening Parliament before it takes control of the Senate in July.



It is a clear signal of how the new Howard regime is planning to run Australia for the next three to six years, with very little influence from the Senate.


Cheshire lap dog


So, a victory for Bush is a win for anti-terror according to our own Napoleonic leader. Does that mean a victory for Kerry would have been a win for terror? Surely the Prime Minister isn't implying that someone other than Bush couldn't also be 'anti-terror'. Does one have to be a war-monger motivated by commercial interests in order to be against terrorism?




Howard is going to need a rest from all this excitement or his heart might give way. At the very least he's likely to suffer facial paralysis if he continues to grin wider than the Cheshire Cat! The man has never been happier. Not only has he stormed into a fourth term with an increased majority and control of the Senate, Howard almost wet his pants at the opportunity to call his pal George and congratulate him.



It reminds me of this nerdy kid in high school who no-one liked. Everyone used to make fun of him and he was always the last to be picked for team sports. One of the school prefects decided to 'adopt him' and looked after him a bit. The nerdy kid used to walk to school carrying the prefect's bags and hang out at lunch time running errands for him. It made him feel really important and loved. After that no-one really picked on him quite as much.



The sad thing is that when the nerd was out of earshot, the prefect would joke with his friends about the nerd and slag him off, calling him a mascot, or a pet dog. The nerd never knew how little he was respected and that he was merely a slave to the older child's whims.



It really is sad to see Howard in the same light as the docile dog sitting patiently by its master's heel, waiting on his every word and salivating for a little treat or a pat on the head.



Ok .. so I lied. There was no such situation; no nerd and no prefect. In fact the whole story is completely made up. But it was a damn good analogy nonetheless, and Howard is still a bloody lap dog ... a Cheshire lap dog!!








[+/-] show/hide this post

Counterstrike


Graham, of the Ambit Gambit, condemns the call from the Green Left Weekly to engage in "better organised and more determined protest movements". He claims that such a reaction would "most likely help Howard, or Costello, to another victory".



His logic?





Voters by and large know what they are getting when they vote for someone ... They know that when you vote for a politician ... You vote for them on the basis of a package ... you take that package because it is better than the other package. (Or more probably less worse.)




This argument assumes that voters are well-informed, educated, politically savvy, and able to weigh up the best interests of the nation against their own selfish desires. Unfortunately most do not fit all of those characteristics and few can claim to hold more than one.



The media and the pollies are well aware of the reality and they use it to their own advantage every election and many times inbetween. Most voters have rarely, if ever, watched or read a substantive political analysis of any major issue relevant to an impending election. Most would rather flick the remote to watch some less-than-real soap drama or the footy.



Of one thing though, Graham is accurate.



Voters don't take kindly to some "revolutionary" smarty pants coming along and telling them they were too stupid to exercise their vote wisely. They also don't appreciate it when they are told that their neighbours didn't exercise their vote wisely so that even if they didn't agree with how they exercised that vote, they will get in behind it if it is challenged.




I have raised this fact in a previous posting here in condemnation of Andrew Bartlett's blame of voters. It was interesting to read in the West Australian that the Greens' new Senator, Rachel Seiwart, has also come out slamming voters for getting it wrong. Not a great way to say thank you, nor to ensure your return in 6 years time.




[+/-] show/hide this post

Green predicts Senate reform


A disturbing prophecy today from Australia's prescient pollster, Antony Green, who suggests that Howard might (and even should) overhaul the way the Senate is elected and represented.






"There may now be a push by the Government to change the electoral system, perhaps electing senators from electorates or by introducing minimum electoral quotas to keep minor parties out."




Normally I'd praise Green for his unique insight and depth of knowledge, but on this issue I'm remaining wary. This concept is fraught with danger for Australia's internationally respected version of the Westminster system.



The Australian Constitution protects the States' House only in so much as ensuring that each original state has an equal number of Senators elected for a period of 6 years each. The details of how the Senate is elected is predominantly left up to the Federal Parliament. Any power the States may hold is generally thought to be overshadowed by the power of the Commonwealth.



This potentially gives the Howard Government the opportunity to do as they please, even going so far as to replicate Queensland's infamous gerrymander. I doubt Howard would be that audacious, but who can predict what the Coalition might do with their new-found power.



Certainly, removing the strong system of proportional representation would eliminate the annoyance of minor parties ever holding the balance of power, but as Green rightly addresses, it could equally give the opposition a stronger foothold, thus forcing the Senate to be more obstructionist than it has ever been.


Antony Green strongly suggests reform is needed to eliminate the bizarre results that have occurred through the preference deals between ideological strangers. In his opening statement he states that:


"Preference voting deals are starting to distort rather than reflect the will of the electorate"


The importance of this conclusion is not revealed until further into his article and is overshadowed by the perceived threat of Howard making the Senate less representative and subsequently far less democratic. However, he does eventually state that the real problem is "above-the-line" (ATL) voting and related party voting tickets.



The problems associated with ATL voting are numerous. Of most importance is the disenfranchisement of the uneducated voter. A vote ATL for one's party of choice can equate to that vote ending with the least preferred party. This is a lazy vote that defers democracy to the party machine and its backroom deals. The majority of voters are unaware of where these preferences go, let alone how the system works.



The real issue, and thus the real solution, is to improve the voting system, rather than reform the representation, electorates or quotas. Simply eliminating party voting tickets would give full democracy back to the people.



This is not to say that we should eliminate ATL voting. The reality is that the growing number of candidates and groups appearing at each election makes it increasingly more difficult to number all squares in a sensible fashion without risking the validity of the vote.



Above the line voting can remain, but instead by making the entire Senate vote optional preferential we can ensure that only those groups (above the line) or individual candiates (below the line) that are deserving of a voter's preference actually enjoy the receipt of such. If an elector were to mark three groups (as an example) above the line it would indicate that the preferences would flow in the order of candidates marked under each grouping with the remaining groups unworthy of that elector's vote.


Arguably this would mean fewer preference flows to the final places, however a more accurate reflection of voter intention would only serve to enhance democracy.


It is undeniably a simple solution to an increasingly troublesome problem. But is it in the best interests of the Government or opposition of the day? Hardly! However, it is in the best interests of a more representative Senate, the constituency, voter sanity and ultimately the security of Australian democracy.



One caveat ... any changes to the Senate must be viewed with extreme caution. Our forebears were well-advised to establish such a unique house of review. We would be poorer for its loss or any weakening of its structure. We can only benefit from strengthening its representation and simplifying the process for the electors.






[+/-] show/hide this post


Lees and Democrats cover denial with blame


Perhaps I'm over the whole Democrats fiasco, but Meg Lees' latest "don't blame me, I'm not a Democrat" defence is more entertaining than Pauline Hanson looking for Xenophobia in an Arabic dictionary. It was a predictable move as Lees is the champion of plausible deniability.




What was less predictable is the frantic scurrying of the four isolated Senators (Lees, Murphy, Harradine and Harris) trying to leave their final mark on Australia before surrendering their seats in July next year.



We may all wonder what they hope to gain from reopening negotiations on media ownership (and probably every other shelved bill) before the Government can wield full control of the Senate. Whatever it is they hope to achieve, it certainly won't render the legislation any less offensive to Australia's best interests than we would expect under a Coalition run Senate. Are they posturing or simply naive?



Meanwhile the eternally optimistic and teetotalling gothic Democrats leader, Andrew Bartlett, continues to herald the return of the party in 3 years time by implying that voters will soon realise their mistake when Howard pushes through with his bad reforms.



Fair go, Andrew! First you stuff the Democrats around playing suckup to Andrew "Doberman" Murray, then you carelessly forget why the Party was in turmoil and do nothing to repair the damage. Now you want to blame the voters for abandoning a sinking ship?



The demise of the Democrats can only be blamed on the party processes that stifled the one principle that set it apart from any other party - member led democracy. The numerous books expected to be published over the coming years will provide a welcome analysis of this and other factors as we bid a long goodbye to the party once hailed for 'keeping the bastards honest'. Becoming one of the bastards was, perhaps, a natural progression in the evolution of politics.




[+/-] show/hide this post


Crystal ball gazing


It seems that the Coalition is going to secure its 39th Senate seat and will not need to rely on Family First to support any future legislation. This gives them a clear run to introduce, nay force, any number of draconian or regressive measures it likes.




As of the 1st July 2005, bar any miraculous conscientious objectors from the coalition getting in the way, Howard will have absolute, unfettered power. Australia will be the loser. All we can hope is that he plays it cool and keeps his hand firmly by his side, lest he reveal more of his Napoleonic traits.



What this will mean for various issues is anyone's guess. Telstra will undoubtedly be sold, but the devil is in the detail. The whispers of a break-up of the public telco could mean anything, for better or for worse.



Industrial relations is high on the agenda, but just how far he is prepared to go in this term is undecided. How badly does he want that fifth term of government? Even Whitlam concedes that Labor will be in opposition for another two terms.



And then we have foreign ownership laws, especially relating to the media. Analysts have been expecting Telstra to move into a traditional media presence, but the way in might be from reverse. Will Howard give the green light for the future USA-based News Ltd to take up a signicant piece of the Telstra pie? Are they interested?



It might herald the end of Australian culture as we know it, be it as weak as it currently is. BHP is no longer the Great Australian, our Aussie foods (like Vegemite and Arnotts) belong to others. Our entertainers must migrate to Hollywood and the UK to fuel their success, and not to mention the great brain drain that sees our intellectual property fail to carry a "Proudly Australian" badge. Even the Wiggles are Americanising their songs with themes of Central Park and being a New York fire-fighter, so why not rob us of more of the great Aussie spirit?



Hold on to your seats, Australia! We might be in for a bumpy ride.






[+/-] show/hide this post

Balance of powers between States and Commonwealth

There is a silver lining to the Coalition's recent victory. It seems that we may get a more reasonable separation of powers between the Federal and State Governments, if a proposal by NSW Premier, Bob Carr, is given some legs by other State leaders and Howard.

Reports today stated that Carr has offered to trade powers with Canberra in order to "tidy up" overlapping policy areas such as health and education.

It has long been my belief that the Federal Government is best placed to handle a wide range of public services, including health and education. In this regard, whilst I applaud Carr's initiative, I don't think it goes far enough.

Health and Education are two policy areas that should be uniform across Australia. As such they are best managed by the Federal Government. The benefits are enormous.

In the area of health it would mean full integration with the Medicare system and uniform standards of health care across the nation. Medical staff would be on equitable employment terms as their counterparts in other states, thus reducing the drain of resources from states like WA.

As for education, it could provide a seamless transition for students from early childcare through to tertiary and post-graduate education. It would make it much easier for itinerant families and those migrating between the states. Uniform standards of education would eliminate the confusion between grading systems and allow teaching staff wider opportunities for promotion and self-development.

In both cases the it is the clients (patients and students) especially that would reap the benefits of a standard system. However, the resulting centralisation of 9 or more separate bureaucracies for health and at least a further 20 or so in regards to education is ultimately a big win for reducing the size of government and the related budget.

Additionally if this were to be extended to other areas of controversial powers it could only enhance the working relationship between the States and the Commonwealth. An example of this are Federal laws that have been implemented under s51xxix, External Affairs, of the Constitution to specifically over-ride State laws.

Finally, the ultimate benefit to the general public and the States (but a possible negative for the Commonwealth) is that the buck can no longer be passed between Canberra and the States. There's only one government to blame if things don't improve. I like that idea the best.

Of course, the devil is in the detail and I'm sure there are many factors that need to be considered, fought out and won or lost before we get anywhere near enjoying the fruition of this dream.

I agree with Howard!


Howard has a new catch phrase that he's been bandying around since his National Press Club Telstra Address yesterday:



There are still people out there who are undecided, I want them to contemplate if you do change the Government you change the nation.


Never wiser words spoken!


... so, this election, lets change the nation - for the better!

Anti-Howard mania


Every day closer to the election just seems to bring more anti-Howard sentiment, but at the same time, the polls are at best even and, at worse, in favour of the Coalition. It is a strange world in which we live.



The latest anti-Howard piece came across my inbox this morning with a suggestion to visit howardbush.com. The stunning graphic on the site is very romantic and because it really touched me, I'm linking it here as a reminder of a true love story.









It got me thinking about all the other anti-Howard sites so I decided to make a comprehensive list of them here. I didn't have to search far, as one of the first sites I came across was Troy Rollo (Independent Candidate For Bennelong, 2004). Troy has already compiled an extensive list, so at the risk of being repetitive (and lazy) I've copied it below. If you know of any others please let Troy know by sending him an email or leave a comment here and I'll pass it on to him.



The Green Left has a similar list here and Scum At The Top provides a more extensive list of political satire for Australia and abroad, including some fine stuff on Howard.



Troy's List of Anti-Howard Sites




Plus some extras ...




There's also some good political paraphenalia at Polichicks that should put a smile on your dial!


Its only two more sleeps until polling day. Good luck to Troy and ALL the candidates opposing Howard in the seat of Bennelong and elsewhere :-)






[+/-] show/hide this post