Earth Hour 2009

Last night was Earth Hour - the hour when people and organizations are encouraged turn off as much electrical equipment & lights. It is a promotion to help remind us about global warming and of our need to reduce our carbon emissions. (http://www.earthhour.org/)

As a political and environmental point, it has become an important symbol.

But it's not enough! Unless people and organizations make changes - drive less, use more economical transport, turn off appliances and lights, use less packaging, and recycle more - one hour, one day a year will make little difference.

The same for organizations - if it's acceptable to turn off most lights in empty buildings at night for one hour, why is it not aceptable every night? Security lighting is important, but it does not need every light, in every room, on every floor, every night! Electricity companies will say they need it, because they need to provide base load electricty from their mostly coal-fired, power generators. This is like the cart driving the horse. But if we set our base-load demand on our needs, not those of electricity companies, then they will have to adapt. That adaptation will result is less electricty being made from coal, and more from other sources during the day.

Governments have a role to play, by setting appropriate social, environmental and taxation policies. The coal industry donates $millions to our political parties and politicians; and governments and politicians want to sell electricity assets, so it is unlikely there will be significant action. If that sounds cynical, consider the following quote, from George Beranrd Shaw: "The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it."

I encourage to to change your habits - it'll be good for the environment, & you'll pay less in bills, too. Oh - and that would increase company profits too.

Some Earth Hour 200 photos can be found at:
http://sanpedrosun.blogspot.com/2009/03/earth-hour-2009.html
http://www.flickr.com/groups/earthhour2009global/

John

Fielding's Big Month: No, No, Yes

Family First Senator Steve Fielding has had a big month, and he's loved all the attention from the Government, and the media.

1. Political Donations

Senator Fielding voted with the Opposition to defeat a bill that would have improved the reporting and openness of political donations. Here, Senator Fielding has apparently acted in the interests of the Family First party. On 14-March-09, the Sydney Morning Herald asked Senator Fielding revealed that the Victorian branch of Family First declared "total receipts of $284,758. It disclosed one receipt above $10,500: a $100,000 donation from company director Jehan Salib. That left $184,758 in undisclosed receipts." Questions from the Herald apparently elicited a game of pass the parcel, which eventually returned to Senator Fielding, who refused to answer. Senator Fielding had previously said, on his blog:

“We need protection against political donations...we really have call these 'donations' by their proper names - inducements or bribes. They are used to buy favour or policy…” Sen. Steve Fielding http://stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/3/

Senator Fielding voted against legislation to reduce the disclosure limit to $1000, and remove a tax deduction for donations to political parties of up to $15000.


2. The Alcopop Tax

Senator Fielding flexed his 'sole-senator' muscles and refused to vote for the increases in the alcopop tax. The government would not yield to his demands to ban alcohol advertising during sports broadcasts., Along with the Coalition opposition, he voted against the legislation. About $140 million in already-collected taxes has to be returned to the brewing industry.

Senator Fielding argues that binge drinking is not a tax problem. "It's a culture problem and breaking the back and the link between alcohol and sport is absolutely critical for all Australian families". But taxation is one of the tools used by government in social policy, and while the selective taxation of alcopops is not an ideal solution, Senator Fielding could have voted for it, with a negotiated sunset clause after the full review of taxation. That is, if the legislation were an interim measure, where it had some chance of achieving a reduction in excessive consumption.

3. WorkChoices is Dead

Senator Fielding voted with the Government to pass the Fair Work bill, which replaces, and undoes much of, the Coalition's WorkChoices, introduced without mandate by John Howard in 2006. Immediately after the election of Kevin Rudd's government in 2007, most of the Opposition, including current leader Malcolm Turnbull, and Joe Hockey, declared that WorkChoices is dead (as a policy). Yet they voted against the government's replacement, the Fair Work Bill, because Peter Costello and the right wing of the Liberal Party have dragged the moderates much further to the right than they wanted. They hope to resurrect the WorkChoices corpse after some future election. (probably under then new leader Peter Costello)

Senator Fielding was elected with less than 1.8% of the primary senate vote, and Labor preferences. Labor is unlikely to give him any preferences next Senate election, or if there is a double dissolution of Parliament (unlikely)

John

Costello - Puppet or Puppeteer?

Peter Costello just won't go away. He does, after all, love the media attention; and the fawning of right-wing neo-liberals in the party. Much has been made of the fact that Peter Costello won't comment about leadership speculation, but he doesn't have to: his acolytes will continue to talk about it, and elements within the media keep driving it as a "story".

Costelo, or his followers, have dragged Malcolm Turnbull's leadership away from the more reasonable centre-right, small-l Liberalism, back towards the more extreme neo-liberalist views of Costello. The Liberal Party's, and Turnbull's, position on each of the following has lurched to the right because of Costello's influence: the economic stimulus, fair workplace legislation, and climate change.


Foreign Minister Stephen Smith is reported as saying that the federal opposition's position on several key issues won't change even if Peter Costello became their new leader. Well, yes; given that Costello has effecgtively dragged the Liberal Party to his right-wing policies on these issues.


But is Peter Costello simply being a right-wing idealogue, using his supporters to effect right-wing changes in policy? Or, is Peter Costello a tool of the right-wing to wrest power from the more moderate Turnbull? His seemingly increasing support from within the party is testament to the work of his acolytes. That Malcolm Turnbull is looking over his shoulder indicates his tenure is likely to be replaced sooner, rather than later, pehaps after the (7-week!) autumn break from Parliament.

See also:
http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2009/02/costello-right-wing-rallying-point.html
http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2009/01/turnbulls-reds-under-bed-scare.html


John

Footballers, Alcohol And Clubs

Manly rugby league player Brett Stewar has been charged with the sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl, who lives in the same apartment block as he. After several days, the NSWRL has suspended Stewart, after Manly indicated it would select Stewart to play this Friday. The NSWRL is concerned about bad publicity, and trouble at the game against the Bulldogs (Canterbury). Some social networking site users have reportedly planned to target Stewart.

There is a significant history with football players and alcohol. Todd Carney has just been sentenced by a Goulburn court for damage to property, including shop fronts and a car. He claims he couldn't remember the incidents because he was drunk. Among other conditions, Carney is not to return to Goulburn for 12 months, and to seek alcohol counselling. Yet, he is going to North Queensland to play for a district club ... and work in a pub! Presumably the QRL sees no problem with this, even given conditions of his sentence.

Bigger questions arise:

• are pubs or clubs legally liable for players being drunk at official club functions?
• what liability exists for allowing, even forcing, players, members or visitors to leave drunk?
• how do those serving alcohol determine sufficient drunkenness to refuse alcohol?
• what responsibility does any sporting organisation, club, or pub have to meet national guidelines for the consumption of alcohol?
• if a club knowingly allows players to become drunk at an official function, and a player subsequently commits acts of violence, does the club bear any civil liability?

Ho much alcohol is "too much", and which could affect your health, and ability to function appropriately in society? A study commissionied by the NHMRC found that

"For males, the average daily intake should not exceed a level between 25g and 45g per day"
(http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/alc-comp.pdf , p55)

This is about 2-4 standard drinks on any day, given a "standard drink" in the same study was defined as one having 10g of pure alcohol.

Alcohol remains a serious problem, for all sporting asociations and clubs, and, it seems, especially for rugby league!

John

Housing Credit

The HIA expects that there will still be tough times in 2009/10, but that the market is showing some resilience, possible due to temporary increases in the first home buyers grants for existing, and new, housing.

Low interest rates, and rising rents due to shortages of rental accommodation are also encouraging people to consider buying - sorry, Government House, Sydney, (pictured) is not for sale!

But there are still significant risks for buyers:

• the mortgage provider sector is still subject to full or partial takeovers, mostly by the big banks. For example, the Commonwealth Bank has taken a $2.5 billion portion of the Wizard Home Loans portfolio from GE Money, from the start of this month.


• While mortgage interest rates are at a generational low, as the economy recovers, interest rates will likely rise again. The "stress test" is, could you make the extra required if interest rates went up 2%? As interest rates rise, it is probable that the number of problem loans will increase.


• Buyers with less than 10% deposit, not including the first home buyers grant, will need to factor in the cost of mortgage insurance. Mortgage insurance covers the lender, not the borrower!


• Building insurance costs are set to increase, as insurance companies cry poor after claims are aid from flooding in north Queensland, and the fires in Victoria. (they also insure in case of large disaster payouts, but will cry poor to the public to justify the increase)


• The Australian economy will likely still deteriorate in 2009 -2010. Recovery, when it comes, will likely not arrive till the second half of 2010, and be felt until 2011.

It is likely that this is a good time to buy, IF you have the 10% deposit, IF you don't want too much house, IF you can afford the repayments, IF you can pass the "stress test"; IF you can cover the insurance - just do your "homework", so to speak. Lenders, at least, are being less reckless than they were; and that is a good thing.

John

Costello A Right-Wing Rallying Point

Peter Costello is loving the attention he's getting - well, he loves the media attention, and cannot hold back the trademark smirk whenever he's interviewed. He won't have liked the open letter from former Liberal Party leader, John Hewson. (Hewson lost the 1993 election to Paul Keating)
The letter is at http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/disloyal-lazy-no-balls-its-time-to-move-on-peter-20090221-8e6v.html?page=-1 .

Costello's real problems are:

• He's seen by many voters as having missed his chances by about 5 years. (while John Howard was Prime Minister, he did not challenge, even when it became obvious that voter support for Howard was declining)
• While John Howard was PM, Howard was the rallying point for all far-Right wing members of the Liberal Party; Howard exercised considerable control, and would send henchman Senator Bill Heffernan to see anyone who looked like breaking rank. A good dose of raised voice, abusive language and archetypal workplace bullying from Heffernan would see faltering members fall into line. Costello was seen as more centre-right, and became a rallying point for the 'small-l'-liberals and centrists within the party. They saw him as "less bad" than Howard.
• Now that Howard is gone, and the Liberal-led Opposition has a ' l '-liberal leader, Costello has become the rallying point of the far-Right. Costello was never a bleeding-heart Liberal: indeed, he wanted to make WorkChoices even more extreme than Howard, but the far-Right loved Howard.
• Costello is losing, or has lost, relevence. He has chosen not to be a member of the Opposition front bench. Voters might well see him as just a showman for the media; all smirk and raised arms, but not a viable leader.

John Hewson might well be right when he says, in his open letter:

You have only ever had a minimal support base and that base has been further
and terminally eroded by your disloyalty, antics and shenanigans of the last
year or so. ... the best you can now do to help our chances is to leave.

If Costello goes, the problem for the far-Right will be to find someone, anyone, to hoist their flag of tarnished policies. Tarnished policies + no leader = no power!


John

Bishop Shafted, Hockey Scores

Deputy Leader of the Federal Liberal party, Julie Bishop, has resigned as Shadow Treasurer, and taken up the post of Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Her move came after considerable destabilizing from within. Ms Bishop had been ineffective, and made fundamental economic mistakes, as Shadow Treasurer. Joe Hockey, who has replaced her as Shadow Treasurer, is one who spoke to the media last week about the need for Ms Bishop to go. It was said publicly that she could remain as Deputy Leader if she went. Julie Bishop was shafted, because the quiet approach didn't work - it almost never does with politicians.

Ms Bishop said it was her decision to resign as Shadow Treasurer. But sometimes the decisions are made for you, by others. So, too, with her choice of portfolio - Shadow Minister for Foreign affairs: given Australia's, and the world's focus on matters economic, Ms Bishop will not have to say much.

It might well be that her tenure as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is shaky. A Deputy with a relatively low profile, and not much to say, probably won't be Deputy for very long.

For his part, Joe Hockey has a softer (cuddlier?) media image, presents as more personable than Ms Bishop, and has promised support from former Treasurer Peter Costello. That might make Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull rather nervous. Costello might "groom" Hockey for a leadership spill, with either Hockey as leader & Costello as king-maker; or Costello as leader & Hockey as Deputy leader. Costello has his own concerns - the Party wants to clean out non-contributing or non-performing members from high-profile, safe, seats.
(Picture: abc.net.au)

In all these scenarios, there are plenty of undercurrents within the Federal Liberal Party.

John

Xenophon's US-Style Politics

The Australian Senate finally passed the Government's second economic stimulus package this week. It passed with the votes of the Greens, Sen. Steve Fielding (family First) and independent Senator Nick Xenophon (South Australia). All of these negotiated changes, but it was Senator Xenophon's insistance on a separate package to benefit just one state that has tarnished Australian politics.

While the government had reached agreement with the Greens and Senator Fielding earlier, Nick Xenophon held out for more - he wanted more money brought forward for the Murray River, specifically for SA. This legislation was separate to the stimulus package, but Senator Xenophon has introduced US-style bargaining to Australian politics, and done so effectively. Remember the first US stimulus package was changed by the US Senate late 2008 from a 1-page bill to a bill of over 1000 pages, with an explosion in the $-amount. That happened because the US elections were very near, and every Tom, Dick, Harry wanted something extra that would help them be re-elected.

Notwithstanding the need, and existing legislation, to improve the Murray River, Senator Nick Xenophon has brought that style of US-politics to Australia. He, and others, refused to pass the legislation on its merits, and the obvious need for an economic stimulus, unless he got what he wanted - the package to be brought forward. Senator Xenophon gets something for HIS state, and for HIS press-releases: it was pork-barrelling at its most blatant and vulgar - .

For its part, the Opposition wanted tax cuts - to benefit those who still have jobs - to drip money into the economy; whereas the IMF had supported an upfront cash injection, followed by spending on infrastructure, with already scheduled tax cuts in July. It had decided it would not support the economic package no matter what, and became irrelevant - their vote would not change.

This week has seen the current Opposition become even less relevant, and Australian politics has been compromised some Senators. Both these demean our democracy.

John

Victoria's 2009 Firestorm

The Victorian firestorm has been going for a week; and its effects will be long-lasting. Saturday 7-Feb-2009 was the date tragedy sruck, and it has continued durng this week.

There are many stories and images of human angst, grief and anger. Some can be viewed at:

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/bushfires/stories.htm span>


• http://www.smh.com.au/national/more-than-1800-homes-lost-in-fires-as-bushfire-threat-continues-20090213-86kb.html


• http://media.news.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/skins/timeline/index.html?id=1185

Those who have seen and heard the tragedy; those directly affected by the tragedy, including residents, those who lost family & friends, &/or property; those who stayed to fight the fires, police, SES, firefighters, and other volunteeers will be scarred for life - in the same way as war veterans.

The Australian Red Cross has indicated that the best way to help is to donate money to its appeal - that way money can be targeted to purchase the goods and services needed.

Currently you can donate to the Red Cross Victorian BushFire Appeal at: http://www.redcross.org.au/

John

Rudd's Second Economic Stimulus

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's second economic stimulus package, designed to either stop Australia falling into recession, or minimise its effects and duration, includes:

• cash handouts to most people, depending on income and whether a tax return was lodged for the 2007-08 financial year.
• an extra bonus for single-income and low-income families
• a cash bonus for farmers and small business affected by the drought
• cash handouts as a "training and learning" bonus
• infrastructure investment handouts to the states including for building works at "every public school", and public housing at least.
• $1600 rebate or grant for solar hot water or roof insulation (if there is none)

A big cash injection into the economy will help to kick-start it. The infrastructure spending will be more a sustained release pill for the economy. It seems a good package, although there could be more money for unemployed people and and those on very low incomes. There are tax cuts scheduled for 1-July from last year's budget.

So much for the economic proposal. What about the politics?

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has derided the cash handouts, instead wanting tax cuts. Tax cuts have a trickle effect, and there is a real risk that some of them would be used to pay down debt, rather than be spent. The Liberal and National Coalition parties voted against the package in the lower house, and have said they will oppose it in the Senate. He might well have chosen tax cuts for a number of reasons:

• the Costello factor - he's still in Parliament, and still has support as a future Leader. Turnbull might still be wary of a Costello challenge. Indeed, Turnbull might have asked himself 'What would Costello do?' {His imaginary answer from Costello might have been: 'take 2 tax cuts, go away, and see me when the recession's over'}
• Turnbull's need to be different
• Tax cuts have previously been politically popular, even though they redistribute more wealth to the wealthy, or at least the better-off

For his part, Kevin Rudd has ensured that tax-payers will be reminded of the injection into schools and other infrastructure when the next election is called. Further, he can paint Turnbull as obstructionist - indeed Rudd said Mr Turnbull should "get out of the road" on multiple occasions during press conferences today.

The economic stimulus might be judged quite economically sound, but the underlying politics by the Government is very clever.

John

NSW ALP Image

Turnbull's 'Reds Under The Bed' Scare

Malcolm Turnbull will be checking for commies (communists) under the bed tonight. His return to the 1950's was confirmed with his statement that:

"The Prime Minister has been writing a 7,000 word treatise about political ideology in which he appears to be abandoning his claim to be an economic conservative and instead seems to be channelling Gough Whitlam, high taxes, big government and socialism.
It is amazing at this point Mr Rudd is seeking to go back to the failed days of big government, Gough Whitlam.
Older Australians like myself will shudder at the thought that Kevin Rudd is
channelling the Whitlam era in his latest treatise."

The treatise to which he refers is an article written by Prime Minister Rudd in which he espouses the need for greater world financial and economic regulation to prevent further recurrence of the current global financial crisis, which sees much of the world in recession. Certainly, some of the financial actions of the 1970's Whitlam government were questionable, but to suggest that Prime Minister Rudd is "channelling Whitlam" is just baseless political scare-mongering. Mr Turnbull wants instant tax cuts for Australians - always politically popular, but the World Bank has indicated that more rapid injections of funds are required. Tax cuts are already scheduled, anyway, from 1-July.

Australians might well shudder at the thought of Turnbull seeking political expediency over rational economic thought. Prudent financial regulations are the real reason why Australian banks do not need the same levels of financial assistance as the bailout of US and British banks and mortgage lenders. Those prudential and financial regulations are entirely consistent with conservative economic policies.

A thought for MrTurnbull: neo-liberalism's 'laissez-faire' economics are not economically conservative, and are not financially conservative. They are irresponsible because they quite blatantly allow for financial crises such as we now have.

John

Robertson's Ministerial Irony

John Robertson, former head of Unions NSW, was appointed to the NSW Legislative Council (Upper House) when Michael Costa retired. Mr Robertson had strenuously opposed the privatisation of NSW electricity, won, and watched as Michael Costa, having lost, retired from politics.

Yesterday (30-Jan-09) Mr Robertson was sworn in as Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Public Sector Reform and Special Minister of State , after just 2 months in Parliament.

The irony of his appointment was that he will now be responsible for the privatisation of at least some of NSW gaols; and will almost certainly have disputes with some of his union mates in parts of the Public Service over privatisation and job cuts.

John

Israel, Hamas To Fall Short Of Objective

Originally posted 12-Jan-09 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Israel’s retaliative assault on Hamas has been going for 17 days, since 27 December 2008. Dr Muawiya Hassanein, the head of Gaza emergency services, says almost 900 people of Gaza have been killed, including more than 270 children. Some of those children died as Israel attacked clearly identified UN schools, whose GPS locations were known to Israeli commanders.

Israel stated its objective was to eliminate/destroy Hamas. This gives the Israeli military a chance to flex its muscle, particularly as its political leaders ignored requests from the UN and France for a peaceful resolution. The destruction of Hamas is a politically popular “ideal” among Israelis, but is unrealistic. Not even the partial genocide by Israel has been able to eliminate Hamas. Here we can branch into internal politics: Israel will have an election on 10 February 2009, brought about by Prime Minster Ehud Olmert as leader of the Kadima Party. His then Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, was unable to form a viable coalition government. There is much jockeying by various party leaders to be seen to be tough on Hamas, and the war certainly helps them. Hamas and Fatah are in limbo over how to manage the end of Mahmoud Abbas’s official term as President of the Palestinian National Authority (on 9 January)

There is justifiable international condemnation of the excessive response by Israel, and of the use of civilian areas for rocket launching by Hamas, but this war is about Israeli and Palestinian/Hamas politics, muscle-flexing, and religious & racial hatred by both sides. Israeli politicians will be looking to ‘ease-off’ and secure a tenuous, “victorious” peace before the elections in February. It will nevertheless have failed to achive its stated objective - the destruction of Hamas. For its part, Hamas will also have failed to achieve the destruction of Israel. Both sides have ignored UN resolutions, and approaches from France and Egypt.

The real tragedy surrounding the death of so many civilians and children, and the 3 Israeli civilians, is that no-one will be held accountable. No one!

John

PS This month (Jan-09) Israel said it would legislate to protect its politicians and military from any consequences of war crimes!

Take GitmoTerrorists - Bush

Originally posted 3-Jan-09 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

George W Bush, establisher of Guantanamo Bay (’Gitmo’) detention centre for suspected terrorists, has now asked Australia, and other countries, to take inmates, possibly terrorists, that he doesn’t know how to manage.

Acting PM Julia Gillard has said that Australia would formally consider requests on “a case by case basis”, but it is “unlikely” to take them. The former statement is diplomatic. The latter statement is designed to allay fears within, and backlash from, both the media and voters. It is unlikely that even former PM John Howard, often portrayed as President Bush’s foreign deputy and yes-man, would have agreed to the request. It is unlikely that the current Labor government would want to take any responsibility for the policies of the former Liberal Government.

The request form George W Bush has been made after the US elections, but before the inauguration of President-elect Barak Obama, who has promised to close Guantanamo Bay. President Bush says that many of the detainees can’t be returned to their homeland because they would be a danger (of treason, sedition or terrorist charges), yet Bush has not indicated that the US is prepared to take any of the people he detained. Today’s ‘The Australian’ (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24867414-601,00.html)newspaper) reports:

“Major General John Altenburg, formerly an appointing authority to the US military Commissions - the body that oversees the prosecution of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay - told The Weekend Australian that a significant number (30 or more) of former detainees had subsequently undertaken terrorist acts or had been recaptured on the battlefield. … it’s a fair comment to say, ‘we don’t want these people. Now we’ve got the burden of watching them and we don’t know whether they’re dangerous or not’ "

Yes, the US doesn’t want the detainees, doesn’t know how they’re going to monitor them, and Bush asks other countries to take them for him. His request seems to be driven by the usual tenet governing most US foreign policy - ‘what’s in our self-interest, and the self-interests of us politicians?’ It’s a tenet that might not be that unusual in international relations.

The problem for Australia, and other countries whose then leaders strongly supported Bush, and Guantanamo Bay, is that because of the support given by our then leaders, our countries also have some responsibility. Just what that is, and how we fulfil it, is a discussion we need to have.

John

Merry XMAS 2008

Originally posted 24-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Truepolitik wishes all people a Merry Christmas, and hopes that all people will work for a better world in 2009.

Truepolitik will return early in the new year.

John

Haneef Cleared, Andrews Thinks He Was

Originally posted 23-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au


An inquiry established by Kevin Rudd, and conducted by retired NSW judge John Clarke QC, has found no evidence to link Dr Mohamed Haneef to the attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow which led to his arrest in July 2007. He is reported to be satisfied with the finding, and considering a claim for compensation.

Kevin Andrews, now a Federal Opposition MP, but then Immigration Minister in John Howard’s government, was cleared of making an “improper” decision. Nevertheless, John Clarke’s report says he was “mystified” about the basis of Mr Andrews’ decision. In his response, Mr Andrews said he acted in “the national interest”, and it was about “national security”. Consider the following:

• the inquiry found no sound basis for Mr Andrews’ decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s (working) visa, and to deport him.


• the phrases “national interest” and “national security” are NOT magic. They do not, and ought not, allow Ministers to use the phrases to make unfounded, or at the very least questionable, decisions. Their use by Mr Andrews is simply “spin” to justify his actions with the public, while avoiding any valid arguments to justify them.

Even if, as Mr Andrews claims, “The Australian people expected me to act”, that is not a justification for so doing! You would not want a doctor to use a particular treatment, just because ‘the patient expected me to do that’. That would not be evidence-based medicine. What Mr Andrews did was not evidence-based decision-making either.

Ministerial decisions need to be made on the basis of logic, reason, and verifiable evidence. Political advisers and media advisers (”spin doctors”) are too often a hindrance to that.


John

Turnbull To 'l'-Liberal For The Right

Originally posted 7-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Peter Costello has warmed a seat on the backbench since John Howard lost the Federal election in Dec 2007. He declined the position as Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, & Leader of the Opposition. He had hoped to be offered a plum job outside politics, but the current international financial & economic crisis has closed many doors. Their motives could be: Costello to unseat Malcolm Turnbull; or some people are eying-off Costello’s very safe seat of Higgins.

Now the Melbourne Liberal “Establishment” want him to declare whether he will contest the next election. So to, do Wilson Tuckey and Tony Abbott, both of whom would like to unseat present Liberal, & Opposition, Leader, Malcolm Turnbull. Indeed, Wilson Tuckey is now suggesting that party-room votes on policy be secret votes. There is hypocrisy behind this. Firstly, he never dared suggest that under John Howard; secondly Howard used him occasionally to ensure Liberals openly voted as they should; thirdly, Tuckey knows that party-room votes should be open - from an organisational perspective.

Turnbull’s image among the likes of “ironbar” Tuckey and “mad monk” Abbott, and the Melbourne “establishment” are: he’s not “Establishment rich”, he’s neauveau riche; and he is seen as too ’small-l’ liberal. This ‘liberalism’ fits with (party founder, Sir Robert) Menzies’ views, but is an anathema to the extreme right of the Liberal Party, including Costello. Costello has previously admitted he would have made WorkChoices legislation more extreme. Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott, & Wilson Tuckey agree. Turnbull dropped the policy after the rout at the Federal election. Others do not want ‘liberalism’, or even economic reasonableness, to become or remain party policy. The far Right wants Turnbull to go.

They want the Liberal Party to return to the reactionary, pro-rich, White-Australia, anti-worker party it was under John Howard.

John

A Right Coalition Mess

Originally posted 7-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

This week was the last week of Federal Parliament for 2008. There was legislation to be passed, including legislation on infrastructure spending.

That is where the Liberal & National coalition parties in Opposition came a cropper. The Coalition had proposed amendments to the bill, ostensibly to increase accountability. However, late on Thursday 4-Dec, they came to the pragmatic conclusion that if the bill did not pass, then there would be significant detrimental effects on the economy; and, worse, that the government could rightly blame them for jeopardising the economy, and thousands of jobs. The Senate will not sit again until 3-February. Practical politics said they had to approve the bill, or risk both an economic and a public backlash.

Liberal, & Coalition, leader Malcolm Turnbull, set the policy - the bill would be supported. Rather than support the bill, as they’d been told, 2 Liberals voted against it, 5 voted as per party policy, and the rest (25 of them) abstained, by waiting just outside the Senate doors, which were open. The National Party senators voted against the bill, and against Coalition policy. Such a principled stand on amendments to increase Government accountability was something never seen from Coalition Senators while they were part of John Howard’s government!

At a press conference, Opposition Infrastructure spokesman, Andrew Robb, tried to blame the Government for the Coalition’s disarray, telling ABC reporter Sabra Lane “They wanted to shift the blame for their dithering and mismanagement onto the Coalition“. Doublespeak! The Government proposed the legislation; it wanted it passed; the Opposition delayed it by proposing amendments, and Andrew Robb thinks the Opposition’s disarray is all the government’s fault!

The fact is, the Opposition, and Liberal Party senators, in particular, chose to abandon whatever principles they thought they had, and opted for political expediency. While-ever the Liberal & National Parties blame everyone else, including “the government”, for their own internal ructions and rebellions, they will have no chance of being a viable opposition, let alone an alternative government.

John

Private Schools Just A Political Pawn

Originally posted 4-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au (without the images)


Yesterday, (3-Dec-08) Federal Education Minister, Julia Gillard, called on the Opposition to pass legislation in the Senate regarding funding for private schools in 2009. As with so much legislation now, from both the former Howard Government, and the current Rudd Government, the legislation is not free-standing. Embedded in much of Howard’s legislation, and now Rudd’s, is the sub-agenda. In this case, the funding is tied to delivery of a “new” national curriculum. The Liberal/National Opposition doesn’t like it, saying it lacks flexibility.


Yet in October 2006, then (Liberal) Education Minister Julie Bishop said: “We need to take school curriculum out of the hands of the ideologues in the state and territory education bureaucracies and give it to a national board of studies”. Again, in February 2007, Ms Bishop used an ACER report to ague for a national curriculum. In 2008, in Opposition as Shadow Treasurer, she opposes it.


Following publicly-reported statements from the head of the Independent Schools Council of Australia, Bill Daniels, and the National Catholic Education Commission’s chief, Bill Griffiths, the Opposition back-flipped, and allowed the Schools Assistance Bill to be passed.

It’s sad, really, that schools have become a political pawn for both sides: Labor to push through requirements for a national curriculum; and for the Opposition to use to try to score cheap political points, even abandoning their previous position to do so.

John