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
Saturday, January 31, 2009
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!
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
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:
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
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.
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
Friday, January 30, 2009
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
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
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
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Private Schools Just A Political Pawn
Originally posted 4-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au (without the images)
Yester
day, (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.
John
Yester
day, (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
An Education Revolution
Originally posted 30-Nov-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
It’s been a busy time. I’ve been busy - so busy I haven’t had time to post recently. NSW Premier Nathan Rees has been busy slashing - there has been a min-budget for NSW; and Kevin Rudd has been busy - overseas and at home. He even missed a fundraising dinner to celebrate his first year in office, because of the terrorism in Mumbai, India. Yesterday came the feelgood press spin - sorry, “press release” - about the $15b for states over 4 years from the COAG meeting. NSW gets $5 billion, over 4 years, in particular for health and education. It includes Kevin Rudd’s promised “education revolution” for computer availability for students in Yrs 9-12.
NSW Premier Nathan Rees announced that the Department (of Education & Training) IT section had developed a 3/4 size laptop model for computers. It could be similar in concept to Asus Eee-PC’s. They are tough and light, and more than adequate for “office” application and Internet use by students. School students, though, will not like them - they will no good for the games they stereotypically like, and their specifications are not “cool”. Nathan Rees has promised wireless access for all public schools; and that students will be allowed to keep their laptops at the end of Yr 12 - for laptops such as I have described, it is likely that the recovery, preparation & sale would cost more than the likely return from sale.An education revolution? Spin, more likely.
John
NSW Government Woes Continue
Originally posted 15-Nov-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
Back in February, I wrote that NSW Labor was set to supernova. (http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008/02/nsw-labor-set-to-supernova.html) Their problems included: asset sales; corruption (at Wollongong, and potentially within the government); lack of investment in infrastructure; health, especially hospitals.
The only thing that has changed, with Nathan Rees as new Premier, is that the problems have grown. Premier Rees has had to sack several new Ministers, including Matt Brown and Tony Stewart for inappropriate behaviour. Tuesday’s mini-budget has divided Sydney north & south / Liberal & Labor seats, public transport gets another kick in the teeth, created voter and media backlash, and Nathan Rees’s own Labor politicians are bordering on revolt. Rees intends to sell NSW Lotteries, an income generating asset, and revelations of the political machinations of parachuting Reba Meagher into the seat of Cabramatta, within hours of then member John Newman’s assassination in 1994. All these reflect a party that is dysfunctional, driven by self-interest, controlled by Treasury officials reluctant to release 10-years’ worth of surplus, and with internal government and party fractures.
There appears no way for NSW Labor to win the next election in 2011.
Back in February, I wrote that NSW Labor was set to supernova. (http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008/02/nsw-labor-set-to-supernova.html) Their problems included: asset sales; corruption (at Wollongong, and potentially within the government); lack of investment in infrastructure; health, especially hospitals.
The only thing that has changed, with Nathan Rees as new Premier, is that the problems have grown. Premier Rees has had to sack several new Ministers, including Matt Brown and Tony Stewart for inappropriate behaviour. Tuesday’s mini-budget has divided Sydney north & south / Liberal & Labor seats, public transport gets another kick in the teeth, created voter and media backlash, and Nathan Rees’s own Labor politicians are bordering on revolt. Rees intends to sell NSW Lotteries, an income generating asset, and revelations of the political machinations of parachuting Reba Meagher into the seat of Cabramatta, within hours of then member John Newman’s assassination in 1994. All these reflect a party that is dysfunctional, driven by self-interest, controlled by Treasury officials reluctant to release 10-years’ worth of surplus, and with internal government and party fractures.
There appears no way for NSW Labor to win the next election in 2011.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama's Challenges
Originally posted 8-Nov-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
The world is recovering from Barack Obama’s historic win as US President-elect. As the first black man elected to govern from the White House, and first Democratic President (to be) since Bill Clinton he carries the hopes and dreams of many of his citizens, and, indeed, of many in the world.
Euphoria is an emotion that lasts such a short time - and it’s hard landing when it wears off. Obama had sufficient wisdom to tell people this when he reminded them that the US still has a President, George W Bush, and will do, until his inauguration on 20 January 2009. He has also moved to hose down expectations of rapid change - has asked to be judged on his first 1000 days, not the usual 100 days.
His challenges include:
The world is recovering from Barack Obama’s historic win as US President-elect. As the first black man elected to govern from the White House, and first Democratic President (to be) since Bill Clinton he carries the hopes and dreams of many of his citizens, and, indeed, of many in the world.
Euphoria is an emotion that lasts such a short time - and it’s hard landing when it wears off. Obama had sufficient wisdom to tell people this when he reminded them that the US still has a President, George W Bush, and will do, until his inauguration on 20 January 2009. He has also moved to hose down expectations of rapid change - has asked to be judged on his first 1000 days, not the usual 100 days.His challenges include:
- the US economy, which has suffered the after effects of George Bush’s “laissez-faire” economic policies that verged on economic nihilism: there is no right or wrong, “the market” will fix itself. Of course, when the self-inflicted financial crisis hit, Wall St socialism became the philosophy of choice. President Bush was forced, basically, to pump public money into institutions which had based their financial decisions on “greed is good”, while abandoning financial prudence in their lending practices. As he did so, almost every Congress member and Senator due for election wanted money for their electorate, and the initial 3-page bill became more than 500 pages. Domestic financial and prudential reform will be a slow, difficult process, as will economic recovery.
- George W Bush’s wars, especially those in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan, are unpopular. They are seen as unwinnable by many ordinary Americans, and their death toll on US service people are unacceptable to them. Bush’s advice that Iraq could become the USA’s next “Vietnam” - advice he ignored - is a popular perception. Determining if, when and how to withdraw will be a significant hurdle for Obama, and his military advisers.
- global warming is still an international issue, even though it’s been pushed off the news headlines.
- domestic health changes, including a universal health scheme were among his election policies. Many were ashamed when the world was shown images of aid organisations providing free medical and dental services in tents to US citizens in “middle America”; basic health services that ought to have been available to them.
- the political revolving door- political appointments and the relationship with (wealthy) lobbyists is something he will have to tackle earliest. If he doesn’t take measures before and immediately upon his inauguration, the gravy train will roll on, and on, and on.
Bali Bombers And The Death Penalty
Originally posted 1-Nov-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
Much of Australia, & other parts of the world, awaits the impending execution of the Bali bombers. Amrozi, Mukhlas and Imam Samudra remain unrepentant for the 202 innocent people they killed by bomb in 2002. 88 of those were Australian.
Australia has maintined its fundamental opposition to the death penalty, and its policy of non-interference where Australians are not involved. Many Australians, particularly friends, family, community support the death penalty imposed on these three men.
The following arguments are used to justify a death penalty:
Nevertheless, with certainty of guilt and extreme effects on society, punishment by death could still be acceptable to some. Others will include the need for “civilized” humanity & the sanctity of human life to argue against the death penalty. I believe that, in cases like this, it is reasonable to argue “death as a penalty”. See also: http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/teacher/c/about/arguments/contents.htm
So, what’s your position - death penalty or no?
Much of Australia, & other parts of the world, awaits the impending execution of the Bali bombers. Amrozi, Mukhlas and Imam Samudra remain unrepentant for the 202 innocent people they killed by bomb in 2002. 88 of those were Australian.
Australia has maintined its fundamental opposition to the death penalty, and its policy of non-interference where Australians are not involved. Many Australians, particularly friends, family, community support the death penalty imposed on these three men.
The following arguments are used to justify a death penalty:
- deterrence: the concept that having such a severe penalty will make criminals think twice before acting.
- retribution: society’s version of “an eye for an eye”.
Nevertheless, with certainty of guilt and extreme effects on society, punishment by death could still be acceptable to some. Others will include the need for “civilized” humanity & the sanctity of human life to argue against the death penalty. I believe that, in cases like this, it is reasonable to argue “death as a penalty”. See also: http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/teacher/c/about/arguments/contents.htm
So, what’s your position - death penalty or no?
Monday, January 26, 2009
NSW Nats Delusional
Originally posted 24-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
Further exacerbating the Nationals’ glum mood was the fact that Liberal Alby Shultz, (Liberal member for the Federal seat of Hume) supported Peter Besseling as an Independent. He won; the Nats lost. Shultz also believes the Nats should be merged with the Liberal Party. Remember the Borg from Star Trek?
(Photo: http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating) “Resistance is Futile”: that’s how some in the Liberal Party view the proposed “merger”. NSW Nats Parliamentary leader Andrew Stoner had a hissy fit about Shultz, and wanted to “take him out the back and shoot him”. Stoner later tried to brush off the comment as a joke. Nats MLC Duncan Gay waded in with “he’s no longer a member of the Coalition” - Shultz will ignore it as the ranting, personal comment that it is.
In all, the National Party members are showing just how delusional and ineffective they are in NSW.
John
The NSW National Party is spinning its head over the recent by-election for the NSW seat of Port Macquarie. The Nationals’ Leslie Williams increased her vote by 14%, after the Independent, (& former National Party member) Rob Oakeshott quit, to run for Federal Parliament. Such a swing is common when personally popular Independents resign or retire from their seat. Christine Ferguson, from the NSW branch complained in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald (Letters 24/10/08) that the Nats didn’t lose the seat, because they didn’t hold it. True. But they expected to win, and they didn’t win; so they lost. Don’t you love political word games!
Further exacerbating the Nationals’ glum mood was the fact that Liberal Alby Shultz, (Liberal member for the Federal seat of Hume) supported Peter Besseling as an Independent. He won; the Nats lost. Shultz also believes the Nats should be merged with the Liberal Party. Remember the Borg from Star Trek?
(Photo: http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating) “Resistance is Futile”: that’s how some in the Liberal Party view the proposed “merger”. NSW Nats Parliamentary leader Andrew Stoner had a hissy fit about Shultz, and wanted to “take him out the back and shoot him”. Stoner later tried to brush off the comment as a joke. Nats MLC Duncan Gay waded in with “he’s no longer a member of the Coalition” - Shultz will ignore it as the ranting, personal comment that it is.
In all, the National Party members are showing just how delusional and ineffective they are in NSW.
John
NSW Labor Savaged in By-Elections
Originally posted 3-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
The NSW Labor Government has been savaged by voters in four by-elections yesterday. Ryde, formerly held by John Watkins, is now held by the Liberal Party. Ryde and Cabramatta recorded swings of about 22%; and ex-Premier Morris Iemma’s seat of Lakemba recorded a swing of about 13% against Labor. The ALP did not contest the seat of Port Macquarie, but it has been taken by a new Independent, much to the disappointment of the National Party.
While the Labor Party has been sent a clear message about its unpopularity, Federally, the ALP, and Kevin Rudd, remain popular. the challenge for the NSW Labor Government, led by new Premier Nathan Rees, is to reverse the decline in infrastructure, promote public transport, restore adequate funding for NSW hospitals and schools, while managing a budget which will have declining income in the current economic climate.
The only sources of funds for him will be: the Federal Government’s promised early infrastructure funds, increased State taxes, and borrowing. All are likely to feature in November’s mini-budget. Nathan Rees just hopes that voters will be happy that the “message” has been sent in 2008, and not repeat it in the state election in 2011. So will Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
John
The NSW Labor Government has been savaged by voters in four by-elections yesterday. Ryde, formerly held by John Watkins, is now held by the Liberal Party. Ryde and Cabramatta recorded swings of about 22%; and ex-Premier Morris Iemma’s seat of Lakemba recorded a swing of about 13% against Labor. The ALP did not contest the seat of Port Macquarie, but it has been taken by a new Independent, much to the disappointment of the National Party.
While the Labor Party has been sent a clear message about its unpopularity, Federally, the ALP, and Kevin Rudd, remain popular. the challenge for the NSW Labor Government, led by new Premier Nathan Rees, is to reverse the decline in infrastructure, promote public transport, restore adequate funding for NSW hospitals and schools, while managing a budget which will have declining income in the current economic climate.
The only sources of funds for him will be: the Federal Government’s promised early infrastructure funds, increased State taxes, and borrowing. All are likely to feature in November’s mini-budget. Nathan Rees just hopes that voters will be happy that the “message” has been sent in 2008, and not repeat it in the state election in 2011. So will Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
John
NSW Needs More Than Federal Funding For Nurses
Originally posted 3-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
On 29-Sept-08, Prime Minister Rudd held a doorstop press conference at John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle (NSW). In it, he announced funding for an additional 1100 nurse training positions at Australian universities. That’s less than half of the 2600 applicants turned away in 2006. In NSW, Enrolled Nurse training will be changed under the recently-agreed award. EN’s are trained through TAFE and on-the-job training. Effectively NSW will train fewer nurses (EN’s), and some of that will be picked up by the announced federal funding of RN places. “For the future of our hospital system, we’ve got to make sure that we are training enough qualified nurses“, Mr Rudd said.
But there are other points to consider:
John
On 29-Sept-08, Prime Minister Rudd held a doorstop press conference at John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle (NSW). In it, he announced funding for an additional 1100 nurse training positions at Australian universities. That’s less than half of the 2600 applicants turned away in 2006. In NSW, Enrolled Nurse training will be changed under the recently-agreed award. EN’s are trained through TAFE and on-the-job training. Effectively NSW will train fewer nurses (EN’s), and some of that will be picked up by the announced federal funding of RN places. “For the future of our hospital system, we’ve got to make sure that we are training enough qualified nurses“, Mr Rudd said.
But there are other points to consider:
- Training is one thing, but there is no extra funding for more full-time positions in hospitals. Mr Rudd would argue that that is a State matter, and it is, but it is also part of the problem. Unless the States have, or find, more money to fund employment positions, training more nurses will result in more part-time positions shared by more nurses who will work fewer hours.
- The shortage is not just that there are no nurses, but in retaining existing nurses, and encouraging the return of those who have left. The poor image of some of NSW’s major hospitals is an impediment, and will only be corrected by significant investment in new infrastructure; new, or updated equipment; and staffing. Here, we are paying for sins of the past 13 years of Labor Governments in NSW. The current Government’s budget position is, at best, tenuous.
- There is still a set of divided responsibilities between Federal & State governments. Health care might need a plan for a controlled Federal takeover of all health funding, with States delivering the services.
John
Farmer Wants ... A New Seat
Originally posted 28-Sep-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
Pat Farmer is looking to quit Federal Parliament just 11 months after being re-elected by just 11 votes after preferences. He would be the fourth ex-Howard (Lib-Nat) Minister to resign after losing government in November 2007. He was recruited by John Howard for the Federal seat of Macarthur, centred on Campbelltown, near Sydney. There was considerable voter disenchantment with his decision to stop living in the electorate and move to the affluent North Shore of Sydney.
He is quoted in NSW Sunday papers as believing that he can’t do anything for his constituents by sitting on Opposition. He says he needs new challenges: that just happens to include looking at standing for the Liberal Party at the next NSW election – an election the Libs are expecting to be able to win. Oh – that would put Farmer back as member of a government. (image from smh.com.au)
The concept that Parliamentarians can only serve their constituents as member of a government, and especially from the front bench, like Farmer, is an anathema to democracy: it implies that only government members can do things – possibly including “special” government funding or promises at or near election time (‘electoral bribes’ in most people’s minds)
His proposed resignation, and the other three, is a good argument for politicians and political parties having to repay public money from the Electoral Commission when they resign after losing government. Sadly, no government in Australia would introduce such ethical legislation: self-interest will prevent it, to their shame. If politicians are not prepared to serve as backbenchers, and in Opposition, they should not stand for election.
John
Rudd Canes Rees Over Economy
Originally posted 12-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has given a verbal slap to his Labor colleague, NSW Premier Nathan Rees. Mr Rudd has committed to pumping more than $10 Billion into the economy, including cash handouts to some just before Christmas. He knows it’s a short-term band-aid, but that it will mostly be spent over Christmas, helping to sustain at least the retail sector.
Nathan Rees, as Premier of NSW, is planning to significantly cut State expenditure in a mini-budget expected next week. Mr Rudd, is reported in the Sun-Herald to have said:
A significant reduction in NSW Government spending will only exacerbate the NSW economy, and therefore the national economy. What Mr Rudd didn’t say, and I will, is that:
NSW has also asked the Federal Government for $Billions to help fund infrastructure programs. Assuming it receives some extra Federal grants, Nathan Rees has an opportunity to use some of Treasury’s reserves, and Federal Government money, to benefit the people of NSW.
That would beat any glossy press release, or press conference full of image and no substance. It would also be a nice change.
John
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has given a verbal slap to his Labor colleague, NSW Premier Nathan Rees. Mr Rudd has committed to pumping more than $10 Billion into the economy, including cash handouts to some just before Christmas. He knows it’s a short-term band-aid, but that it will mostly be spent over Christmas, helping to sustain at least the retail sector.
Nathan Rees, as Premier of NSW, is planning to significantly cut State expenditure in a mini-budget expected next week. Mr Rudd, is reported in the Sun-Herald to have said:
“On the state of NSW, I will say it in loud and clear terms: the Government
of NSW has to radically lift its game. … It is necessary not just for the people
of NSW but for the national economy.”
A significant reduction in NSW Government spending will only exacerbate the NSW economy, and therefore the national economy. What Mr Rudd didn’t say, and I will, is that:
- NSW has had 12 successive budget surpluses, totalling more than $4 Billion. The money has been closeted in NSW Treasury.
- While some of the surpluses were used to slightly reduce NSW net debt, it is entirely appropriate for NSW to draw down some of those surpluses, or even to borrow, to support the NSW budget over the next 2 fiscal years.
NSW has also asked the Federal Government for $Billions to help fund infrastructure programs. Assuming it receives some extra Federal grants, Nathan Rees has an opportunity to use some of Treasury’s reserves, and Federal Government money, to benefit the people of NSW.
That would beat any glossy press release, or press conference full of image and no substance. It would also be a nice change.
John
Rudd Trumps Turnbull On Deposits
Originally posted 12-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today announced that the Australian Government is guaranteeing all deposits in Australian banks, credit unions and building societies for 3 years. Reports value this guarantee at about A$700 Billion. The guarantee is irrespective of the size of individual deposits.
Financially, this guarantee will help ensure that financial institutions continue to have a significant deposit base, desirable from a prudential perspective; that they can continue to meet the prudential regulations, and can lend to each other with more confidence. This inter-bank lending is important for fiancial institutions - it enables them to continue to lend to customers - and will help to maintain the economy.
The politics of this are:
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today announced that the Australian Government is guaranteeing all deposits in Australian banks, credit unions and building societies for 3 years. Reports value this guarantee at about A$700 Billion. The guarantee is irrespective of the size of individual deposits.
Financially, this guarantee will help ensure that financial institutions continue to have a significant deposit base, desirable from a prudential perspective; that they can continue to meet the prudential regulations, and can lend to each other with more confidence. This inter-bank lending is important for fiancial institutions - it enables them to continue to lend to customers - and will help to maintain the economy.
The politics of this are:
- Other governments, including the USA, Britain, European countries, and Iceland have already made similar guarantees. It ensures that Australian deposits will remain in Australia.
- Last week, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull was spruiking “his” idea of guarantees on bank deposits up to A$100,000. From a a free-market investment banker, it was pure political populism. Kevin Rudd’s proposal means that he has not only trumped the Opposition by including credit unions and building societies; but also ensures that he cannot be out-trumped on the $-amount. Late this afternoon, Mr Turnbull said that “Mr Rudd and I are very much of the one mind on these measures“. This is just a “me, too” statement: he knows Kevin Rudd out-flanked him on this issue, and doesn’t want to be left behind.
- Prime Minister Rudd is also seen to be taking decisive action to protect Australians’ savings.
All in all, this deposit guarantee is a good move for financial institutions, with a side serving of political advantage for Kevin Rudd.
John
Banks, CEO's And Politicians
Originally posted 7-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au
Today (7-Oct) the RBA lowered the Australian cash rate by 1%. Late today, the 4 main banks indicated they would lower interest rates by 0.8%. The main focus of the media, and politicians, has been on mortgage interest rates. It remains to be sen whether the banks lower personal loan rates, and especially credit card interest rates. The Australian Stock exchange finished higher, rising rapidly after the announcement.
Meanwhile the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan have been rather defensive of how much of the rate cut should/could be passed on by the banks, but still roll out the spin about “working families” and “good for business” - they could be Howard clones! The Oppsition, led by Malcolm Turnbull and Shadow Treasurer Julie Bishop can indulge in populist press releases calling for the “full interest rate cut” to be passed on to consumers. They don’t have to be responsible, and seem willing to abandon economic responsibility for a quick, populist, tabloid headline. Labor also did as much when in Opposition.
Australia’s “big-four” banks - CBA, NAB, Westpac & ANZ - are 4 of the 18 worldwide banks that have a AA credit rating. They have good market capitalisation & deposits, and so are well-placed to weather the global financial crisis. But they are not immune, and yet Malcolm Turnbull has called on the banks’ CEO’s to justify why they won’t pass on the full rate cut. As a former investment banker, he knows that is an unreasonable request, and that the banks and the Government can be painted as the “bad boys” when they don’t. Financial journalists, of course, have better understanding and report that banks have had to pay 0.75% more for money in the last 3-4 weeks - banks don’t want to lend to each other, or can’t because of they are overseas banks in parlous circumstances. They have previously been lending to Australian consumers at full rates money that they borrowed from overseas at minimal rates.
Don’t feel too much sympathy, though. They recorded record profits this year, except for the ANZ, which recorded a loss after writing down subprime securities, and they increased rates by 0.5% or more than the rises from the Reserve Bank. Thy will still make a significant profit, and their CEO’s will still put out their hands for a substantial bonus!
John
Today (7-Oct) the RBA lowered the Australian cash rate by 1%. Late today, the 4 main banks indicated they would lower interest rates by 0.8%. The main focus of the media, and politicians, has been on mortgage interest rates. It remains to be sen whether the banks lower personal loan rates, and especially credit card interest rates. The Australian Stock exchange finished higher, rising rapidly after the announcement.
Meanwhile the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan have been rather defensive of how much of the rate cut should/could be passed on by the banks, but still roll out the spin about “working families” and “good for business” - they could be Howard clones! The Oppsition, led by Malcolm Turnbull and Shadow Treasurer Julie Bishop can indulge in populist press releases calling for the “full interest rate cut” to be passed on to consumers. They don’t have to be responsible, and seem willing to abandon economic responsibility for a quick, populist, tabloid headline. Labor also did as much when in Opposition.
Australia’s “big-four” banks - CBA, NAB, Westpac & ANZ - are 4 of the 18 worldwide banks that have a AA credit rating. They have good market capitalisation & deposits, and so are well-placed to weather the global financial crisis. But they are not immune, and yet Malcolm Turnbull has called on the banks’ CEO’s to justify why they won’t pass on the full rate cut. As a former investment banker, he knows that is an unreasonable request, and that the banks and the Government can be painted as the “bad boys” when they don’t. Financial journalists, of course, have better understanding and report that banks have had to pay 0.75% more for money in the last 3-4 weeks - banks don’t want to lend to each other, or can’t because of they are overseas banks in parlous circumstances. They have previously been lending to Australian consumers at full rates money that they borrowed from overseas at minimal rates.
Don’t feel too much sympathy, though. They recorded record profits this year, except for the ANZ, which recorded a loss after writing down subprime securities, and they increased rates by 0.5% or more than the rises from the Reserve Bank. Thy will still make a significant profit, and their CEO’s will still put out their hands for a substantial bonus!
John
Truepolitik is Back
Truepolitik has returned to its home - here at http://truepolitik.blogspot.com
Pages that were posted at myperspective.org.au are re-posted after this past.
Welcome Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John
:)
Pages that were posted at myperspective.org.au are re-posted after this past.
Welcome Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John
:)
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Truepolitik Is Moving
Truepolitik is moving .... to http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik
The most recent posts include:
The most recent posts include:
- Obama's Challenges: http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik/?p=17
- Bali Bombers and the Death Penalty http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik/?p=15
John
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Turnbull Just A New Image
Malcolm Turnbull’s ascension to the Liberal Party throne – Ok, Opposition Leader – was quicker than he had initially planned.
...
Turnbull has already said that he doesn’t intend to change policies, including those set by former leader Brendan Nelson. So the only change is a change of image. The substance, the policies and characters tarnished by Howard’s insistence on blind loyalty to him remain. The Liberal Party has changed leader, but it is still lost in the desert.
John
I will be shortly moving my blog to: http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik
For the Full Text of this posting see my new page at:
http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik/?p=6
...
Turnbull has already said that he doesn’t intend to change policies, including those set by former leader Brendan Nelson. So the only change is a change of image. The substance, the policies and characters tarnished by Howard’s insistence on blind loyalty to him remain. The Liberal Party has changed leader, but it is still lost in the desert.
John
I will be shortly moving my blog to: http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik
For the Full Text of this posting see my new page at:
http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik/?p=6
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Reba, Reba Where Ya Goin' To?
Yesterday, after handing out how-to-vote leaflets for NSW Council elections, Reba Meagher announced her resignation from the NSW Parliament. She would have been dumped from new NSW Premier Nathan Rees's ministry, but resigned first.
After resigning as Minister for Health, she indicated she had always acted in the interests of "the (Labor) Party". She was elected, as a party-parachuted candidate, for the seat of Cabramatta, in west/south-west Sydney, in 1996. She has held Ministerial positions in Fair Trading, Community Services, Aboriginal Affairs, and Health. Health, especially Public Hospitals, has been beset by myriad problems, including embarrassing deaths at RNS. She will retire with a Parliamentary pension of about $130,000 - about 3 times the average annual income of her constituents.
The following lyrics should be sung to The Monkees' son 'Mary, Mary'.
(with apologies to Mike Nesmith and The Monkees)
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, Reba, is it Coogee?
This one thing we know ‘bout ya
We will live better, without ya
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, Reba, tell us truly
What did we do to make ya leave us?
Whatever it was, it wasn’t us
You knew from “The Party”, ya had to go
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, it’s not Cabramatta
Reba, Reba, Reba, Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
[Repeat adlib]
John
[This post is also available at http://truepolitik.myperspective.org.au ]
After resigning as Minister for Health, she indicated she had always acted in the interests of "the (Labor) Party". She was elected, as a party-parachuted candidate, for the seat of Cabramatta, in west/south-west Sydney, in 1996. She has held Ministerial positions in Fair Trading, Community Services, Aboriginal Affairs, and Health. Health, especially Public Hospitals, has been beset by myriad problems, including embarrassing deaths at RNS. She will retire with a Parliamentary pension of about $130,000 - about 3 times the average annual income of her constituents.
The following lyrics should be sung to The Monkees' son 'Mary, Mary'.
(with apologies to Mike Nesmith and The Monkees)
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, Reba, is it Coogee?
This one thing we know ‘bout ya
We will live better, without ya
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, Reba, tell us truly
What did we do to make ya leave us?
Whatever it was, it wasn’t us
You knew from “The Party”, ya had to go
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, it’s not Cabramatta
Reba, Reba, Reba, Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
[Repeat adlib]
John
[This post is also available at http://truepolitik.myperspective.org.au ]
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Rees Gets His Way
Morris Iemma had told his Right wing faction that it (the cabinet reshuffle) was his way, or no way. "No way!' said the faction, and Morris resigned.
Enter newly-elected Premier of NSW, Nathan Rees. He gets his way, and both Reba Meagher and Frank Sartor are left out of cabinet! "Cranky Frankie" issued a press statement saying that dumping him was a mistake - a political tantrum.
The irony of Reba Meagher's omission is that she had reportedly called Morris Iemma at 6am Friday to tell him she was not resigning, and still wanted her job in cabinet. She then went to right-wing power-broker Eddie Obeid, and this helped precipitate the events that led to Iemma's resignation, Nathan Rees's election as Premier, and Meagher's dumping from cabinet.
Both Morris Iemma, at his press conference on Friday, and Reba Meagher, in her press release last night, said that they had always put "the interests of the party" first. In saying that, they are reminding "the party" that they are available for other appointments; now, or in the future!
And that, dear reader, is the single biggest issue with our politicians: - "the party" and their political careers, are more important than the interests of the people.
John
Postscript - The new ministry, announced on Mon 8/9/08, is:
Premier, & Arts: Nathan Rees
Deputy Premier, Commerce, Climate Change & Environment: Carmel Tebbutt
Attorney-General: John Hatzistergos
Transport: David Campbell
Education & Training, Women: Verity Firth
Planning & Redfern: Kristina Keneally
Health: John Della Bosca
Roads: Michael Daley
Roads & Waterways, Regulatory Reform, Finance & Infrastructure: Joe Tripodi
Police: Mat Brown
Housing: David Borger
Water, Rural Affairs and Regional Development: Philip Costa
Industrial relations, Emergency Services, Land: Tony Kelly
Tourism, the Hunter: Jodie McKay
Aboriginal Affairs, Ageing and Disability Services: Paul Lynch
Small Business, Science and Medical Research, Assistant Health Minister (Cancer): Tony Stewart
Community Services: Linda Burney
Primary Industries, Energy and Mineral Resources, State Development: Ian Macdonald
Gaming and Racing, and Sport and Recreation: Kevin Greene
Juvenile Justice, Youth, and Volunteering: Graham West
Local Government, Assistant Health Minister (Mental Health): Barbara Perry
Fair Trading, Citizenship, Assistant Arts Minister: Virginia Judge
(this post is mirrored at: http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik )
Enter newly-elected Premier of NSW, Nathan Rees. He gets his way, and both Reba Meagher and Frank Sartor are left out of cabinet! "Cranky Frankie" issued a press statement saying that dumping him was a mistake - a political tantrum.
The irony of Reba Meagher's omission is that she had reportedly called Morris Iemma at 6am Friday to tell him she was not resigning, and still wanted her job in cabinet. She then went to right-wing power-broker Eddie Obeid, and this helped precipitate the events that led to Iemma's resignation, Nathan Rees's election as Premier, and Meagher's dumping from cabinet.
Both Morris Iemma, at his press conference on Friday, and Reba Meagher, in her press release last night, said that they had always put "the interests of the party" first. In saying that, they are reminding "the party" that they are available for other appointments; now, or in the future!
And that, dear reader, is the single biggest issue with our politicians: - "the party" and their political careers, are more important than the interests of the people.
John
Postscript - The new ministry, announced on Mon 8/9/08, is:
Premier, & Arts: Nathan Rees
Deputy Premier, Commerce, Climate Change & Environment: Carmel Tebbutt
Attorney-General: John Hatzistergos
Transport: David Campbell
Education & Training, Women: Verity Firth
Planning & Redfern: Kristina Keneally
Health: John Della Bosca
Roads: Michael Daley
Roads & Waterways, Regulatory Reform, Finance & Infrastructure: Joe Tripodi
Police: Mat Brown
Housing: David Borger
Water, Rural Affairs and Regional Development: Philip Costa
Industrial relations, Emergency Services, Land: Tony Kelly
Tourism, the Hunter: Jodie McKay
Aboriginal Affairs, Ageing and Disability Services: Paul Lynch
Small Business, Science and Medical Research, Assistant Health Minister (Cancer): Tony Stewart
Community Services: Linda Burney
Primary Industries, Energy and Mineral Resources, State Development: Ian Macdonald
Gaming and Racing, and Sport and Recreation: Kevin Greene
Juvenile Justice, Youth, and Volunteering: Graham West
Local Government, Assistant Health Minister (Mental Health): Barbara Perry
Fair Trading, Citizenship, Assistant Arts Minister: Virginia Judge
(this post is mirrored at: http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik )
Saturday, September 06, 2008
NSW Labor Supernova
In February, (http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008/02/nsw-labor-set-to-supernova.html), I wrote that the NSW Labor Government, led my Morris Iemma, was set to supernova. (other media use the term 'implode') Then, the main issue was corruption; in, and outside, Wollongong City Council. I raised other issues, including incompetent project management, the proposed privatisation of electricity, and incompetent Health Minister (Reba Meagher).
In July, (http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008/07/nsw-in-need-of-new-ministers.html), I wrote that NSW needed new ministers, and that at least the following should go: Morris Iemma, Michael Costa, Reba Meagher, Frank Sartor, David Campbell, Joe tripodi & Graeme West; and that NSW had become a dictatorship (under Morris Iemma and Michael Costa).
I August, ( http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html), I suggested that the embarrassment that ensued when Morris Iemma's early recall of Parliament backfired, and it became obvious that Parliament would not allow the privatisation of electricity, was "unsustainable".
Yesterday, 5-Sept, that supernova occurred. The Right faction would not allow Morris Iemma to dump Reba Meagher, & others, in a cabinet reshuffle. The opportunity occurred because of the sudden resignation of his Deputy Premier John Watkins on Tuesday. Certainly the NSW Labor Party executive had a hand in the behind-the-scenes politicking, given Morris Iemma's defiant stance against party policy over electricity. Morris Iemma's own Right faction withdrew support for him, because he wouldn't accept their (suggested) cabinet. Iemma resigned, rather than suffer a Party-room bloodbath. Like Costa, he has indicated he will resign from parliament, too.
Meanwhile Michael Costa held a 25-minute press conference, essentially to say that only he could have made the tough budget decisions; and unloading bucketsful about the state of NSW's finances / budget.
So NSW has a new Premier, Nathan Rees, and Deputy Premier, Carmel Tebbutt, both of whom are from Left-wing factions. The new Cabinet will likely be announced today, after a full caucus meeting. The supernova has, as with stars, been slow to build, but quick and brutal in its effects. The Right faction's grip on Parliamentary power, in Leadership and behind the scenes, seems to be broken. You could only shed crocodile tears for right-wing power-brokers Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid.
John
In July, (http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008/07/nsw-in-need-of-new-ministers.html), I wrote that NSW needed new ministers, and that at least the following should go: Morris Iemma, Michael Costa, Reba Meagher, Frank Sartor, David Campbell, Joe tripodi & Graeme West; and that NSW had become a dictatorship (under Morris Iemma and Michael Costa).
I August, ( http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html), I suggested that the embarrassment that ensued when Morris Iemma's early recall of Parliament backfired, and it became obvious that Parliament would not allow the privatisation of electricity, was "unsustainable".
Yesterday, 5-Sept, that supernova occurred. The Right faction would not allow Morris Iemma to dump Reba Meagher, & others, in a cabinet reshuffle. The opportunity occurred because of the sudden resignation of his Deputy Premier John Watkins on Tuesday. Certainly the NSW Labor Party executive had a hand in the behind-the-scenes politicking, given Morris Iemma's defiant stance against party policy over electricity. Morris Iemma's own Right faction withdrew support for him, because he wouldn't accept their (suggested) cabinet. Iemma resigned, rather than suffer a Party-room bloodbath. Like Costa, he has indicated he will resign from parliament, too.
Meanwhile Michael Costa held a 25-minute press conference, essentially to say that only he could have made the tough budget decisions; and unloading bucketsful about the state of NSW's finances / budget.
So NSW has a new Premier, Nathan Rees, and Deputy Premier, Carmel Tebbutt, both of whom are from Left-wing factions. The new Cabinet will likely be announced today, after a full caucus meeting. The supernova has, as with stars, been slow to build, but quick and brutal in its effects. The Right faction's grip on Parliamentary power, in Leadership and behind the scenes, seems to be broken. You could only shed crocodile tears for right-wing power-brokers Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid.
John
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Carmel Resurrected For NSW Labor
Carmel Tebbutt, the former NSW Education Minister, is set to become the new Deputy Premier. The sudden resignation of her left-faction colleague, John Watkins, left a hole to be filled. John Watkins was seen as the "nice guy" - he was Education Minister for a short time, charged with calming troubled waters. He has, however, been unable to successfully master union control within the NSW Transport portfolio, especially the railways.
Carmel Tebbutt is "good news" for Premier Morris Iemma - she is seen as hard-working, a mother who put her young family ahead of her career as a Minister for more than twelve months. Caucus will approve her appointment tomorrow, following her left faction colleagues voting to support her.
Morris Iemma will also announce his "new" reshuffled ministry. If Reba Meagher, Frank Sartor, Michael Costa and John Della Bosca stay, it will be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic! The last 3 of those WILL stay, and Costa will stay as Treasurer, party bully, and scourge of infrastructure investment - Iemma needs their influence and followers to stay, so they will remain, although not necessarily where they are. Reba Meagher is not only unpopular with voters as Health Minister, but is seen as incompetent: she will be lucky if she is moved to an outer Ministry, and not dumped to the backbenches. There is a growing perception that Sartor approves developments that suit donors to the ALP, and which are contrary to his senior Departmental Officer's advice.
Media report suggest Ms Tebbutt is being groomed to take over as Premier. Morris Iemma is unpopular, and seen as ineffective, by voters; unpopular with NSW ALP Executive; and Labor MP's and MLC's because of his defiant stance over the "sale" of NSW electricity assets.
In 2009, Iemma will have served long enough to qualify for extra "retirement benefits" as a long-serving Premier. These include an office; staff; and car. It would be an opportune time for him to stand down, giving Carmel Tebbutt 15-18 months to establish her image before the next election. Cynical? Probably, but that's the reality of how politicians work for their own interests.
John
Carmel Tebbutt is "good news" for Premier Morris Iemma - she is seen as hard-working, a mother who put her young family ahead of her career as a Minister for more than twelve months. Caucus will approve her appointment tomorrow, following her left faction colleagues voting to support her.
Morris Iemma will also announce his "new" reshuffled ministry. If Reba Meagher, Frank Sartor, Michael Costa and John Della Bosca stay, it will be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic! The last 3 of those WILL stay, and Costa will stay as Treasurer, party bully, and scourge of infrastructure investment - Iemma needs their influence and followers to stay, so they will remain, although not necessarily where they are. Reba Meagher is not only unpopular with voters as Health Minister, but is seen as incompetent: she will be lucky if she is moved to an outer Ministry, and not dumped to the backbenches. There is a growing perception that Sartor approves developments that suit donors to the ALP, and which are contrary to his senior Departmental Officer's advice.
Media report suggest Ms Tebbutt is being groomed to take over as Premier. Morris Iemma is unpopular, and seen as ineffective, by voters; unpopular with NSW ALP Executive; and Labor MP's and MLC's because of his defiant stance over the "sale" of NSW electricity assets.
In 2009, Iemma will have served long enough to qualify for extra "retirement benefits" as a long-serving Premier. These include an office; staff; and car. It would be an opportune time for him to stand down, giving Carmel Tebbutt 15-18 months to establish her image before the next election. Cynical? Probably, but that's the reality of how politicians work for their own interests.
John
Sunday, August 31, 2008
NSW Power Sale Short-Circuit
This week saw some high farce in NSW politics. Premier Morris Iemma recalled Parliament early to sell NSW's electricity assets. However, the National Party flagged early that it would oppose the sale, because such a sale was certainly not in the interests of regional and rural people. This put the Liberal Party in a no-win situation. It's policy has been to sell ("privatise") electricity (& other) assets. The NSW Auditor-General had largely approved the sale, even though Premier Iemma and Treasurer, Michael Costa, had not put a minimum acceptable price on the assets.
In the end, Liberal leader Barry O'Farrell was caught between a rock and a hard place: follow Party policy; or keep the National Party happy and avoid long-term divisiveness. He chose to keep his Coalition partners happy. As a result, the sale legislation, having been introduced into the upper house, was withdrawn, and Morris Iemma stormed out of the lower house.
Such an embarrassment is usually politically unsustainable. Iemma and Costa quickly formed a Plan B - introduce a mini-budget to amend the lack of new funds, and sell the retail arms of NSW electricity at the same time. This, too, will have implications for the people of NSW:
Barry O'Farrell and the NSW Liberal Party have their own conflicts to resolve: it is Liberal Party Policy to sell NSW electricity assets, but how would they do it, and not look like back-flipping, and how can this be reconciled to the contrary National Party policy.
However a 'sale' happens, the people of NSW will be worse off because of the actions of Morris Iemma and Michael Costa.
John
In the end, Liberal leader Barry O'Farrell was caught between a rock and a hard place: follow Party policy; or keep the National Party happy and avoid long-term divisiveness. He chose to keep his Coalition partners happy. As a result, the sale legislation, having been introduced into the upper house, was withdrawn, and Morris Iemma stormed out of the lower house.
Such an embarrassment is usually politically unsustainable. Iemma and Costa quickly formed a Plan B - introduce a mini-budget to amend the lack of new funds, and sell the retail arms of NSW electricity at the same time. This, too, will have implications for the people of NSW:
- the sale issue has become a political power play - for political parties, and for individual politicians & factions on both sides of politics.
- it will create a new, privately run oligopoly, similar that run by oil companies. That is, there is a captive market and few companies providing the service.
- the new private companies will have income and dividend growth for their business plan. This will be achieved through higher prices, and probably, new "fees and charges", similar to those imposed by banks.
- High-yield dividends will probably be paid int he first 5-10 years to the owners by large borrowings against future income, increasing the debt-ratio of the companies, possibly putting them at financial risk like that experienced by the private owners of the private roads the Cross City Tunnel and Lane Cove Tunnel.
- the sale has not yet incorporated how the Federal Government's carbon-trading scheme will affect prices, and the price to be paid for the assets.
- the assets still don't have a highest minimum acceptable price for sale. It is entirely possible that Morris Iemma and Michael Costa could turn this into a fire-sale of assets of which they are custodians, but don't directly own, to satisfy their own political power agendas.
- Their arguments for sale include the emotional blackmail of no new infrastructure investment, including for hospitals and schools. The NSW Labor Government has done little or noting of that in the last 12 years anyway! Their negligence should not be used to justify a need to make their budget look good.
Barry O'Farrell and the NSW Liberal Party have their own conflicts to resolve: it is Liberal Party Policy to sell NSW electricity assets, but how would they do it, and not look like back-flipping, and how can this be reconciled to the contrary National Party policy.
However a 'sale' happens, the people of NSW will be worse off because of the actions of Morris Iemma and Michael Costa.
John
Sunday, August 24, 2008
It's What Politicians Don't Say
This week has been a typical week in politics: politicians avoid some questions, tell us only part of the truth, or perhaps, simply don't know the answers!
Republican US Presidential candidate John McCain was asked how many houses (dwellings) he owned. After a few stammered words, he said "I think, eh, um, I'll have my staff get back to you on that." Not knowing, or perhaps not wanting to discuss, how many homes you have isn't a good image for one who wants to run one of the biggest economies in the world. Turns out he has 10, including the ones held in his wife's name.
Back home, former Astralian Treasurer Peter Costello was definite when answering a question in Melbourne - he would definitely NOT challenge for the (opposition) Liberal Party leadership. But, again, he didn't say whether he would accept the leadership if it were handed to him on a plate by current leader Brendan Nelson. Dr Nelson is seen as weak, inept and lacking leadership by many.
In NSW, Premier Morris Iemma has been gloating about the NSW Auditor-General's report that found "no major obstacles" to the sale of state-owned electricity assets. But Mr Iemma did not say that the A-G had recommended a (realistic) reserve price be set, that his government has no current plans to set a reserve price; that the Federal Government's proposed carbon-trading scheme would have an effect on the price; that polls suggest that nearly 80% of NSW voters do not want state-owned electricity assets sold, because private companies in an oligopoly will always be more interested in profits than service in rural and remote areas (Telstra set the standard, there); that he is acting against his own Party's policy; or that up to 17 members of his own Government oppose the sale.
AS ususal, it is what the politicians don't say that is the most important aspect of their media massaging.
John
Republican US Presidential candidate John McCain was asked how many houses (dwellings) he owned. After a few stammered words, he said "I think, eh, um, I'll have my staff get back to you on that." Not knowing, or perhaps not wanting to discuss, how many homes you have isn't a good image for one who wants to run one of the biggest economies in the world. Turns out he has 10, including the ones held in his wife's name.
Back home, former Astralian Treasurer Peter Costello was definite when answering a question in Melbourne - he would definitely NOT challenge for the (opposition) Liberal Party leadership. But, again, he didn't say whether he would accept the leadership if it were handed to him on a plate by current leader Brendan Nelson. Dr Nelson is seen as weak, inept and lacking leadership by many.
In NSW, Premier Morris Iemma has been gloating about the NSW Auditor-General's report that found "no major obstacles" to the sale of state-owned electricity assets. But Mr Iemma did not say that the A-G had recommended a (realistic) reserve price be set, that his government has no current plans to set a reserve price; that the Federal Government's proposed carbon-trading scheme would have an effect on the price; that polls suggest that nearly 80% of NSW voters do not want state-owned electricity assets sold, because private companies in an oligopoly will always be more interested in profits than service in rural and remote areas (Telstra set the standard, there); that he is acting against his own Party's policy; or that up to 17 members of his own Government oppose the sale.
AS ususal, it is what the politicians don't say that is the most important aspect of their media massaging.
John
Friday, August 15, 2008
Olympic-Sized Tantrums
This week, as we watched some of the events at the XXIX Olympic Games at Beijing, we very quickly decided that we had become armchair experts at a considerable number of sports. "This is easy to judge", we said! We enjoyed watching, and supporting Australia's competitors, rejoiced in their successes & efforts; and applauded the feats of others who did well.
The "Olympic experience" in our living room has been tarnished though, by a number of tantrums / dummy spits / over-reactions / bad sportsmanship:
The "Olympic experience" in our living room has been tarnished though, by a number of tantrums / dummy spits / over-reactions / bad sportsmanship:
- 3rd Place: China's attempts to block any bad news: protests over Tibet, the weather, ring-ins in the opening ceremony; and to restrict media reporting of anything other than how great China's games are.
- 2nd Place: the Russian women's Beach Volleyball team. Beaten by Georgia, part of which country Russia had invaded, the teams "hugged" at the end of the match, but the Russians tried to belittle the Georgians in the press conference, were surly, and mumbled derogatory answers. Yes, the Georgians were born in Brazil, but have qualified to represent Georgia under Olympic regulations. Other countries have migrant representatives, too. the Russians appeared to be motivated by spite, and sour grapes at losing.
- (Gold) Silver Medal:(unlikely to be beaten by anything else) Swedis
h Greco-Roman wrestler, Ara Abrahamian threw away the bronze medal he won in the 84kg Greco-Roman wrestling tournament. He'd argued with the umpire(s) in a match he lost to the eventual winner. He walked out immediately after receiving the medal, and before the other athletes had received theirs. He is reported to have said "I wanted to take gold, so I consider this Olympics a failure". It was truly a "gold-medal" dummy spit, and many will hope that the wrestling sports body takes appropriate action.
(Photo: Ezra Shaw / Getty Images)
But graciousness and goodwill have been the hallmark of most athletes.
John
Olympic Post Script: 25-Aug-2008
There has been a change - a new, last-minute result. The biggest, and gold-medal-winning tantrum goes to the Cuban Taekwondo fighter, Angel Matos, who was disqualified after taking too long for an injury time-out: he kicked out at, and hit, an olympic referee. He, and his coach, have been given a life-time ban by the World Taekwondo Federation.
Full story at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/23/2344656.htm?site=olympics/2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Banks Under Pressure To Lower Rates
It seems everyone believes the Australian Banks should lower their interest rates when the Reserve Bank (RBA) does: politicians, financial reporters, borrowers, and yes, the reserve Bank of Australia. It is expected that the RBA will lower interest rates, possibly at its September meeting. Core inflation is expected to fall slightly faster, returning to the 2% - 3% target by mid-2010, as the Australian economy cools. However, economic indicators such as business and consumer confidence measures are falling quickly, and retail businesses have suffered a sharp fall over the last quarter, as interest rates bite into family budgets.
The banks, however, are reluctant. After all, the (US) Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to ... shock, horror! ... 2%. Banks have borrowed overseas money cheaply, and on-sold some of it here at much higher retail rates. The banks will claim they need to keep charging higher interest rates because of "the sub-prime crisis" in the US. Well, yes, Australian Banks did buy packaged sub-prime mortgages. That was their commercial decision because they thought they saw easy profits, and probably failed to apply due diligence. However, most prudent people would question the decision to buy 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-rate mortgages, where the risk of defaults is much higher, as a high-risk, poor investment. That is a decision made by the banks, and they, their executives, and shareholders should suffer. Bonuses should be cut, not maintained and offered because of increased bank fees, and artificially raised interest rates. The Commonwealth Bank has just announced a record profit of $4.8 Billion, a rise of 7%, well above inflation, and despite write-downs for some sub-prime investments.
The ethics of banks, and some bank CEO's, are appalling! It might be time to consider a partially-regulated banking industry again.
John
The banks, however, are reluctant. After all, the (US) Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to ... shock, horror! ... 2%. Banks have borrowed overseas money cheaply, and on-sold some of it here at much higher retail rates. The banks will claim they need to keep charging higher interest rates because of "the sub-prime crisis" in the US. Well, yes, Australian Banks did buy packaged sub-prime mortgages. That was their commercial decision because they thought they saw easy profits, and probably failed to apply due diligence. However, most prudent people would question the decision to buy 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-rate mortgages, where the risk of defaults is much higher, as a high-risk, poor investment. That is a decision made by the banks, and they, their executives, and shareholders should suffer. Bonuses should be cut, not maintained and offered because of increased bank fees, and artificially raised interest rates. The Commonwealth Bank has just announced a record profit of $4.8 Billion, a rise of 7%, well above inflation, and despite write-downs for some sub-prime investments.
The ethics of banks, and some bank CEO's, are appalling! It might be time to consider a partially-regulated banking industry again.
John
Friday, August 08, 2008
Iemma's Privatization Fuse
The NSW ALP Administrative Committee, its most powerful body, today met with NSW Premier, Morris Iemma. He had previoously refused to attend to dicuss the issue of his, and Treasurer Michale Costa's, plan to privatize NSW's electricity assets. The upshot is an uneasy "truce" that gives Morris Iemma a back door exit: he did say that he was "still willing to negotiate" (on privatization).He will be acutely aware that he needs to stay as Premier for another 12 months before he can access "long-term Premier" benefits in retirement. Michael Costa, his staunch ally in privatization, is also looking at his retirement. They alone told Caucus what it would think, raising the stakes, and the hackles of NSW ALP government members, members of the ALP, Unions, and the public. Perhaps the 'negotiations' will last that 12 months, whereupon Mr Iemma might retire from politics, take his added benefits; which include car, driver, and office; and pass the poisoned chalice of privatization to someone else, to be quickly dropped as a change in policy by the new leader.
Given the unpopularity of the proposed electricity privatization, many in NSW, unionists and others, would be pleased.
John
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Costello Still Deciding on Leadership
As the Liberal Party languishes in the whiteout that is the Winter Recess for Federal Oppositions, Brendan Nelson leaves for a 10-day holiday, just as Peter Costello returns from his holiday in warmer climes. Could Nelson's holiday be the political equivalent of Capt Oates' "I’m just stepping outside for a while and I may be some time..." suicide walk in the Antarctic?Several senior Liberal Party members have voiced their support for ex-Treasurer Peter Costello just 1 day after Nelson's departure for his holiday. Among them are "Mad Monk" Tony Abbott, MP; and Senator Nick "Captain Crankypants" Minchin.
For his part Peter Costello is biding his time: will he retire from politics, or take up the challenge of Opposition leadership after 12 years as Treasurer? His book launch has been brought forward to September. There are some possible political reasons for doing so:
- Costello wants the leadership, but on his terms. To be introduced at his book launch as now "Opposition Leader", sounds MUCH BETTER than just "soon-to-retire-not-involved-backbencher".
- Costello could be waiting to be "invited" to take the leadership, without challenge from Malcolm Turnbull, or the incumbent Brendan Nelson. Such a bloodless coup reduces the public gnashing, although Turnbull would still be seething and plotting, rather like Brutus did for Caesar.
- If he is not offered the leadership on a plate, it is unlikely that Peter Costello would challenge for it: he had ample opportunity to challenge for Leadership when the Coalition was in government under John Howard, and Howard had "promised" him the leadership. After the Coalition lost government in Nov 2007, Costello wanted nothing to do with leadership of the Opposition. He might still regard it as a poisoned chalice.
We won't know Costello's intentions until he chooses to tell us, perhaps by "rumours" leaked by supporters to the media, followed by a quick, clean kill. The smiling snake might yet be back.
John
Friday, August 01, 2008
Sonny Bill Williams Defection Irony
This week's defection from Rugby League to Rugby Union by (Canterbury, NSW) Bulldogs player Sonny Bill Williams has created considerable print, air and television discussion time, mostly by supporters of Rugby League.Not one has mentioned the considerable irony involved in a league player defecting for money. In 1907-08, led by Dally Messenger, other Rugby union players deserted union to establish Rugby League ... for money! For years, Australian Rugby League pilfered union players to swell its ranks, including: Ricky Stuart, Michael O'Connor and Wally Lewis.
There is considerable irony, then, in a league player deserting the code to play rugby union ... for money$! Others, of course have already gone from league to union: Mark Gasnier, Lote Tuquiri, Berrick Barnes, Timana Tahu to name a few. Given its history, it's hard to see how league could complain ... it's EXACTLY what they did / still do.
John
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Brendan Nelson's Climate Change
Federal Liberal and Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson has again been rolled by his shadow cabinet, this time on climate change. What follows represents an interview that might have been:
John: Dr Nelson, what's your policy on climate change?
BN: Well, John, today's policy is what the shadow cabinet told me.
John: What about tomorrow?
BN: Well, tomorrow will be a new "today", so it will still be "today's policy".
John: Last year, then Prime Minister John Howard told you, and everyone else in his government, what the policy would be. After the Coalition lost government at the election you changed it.
BN: Yes, go on ...
John: Is that different from "today's policy"?
BN: No, it's almost the same.
John: What about the rest of your shadow cabinet?
BN: Let me make it clear, my policy is almost the same as theirs.
John: What about Malcolm Turnbull's policy?
BN: Almost the same.
John: Peter Costello's? The Labor Government's?
BN: Almost the same. I told you, it's almost the same.
John: Is their anyone's policy that is different??
BN:... um ... The Greens!
John: But aren't their policies good for the environment? Isn't that an image you want?
BN: Let me make it clear, my policy today is almost the same as theirs. And tomorrow's "today's policy" will be almost the same. Nearly. It depends on what I'm told.
John
John: Dr Nelson, what's your policy on climate change?
BN: Well, John, today's policy is what the shadow cabinet told me.
John: What about tomorrow?
BN: Well, tomorrow will be a new "today", so it will still be "today's policy".
John: Last year, then Prime Minister John Howard told you, and everyone else in his government, what the policy would be. After the Coalition lost government at the election you changed it.
BN: Yes, go on ...
John: Is that different from "today's policy"?
BN: No, it's almost the same.
John: What about the rest of your shadow cabinet?
BN: Let me make it clear, my policy is almost the same as theirs.
John: What about Malcolm Turnbull's policy?
BN: Almost the same.
John: Peter Costello's? The Labor Government's?
BN: Almost the same. I told you, it's almost the same.
John: Is their anyone's policy that is different??
BN:
John: But aren't their policies good for the environment? Isn't that an image you want?
BN: Let me make it clear, my policy today is almost the same as theirs. And tomorrow's "today's policy" will be almost the same. Nearly. It depends on what I'm told.
John
Sunday, July 27, 2008
QLD Lib, Nats Unite
Yesterday the Queensland branches of the Liberal Party and the National Party each passed separate resolutions to unite, becoming the LNP - Liberal National Party.There is some irony in the name: the National Party was never really about 'liberalism', at least not in the way that Liberal Party icon Sir Robert Menzies envisioned it. They have always been about the "free market", as long as there are protectionist policies, government handouts to farmers, and monopoly organisations. AWB springs to mind. However, perhaps Menzies is already turning in his grave over the damage the (rather extreme) right wing of the Liberal Party has already done to his party.
Queensland's Mal Springborg, former leader of the Qld National Party, and new leader of the LNP said that (instantly) State Opposition MP's from the Liberal & National Parties were now automatic members of the LNP. It remains to be seen if they all want that: perhaps the politically expedient desire to be re-elected will ensure they do. Not so for former Howard Government Minister Mal Brough. He lost his seat at the last election, and they found a job for him as State President of the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party. He is unhappy at the merger, and unsure of his political future. He walked out of the Liberal Party State Convention after the vote.
The Federal Coalition opposition will now consist of 3 parties. there might be a minor reshuffle if the Federal Liberal and National Parties want to exert their superior numbers. Expect further tension as some conservative Queensland MP's and Senators are asked to reflect different priorities, set by the new LNP.
John
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Libs Want Costello, But Does He Want Them?
Speculation continues in the media about whether former Howard government Treasurer, Peter Costello, will be recruited to the leadership of the Opposition. (photo: abc.net.au)Costello, as Treasurer, was described by many as an accomplished Parliamentary performer, known for: his evil-looking smirk; his quick wit; and his theatrics.
Speculation about his future is driven by the retirement of several former senior members of the Howard government: Alexander Downer, Peter McGauran, and Mark Vaile. John Howard lost his seat of Bennelong at the election in November.
While a number of Liberal right-wing members have thrown their support behind Mr Costello. But would he want it? He will have gone from treasurer, and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in government, to lowly Opposition backbencher, to leading an Opposition likely to remain there for at least two parliamentary terms. The Opposition is fragmented, current leader Brendan Nelson is seen as ineffective, they can't decide on their current policy on carbon trading and pollution reduction, many of it s potential leaders, including Costello, will be tainted for years by John Howard's WorkChoices, funding cuts to public education, and a legacy of rising inflation from an overheated economy: an economy that Peter Costello didn't control in the last 3 years.
Having already declined the leadership after the election, leadership of the Federal Liberal Party, and Opposition Leader, might well be a poisoned chalice not to Peter Costello's liking.
John
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Murray-Darling Water Flow And Solar Energy
An Open Letter to:
The Rt Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia
Senator, the Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water
In April 2000, Germany passed the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) to boost the planned switch to renewable energy sources. Producers of renewable energy are paid for each kWh (kilowatt-hour) of solar power, or wind energy, generated and fed into the grid. Companies embrace it because there are economic advantages for them, and the payments are not tied to a budget, but funded from a fraction of a cent rise in the costs.
It is now 2008, and Australia and the world face significant threats from climate change and the effects of global warming. Australia also faces catastrophic long-term effects of drought on rivers, farms, and communities in the Murray Darling Basin.
Australia has the greatest amount of usable solar energy of any country in the world. Kevin Rudd’s Federal Labor Government has some related problems it needs to address:
One of its very first actions was to sign the Kyoto Protocol, committing it to reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases by Australians, and by commercial enterprises operating in Australia.
It has just released a “Green Paper” on reducing carbon pollution. A Green Paper is used for discussion, and later adjustment, as Government finalizes its policy. The proposal includes huge subsidies for the biggest carbon polluters, including owners of coal-fired power stations, contrary to the recommendations of the Garnaut Report.
It has had ongoing discussions about how to put more water into the Murray-Darling Basin river systems. This area has significant long-term drought effects, little water flow, and much land is becoming marginal for farming. There are high-water-use irrigation crops, including rice and cotton being grown in dry inland Australia.
The Federal Government ought to consider the following:
A reduction in water demand from inefficient farms in the Murray-Darling Basin, and development of large-scale "solar farms" could result in increased water flow, and a reduction in greenhouse gases as increasing amounts of electricity are generated. It will be a costly exercise, and will require commitment, explanation and vision from a government that genuinely wants to improve Australia, provide alternate sources of farm income for those in marginal areas, wants to reduce the carbon pollution generated by Australians, and which wants to make best use of Australia's abundant solar energy potential.
The states, the National farmers Federation, and the Liberal & National Parties, must not be allowed to be obstructionist.
John
The Rt Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia
Senator, the Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water
In April 2000, Germany passed the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) to boost the planned switch to renewable energy sources. Producers of renewable energy are paid for each kWh (kilowatt-hour) of solar power, or wind energy, generated and fed into the grid. Companies embrace it because there are economic advantages for them, and the payments are not tied to a budget, but funded from a fraction of a cent rise in the costs.
It is now 2008, and Australia and the world face significant threats from climate change and the effects of global warming. Australia also faces catastrophic long-term effects of drought on rivers, farms, and communities in the Murray Darling Basin.
Australia has the greatest amount of usable solar energy of any country in the world. Kevin Rudd’s Federal Labor Government has some related problems it needs to address:
One of its very first actions was to sign the Kyoto Protocol, committing it to reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases by Australians, and by commercial enterprises operating in Australia.
It has just released a “Green Paper” on reducing carbon pollution. A Green Paper is used for discussion, and later adjustment, as Government finalizes its policy. The proposal includes huge subsidies for the biggest carbon polluters, including owners of coal-fired power stations, contrary to the recommendations of the Garnaut Report.It has had ongoing discussions about how to put more water into the Murray-Darling Basin river systems. This area has significant long-term drought effects, little water flow, and much land is becoming marginal for farming. There are high-water-use irrigation crops, including rice and cotton being grown in dry inland Australia.
The Federal Government ought to consider the following:
- Maintaining, or extending, incentives for individuals to add solar panels to their homes.
Adding a “payment” for electricity fed into the grid by companies and individuals, such payment to be funded by a fraction of a cent rise in the cost of electricity, and therefore borne by all users. Companies can offset the increased costs by installing their own solar or wind generators and connecting them to the grid. - Implementing, even legislating, changes to Australia’s farming industries in dry, inland Australia. Farmers should be encouraged to cease growing low-yield, high-water-using crops to implement “solar farms”. Cotton and rice farms spring to mind. In the 1990’s Australia restructured the sugar industry, effectively removing inefficient producers. One of the advantages of solar farms is that they generate electricity when it is most needed – in the daytime. Such a scheme would also help to secure water, and employment (infrastructure) for towns and cities along the rivers systems. Such a scheme also means that fewer farming families would need to leave unproductive land that is increasing their levels of debt.
A reduction in water demand from inefficient farms in the Murray-Darling Basin, and development of large-scale "solar farms" could result in increased water flow, and a reduction in greenhouse gases as increasing amounts of electricity are generated. It will be a costly exercise, and will require commitment, explanation and vision from a government that genuinely wants to improve Australia, provide alternate sources of farm income for those in marginal areas, wants to reduce the carbon pollution generated by Australians, and which wants to make best use of Australia's abundant solar energy potential.
The states, the National farmers Federation, and the Liberal & National Parties, must not be allowed to be obstructionist.
John
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Church Abuse - Call For Compensation
Yesterday, during a World Youth Day ceremony to consecrate the altar at St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney, Pope Benedict XVI apologised to victims of sexual assault.
Nor is the issue that Catholic priests, or members of other religious orders, are unmarried, and take vows of celebacy. Rod O’Conner, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Health Program Evaluation, in 1991 wrote that
John
"Indeed I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering theFollowing the apology,Hetty Johnston, Executive Director of Bravehearts (a child sexual assault advocacy group) , called for compensation for the victims. That would be fair and just. However, the issue is more complex than just making the Catholic Church pay. Or any other church. Most victims of child sexual assault or abuse know the perpetrator. They either have some connection to the family, or are family members. They, too, ought to have rights to compensation.
victims have endured and I assure them that, as their pastor, I too share in
their suffering "
Nor is the issue that Catholic priests, or members of other religious orders, are unmarried, and take vows of celebacy. Rod O’Conner, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Health Program Evaluation, in 1991 wrote that
"Child sexual abusers are predominantly male. Other than that they are unlikely to be readily identifiable. Abel et al (1987), on the basis of ... subjects studied over a nine years period, concluded that they came from a broad spectrum of socio-economic backgrounds, and were unremarkable in terms of age, education, or marital status."Compensation to victims ought to be independent of organisations and people. Having said that, it might well be appropriate for courts to order compensation for victims from a central (State) source, and impose fines on perpetrators and organisations that breach their duty of care. At least, then, all victims can be compensated, irrespective of the perpetrator. Further the Catholic Church, and other churches, ought to establish proper protocols to facilitate police investigation of all allegations of sexual abuse, and to resolve outstanding matters. This would fit with Christ's edict to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew, 22: 19-21 )
John
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
World Youth Day Sydney 2008
Sydney has begun hosting World Youth Day (WYD) events. There has been much contrary discussion from some Sydneysiders, and some groups. Yes, there is disruption to people's routine. So did the Olympic games, so do football grand finals, international one-day cricket games. Yes, some groups oppose the goodness of religion, apparently just because it's religion. They have closed their minds, and will run with a confrontational agenda.
Our city hosted pilgrims before they went to Sydney. I had social contact with some of them, and those attending were were both inspired, and inspiring. I hope that other people find them so - the media have shown images and sounds of people enjoying themselves, and behaving well.
While there are no longer 12, Australia has its own "apostles", on the Victorian coast, and aren't they magnificent!!Go on! SMILE, & BE INSPIRED!
John
Saturday, July 12, 2008
UN Nobbled by Russia And China
A UN Security Council resolution, S/2008/447, that would have imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe, has been vetoed by China and Russia. The vote was 9 For - 5 Against. Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Italy, Panama, United Kingdom, United States voted for the resolution, while China, Libya, Russian Federation, South Africa, Viet Nam voted against, with Indonesia abstaining. China and Russia vetoed the resolution. A press release from the UN can be found here. It includes a copy of the draft resolution.
China issued a statement attempting to justify its veto. It said that "a sanctions resolution against Zimbabwe would not help...".
In April this year, a Chinese vessel carrying 3 million rounds of ammunition (for AK47 assault rifles, also supplied by China; and Russia), and rocket-propelled grenades was interrupted by South African dock workers, who were concerned about their intended use, just after Robert Mugabe lost the March election. {subsequent violence by the military, and others, against Mugabe's opponents would seem to justify their concerns}
The UN resolution would have, among other items, required an embargo on the supply of arms, and financial transactions. China 's significant arms trade with Zimbabwe/Mugabe would have to stop immediately, and payments due for past shipments would be effectively forfeited.
China's veto was much more about China's self-interest than any concern for processes aimed at ending the violence (& need for arms!). Russia vetoed to protect its growing trade with Zimbabwe, and to support its communist ally.
{See also the Human Rights Watch pages on Zimbabwe's abuses of its people.}
John
China issued a statement attempting to justify its veto. It said that "a sanctions resolution against Zimbabwe would not help...".
In April this year, a Chinese vessel carrying 3 million rounds of ammunition (for AK47 assault rifles, also supplied by China; and Russia), and rocket-propelled grenades was interrupted by South African dock workers, who were concerned about their intended use, just after Robert Mugabe lost the March election. {subsequent violence by the military, and others, against Mugabe's opponents would seem to justify their concerns}
The UN resolution would have, among other items, required an embargo on the supply of arms, and financial transactions. China 's significant arms trade with Zimbabwe/Mugabe would have to stop immediately, and payments due for past shipments would be effectively forfeited.
China's veto was much more about China's self-interest than any concern for processes aimed at ending the violence (& need for arms!). Russia vetoed to protect its growing trade with Zimbabwe, and to support its communist ally.
{See also the Human Rights Watch pages on Zimbabwe's abuses of its people.}
John
G8: We Met,We Talked, We Did Nothing
This week the G8 summit was hosted by Japan. The G8 includes the leaders of the world's biggest polluters: Russia; France; Germany; Italy; Japan; Russia; the United Kingdom; and the United States.
High on their agenda was climate change, and the reduction of greenhouse gases that contribute to it. That was driven, in part, by the sudden large increase in the price of crude oil. In July 2007, the price was about US$75 /barrel. In July 2008, it is just over US$140 / barrel, an increase of more than 85% in 1 year! (see chart)
In real terms it is almost the same price as during the oil crisis in 1979-80.
They listened to the opinions on climate change of other "non-G8", countries, including Australia. Their responses to climate change, from their joint Statement included:
Real leaders of the world would have stood up and said: "It is right to implement policies to reduce greenhouse gases. WE will do it." They didn't, and we must question their leadership.
John
High on their agenda was climate change, and the reduction of greenhouse gases that contribute to it. That was driven, in part, by the sudden large increase in the price of crude oil. In July 2007, the price was about US$75 /barrel. In July 2008, it is just over US$140 / barrel, an increase of more than 85% in 1 year! (see chart)In real terms it is almost the same price as during the oil crisis in 1979-80.
They listened to the opinions on climate change of other "non-G8", countries, including Australia. Their responses to climate change, from their joint Statement included:
- "we urge oil producing countries to increase production"
- "we ... encourage all countries to enhance (oil) refinery capacity"
- "We ask relevant national authorities to examine the functioning of commodity
futures markets and to take appropriate measures" - it's all the market's fault!! ? - "We are convinced that urgent and concerted action is needed and accept our responsibility to show leadership in tackling climate change."
and they - "note that market mechanisms, including emission trading and tax incentives, have the potential to deliver economic incentives ... "
Real leaders of the world would have stood up and said: "It is right to implement policies to reduce greenhouse gases. WE will do it." They didn't, and we must question their leadership.
John
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
NSW In Need Of New Ministers
The NSW Labor Government continues to squabble. The latest backbencher to express unease, MP for Drummoyne, Angela D'Amore, suffered a tirade from Premier Morris Iemma for more than an hour. Media report that he threatened to withdraw government projects in her electorate if she didn't do as she was told - at about the same as Mr Iemma told the press of the "industrial terror tactics" of the rail union. (it had threatened strike action during World Youth Day in Sydney, and it would have been reprehensible). mmm ... must check the meaning of 'hypocrite'.
The NSW Treasurer, Michael Costa, in a fit of pique, withdrew from a Labor Party fundraising event. He is at odds with his party executive over the Government's desire to sell taxpayer-owned electricity assets. Backbenchers continue to tell senior Ministers that they are out of touch. Hospitals are never far from the news, and hospitals routinely go "code red"; meaning only life-threatening cases are accepted by ambulance, or admitted.
In February, I wrote that the NSW Labor Government was ready to supernova - other media seem say "implode". So what Ministers should go? My list is:
John
The NSW Treasurer, Michael Costa, in a fit of pique, withdrew from a Labor Party fundraising event. He is at odds with his party executive over the Government's desire to sell taxpayer-owned electricity assets. Backbenchers continue to tell senior Ministers that they are out of touch. Hospitals are never far from the news, and hospitals routinely go "code red"; meaning only life-threatening cases are accepted by ambulance, or admitted.
In February, I wrote that the NSW Labor Government was ready to supernova - other media seem say "implode". So what Ministers should go? My list is:
- Morris Iemma, Premier: incompetence; lack of leadership; conflict with ALP State Executive
- Michael Costa, Treasurer: workplace bully; ready to "retire" with a nice pension; conflict with ALP State Executive
- Reba Meagher, Minster for Health: incompetence
- Frank Sartor, Minister for Planning: incompetence; has problems identifying conflict of interest; wants to micromanage everything. When he was Minister for Water, his nicknames within Sydney Water were "The Big Drip" (if he had an 'idea'), or "Cranky Franky (in his 'usual' mood)
- David Campbell, Minister for Police: too much political involvement with Police matters; WYD "annoyance" legislation!
- Joe Tripodi, Minister for Small Business: incompetence; too many dubious "connections", including from the sacked Wollongong Council
- Graeme West, Minster for Gaming & Racing: incompetence-Clubs NSW bypass him, and go straight to the Premier and the Treasurer.
- I'm sure arguments could be made for others.
John
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Rudd's Short Term Inaction
The Federal Liberal/national Coalition has criticised Prime Minister Kevin Rudd over his handling of flows in the Murray-Darling Basin. The ABC reported it as "an illusion of government action". Earlier this year the Federal Labor Government completed an agreement with the states; an agreement that the previous Coalition Government, under John Howard, did nothing for 11 years, and was unable to bring to fruition at the last minute.The Coalition now says (without John Howard) that the agreement will not increase flows to the ailing system, but fails to indicate what would be required. What is required is significant rainfall, and a fundamental restructuring of some irrigation-based farming industries. Questions about the wisdom of growing high-water-use crops such as rice and cotton in dry, inland Australia need to be addressed. So too, do questions about the amount of water that properties can farm out of the system. Cubbie Station, in SW Queensland, has previously been named as a cause of significantly reduced flows into the upper Darling River.
Again, the ABC reported Mr Rudd as saying:
"Medium term, the Basin plan and Basin cap and a more aggressive approach to the purchasing of licences" and "Longer term, acting responsibly nationally and globally on climate change. That's our three-phase strategy."
The Government would be buying back (irrigation) water licences - but not yet. But medium and long-term policies are not enough. Mr Rudd, as part of his responses to Climate Change, Environmental concerns, farming practices and regional planning needs short-term responses as well. He needs to have some actions now, for the sake of people who live and work there, and for all Australians.
John
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Garnaut's Draft - Wake Up!
Professor Ross Garnaut released the Garnaut Climate Change Review Draft Report yesterday.
While there appears to be nothing starkly different from what had been expected, it outlines the very significant and stark effects of climate change if we do nothing. For excample:
Already, then, some of our politicians are ignoring Professor Garnaut's wise advice, and are acting in a short-term, politically expedient, and irrational manner; for their own selfish purposes. We don't want such politicians any more, and they have no part to play in rational discussion leading to proper, appropriate public policy.
John
While there appears to be nothing starkly different from what had been expected, it outlines the very significant and stark effects of climate change if we do nothing. For excample:
- "major declines in agricultural production across much of the country, including a 50 per cent reduction in irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin. By 2100, irrigated agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin would decline by 92 per cent."
- "(a fall of) 4.8 per cent of Australia’s projected GDP, around 5.4 per cent of projected household consumption, and 7.8 per cent from real wages by 2100" (Media Release)
"We will delude ourselves should we choose to take small actions that create an appearance of action, but which do not solve the problem." Yet, this is so often how politicians react!Politicians should not choose political expediency as the basis of policy, and Industry groups, lobbyists and other groups and individuals should not engage in scare campaigns to suit their short-term financial or poitical interests. Liberal/National Opposition politicians were already crying "wolf", even before the release of the draft report; and NSW Labor Treasurer Costa is already demanding exemptions for coal-fired NSW power stations. He wants to sell them, and a carbon-trading scheme would mean the sale price would be less!and
"it is neither rational nor helpful to reject conclusions because we do not like them. The conclusions will only be ‘wrong’ if the premises or logic leading to them are wrong. The Review aims to be clear in its premises and methodology, so that they can be contested transparently. If the subsequent public policy debate follows these lines, we will improve the prospects of Australian governments taking good decisions." (Draft Report)
Already, then, some of our politicians are ignoring Professor Garnaut's wise advice, and are acting in a short-term, politically expedient, and irrational manner; for their own selfish purposes. We don't want such politicians any more, and they have no part to play in rational discussion leading to proper, appropriate public policy.
John
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
World Youth Day - What's 'Annoying'?
The NSW Government, just before Parliament rose for several months, passed a law to stop behaviour that "causes annoyance or inconvenience to participants in a World Youth Day event".
Police will have "discretionary" powers to arrest and/or fine people. While some, including Anna Katzmann, SC, President of the NSW Bar Association is reported as saying that the laws are "unnecessary and repugnant".
People in Australia do have a right to free speech and to protest, and a law that relies on non-specific, vague terms such as "annoyance" must be bad law. I suspect that many courts would struggle to define it. I could not find a general, stand-alone legal definition for it.
WYD is unpopular with some people. It will inconvenience many. But so do/did other cultural events: consider the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, for which streets are closed, and which promotes lifestyles practised by about 10% of the community (http://www.uqu.uq.edu.au/queer/faq_gl#7) In the 2006 ABS YearBook, 34% of Australians identified themselves as Catholic. Some/many Sydney and NSW Catholics will attend some or all WYD events. They should not now be denied that opportunity.
I'm not attending WYD, but participants in WYD should be free to do so without torment or disruption. Those who wish to protest should do so away from those specific areas being used by WYD, and respect it as a (world, and local) community event that will happen just once in their city. That is, they should be tolerant, and inclusive, in the same way that they demand of others.
Issues surrounding whether or not Sydney, or any other metropolitan city, should host large events that cause disruption, and bad legislation from our governments, should be addressed by the community, by contacting your local politician. APEC springs to mind. Look them up at www.nsw.gov.au and www.aph.gov.au
John
Police will have "discretionary" powers to arrest and/or fine people. While some, including Anna Katzmann, SC, President of the NSW Bar Association is reported as saying that the laws are "unnecessary and repugnant".
People in Australia do have a right to free speech and to protest, and a law that relies on non-specific, vague terms such as "annoyance" must be bad law. I suspect that many courts would struggle to define it. I could not find a general, stand-alone legal definition for it.
WYD is unpopular with some people. It will inconvenience many. But so do/did other cultural events: consider the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, for which streets are closed, and which promotes lifestyles practised by about 10% of the community (http://www.uqu.uq.edu.au/queer/faq_gl#7) In the 2006 ABS YearBook, 34% of Australians identified themselves as Catholic. Some/many Sydney and NSW Catholics will attend some or all WYD events. They should not now be denied that opportunity.
I'm not attending WYD, but participants in WYD should be free to do so without torment or disruption. Those who wish to protest should do so away from those specific areas being used by WYD, and respect it as a (world, and local) community event that will happen just once in their city. That is, they should be tolerant, and inclusive, in the same way that they demand of others.
Issues surrounding whether or not Sydney, or any other metropolitan city, should host large events that cause disruption, and bad legislation from our governments, should be addressed by the community, by contacting your local politician. APEC springs to mind. Look them up at www.nsw.gov.au and www.aph.gov.au
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
