a political opinion

Optional preferential voting is required for Australia

2013-10-17T17:23:00.000+11:00

Example Australian Senate ticket: Source AEC

The Abbott government has been sworn, but the buzz from the 2013 Election campaign is far from over. The almost universal outrage at the way in which minor and micro parties have been able to sneak into Senate poses an ongoing problem; does Australia require electoral reform. In short, Yes.
There is nothing inherently wrong with minor or micro parties holding power within the Senate. This blog is an advocate for more representation from independents and minor parties in Parliament. Though what is highly objectionable, is the idea that unwanted and (mostly) disliked parties and politicians getting into power where there was clearly no preference for them.

Optional preferential voting needs to be the new solution for Australia, for all State and Federal elections. With compulsory voting required in Australia (or at least attendance at a polling booth), the ability for citizens to fully utilise their political right to participate in an election needs to occur. When someone goes to vote, before they even mark their ballot papers, they have two options. To vote or not to vote/cast an informal vote that will not count. Seems simple, but it gets a little more complicated later on. Many people cast informal ballots at the election such as voting for only one candidate or writing obscenities for the electoral officials to laugh over later. They validly decide that they don't want to place any candidate in power. This is a legitimate political choice. For voters who vote this way, they reject the current offer of political candidates. But what about citizens who want to only vote for 1 or just a few candidates, but not others? In a two candidate election it is simple, they preference one candidate above another. Throw in more candidates and the voter will probably find other candidates they would preference above their least preferred candidate. But an elections and voting shouldn't come down to ordering your least preferred candidates. You should be able to reject candidates outright if you have no preference at all for them to be in Parliament.

Many senate tickets run over 50 candidates, so if you're voting below the line, you can sometimes have a difficult time working out who your least preferred candidate is. In the House of Representatives, there is a different problem. In an electorate where it is unlikely that no minor party or independent will get a majority, as is the case with most electorates in Australia, you still have to choose between either of the Liberal or Labor candidates to vote for. If you wish to protest vote so they do not receive your vote, you forgo the opportunity to vote for your most preferred candidate.

What happens if no party manages to get a majority?
Then you re-hold the election. This may seem like an unfortunate consequence and an inconvenience, but when the inconvenience is having a minor party is only 0.02% of the primary vote having the balance of power, sending a state or an electorate back to the polls is nothing too sinister.

So where should this rule apply? It should apply to all House of Representatives and Senate ballots. House of Representative ballots are typically small. We could safely assume that people would give some preference options, especially if they want their vote to fully count (and not have to go back to the polls). But it prevents them from having to give a preference to a candidate they have no desire to elect to Parliament. As for the Senate ticket, you may still have above and below the line optional voting. If parties want to engage in preference deals they may. Though it also allows them to decide which parties they would not want to be in power with. This way, parties won't have to choose between the Motoring Enthusiast Party and Sports party. It also enables more below the line votes to occur. The main reason people don't vote below the line is not because they don't know how to count (even up into the hundreds), but because they can't be bothered distributing their preferences across so many parties they don't care about.

Electoral reform in Australia needs to occur. Or the issues we identified as problems within the 2013 election, will just reoccur again and again.

What's in a gaffe?

2013-08-16T18:28:00.001+10:00

No one is immune from it. Politicians try to be the perfect articulators of policy and party position, but when under pressure, they muck up. It's only human to make a mistake when delivering an all important speech and you're under the pump. Especially when you're delivering speeches every day, as you are in an election campaign.

Though the gaffes politicians make sometimes illuminate insights into their character. Just to pick on a few politicians and their notable gaffes, and what they show about their character (and policies)

#1: Kevin Rudd - "Ratfuckers"
Kevin as PM (before Julia Gillard) made the offhand comment once he thought an interview was over that the Chinese government were "ratfuckers" because of how they conducted themselves at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference of 2009. This outburst showed many things. Number one was that Rudd wasn't scared of using profanity. It's new news that some politicians have a potty mouth, though when you are the Prime Minister and an ex diplomat, you should have had the common sense to hold your tongue and say that far far away from the cameras. Number two, and for policy purposes, it showed clearly how much Rudd cared about passing an agreement. His fury was clearly on display, highlighting his passion for action. And lastly, a quick temper. Though this was later backed up by many more reports on Rudd's character.

#2 - Tony Abbott - "No one is the suppository of all wisdom"
No they're not Tony, and neither are you a depository of the finer points of the English language. Mixing up words is no big deal, though when it's a word like "suppository" it does make people sit up and listen. The laughter from fellow Liberal MP's just after he said it highlight how harmless and innocent the mistake was. Yes it's a laugh, but just because you occasionally mix your words up doesn't rule you out of the position as PM.

#3 - Tony Abbott - "They're young.... (ahh) they're feisty... (ahhh).... I think I can probably say [they] have a bit of sex appeal"
Despite this making international headlines and enraging many feminists, the most sensible critique came from Kevin Rudd.

"If any male employer stood up in a workplace anywhere in Australia and pointing to a female staff member said this person is a good staff member because they’ve got sex appeal I think people would scratch their heads at least and I think the employer would be finding themselves in serious strife." Kevin Rudd

A throwaway line by Abbott, but a bit mistake for anyone who has previously been accused of being a misogynist. Commenting on any colleagues sex appeal is something that teeters closely to harassment. There's a joke between two close colleagues who've known each other for a while and they both engage in simple banter, and then there is a superior commenting on a colleague. While many argue that this is another aspect of Abbott's misogyny, it definitely definitely demonstrates two things; his 'Dad' joke moments are politically palpable and he found nothing more to say on the women who he was endorsing. The latter is a greater indication of how he values women, by the things he omits from saying when questioned what he thought of them.

#4 - Mark Latham - "She's a rather plain ordinary-looking woman and Abbott has exaggerated massively to try and win her vote among the blokes"
In response to Abbott's previous comment, Mark Latham gaffed his way through a radio interview, demonstrating his inability to connect with the Australian people, or have a filter to what he thinks. He may not be in politics anymore, but if you want to be taken as a serious political commentator, you don't go and be a misogynist (and plain rude) yourself by saying

"In politics they say it's showbiz for ugly people and I don't think she'll be out of place" - Mark Latham.

It's honest comments like that that end political careers. So when inevitability an MP makes another gaffe, have a laugh but don't believe all the hype that it's something radical or profound. It's just another piece of evidence into their character, or how much attention they paid to English at high school.

When you correct a gaffe only to make it again. That, is priceless.
(FYI, this was his maiden speech to Parliament)

Links:
Mark Latham gaffe over Tony Abbott sex appeal comment - The Age online
Kevin Rudd attacks Tony Abbott over 'sex appeal' comments - Sydney Morning Herald

World Bank finally moves on from coal

2013-07-18T17:16:00.004+10:00

World Bank Coal power stations will be a thing of the past

The World Bank's recent bold decision to stop funding development projects of coal fired power stations has been welcomed by most. Since President Jim Yong Kim's took the helm, environmental policy has become a key issue for the World Bank. He has commissioned several reports into the dangers of rising temperatures and the impact reaching the critical four degrees celsius mark would have on the poor. While it is now official policy of the World Bank not to fund the construction of any more coal power stations, there is an exception. In circumstances where there is no alternative to coal, a coal power station may be built. The success of this policy will be shown by how many 'exceptions' are granted.

The World Banks movement to become more environmentally friendly in its development projects has been slow. In the past five years the World Bank has spent over $5 billion in coal power stations alone. Though within that same five years, it has doubled financial support to the renewable energy sector. Despite it long being known that coal is the worst form of electricity production for the environment, the World Bank has continued to use it. It has been slow to implement environmentally friendly policies due to the US's historic position of denying the existence of climate change. Though times are changing and there is a big cultural shift within the World Bank to be more conscious about the environment. The last coal fired power station to be built by the World Bank was in South Africa in 2010. There is one in development in Kosovo at the moment, though at the rate they are being constructed, it's not overwhelming. This official policy shift should cement the direction the World Bank is taking, and should hopefully also influence other World Bank development projects to be more carbon conscious.

As always, there have been critics of this policy. It has been argued by Aid Watch that a ban on coal fired power stations will lead to more damning and hydro electricity production. It is important when hydroelectric dams are built that the environment (and people living) downstream are considered. Many livelihoods depend on the flowing of rivers and the produce that comes from them. Yet as with any development project, there are always some costs. Some land and resources must be used in return for development. The World Bank has been keen to promote decentralised electricity production through solar panels and small wind farms. This allows for electricity to reach rural populations and doesn't require large facilities and cable networks. This off grid renewable energy appears to be the best option for supplying electricity to poor households in developing nations, while not causing severe disruption to the environment. 835 people die a year in Kosovo because of exposure to coal pollution, so it too is not a safer alternative to hydro electricity. The future for World Bank electrification projects looks to be in decentralised, local renewable technologies. Let's hope they stick to it!

Sources:
World Bank to stop funding coal-fired power stations in developing countries - ABC Online
Can Jim Yong Kim end World Bank backing for coal-fired power? - The Guardian

The right of religions to discriminate

2013-01-17T23:13:00.000+11:00

Labor's new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which is currently in front of a Senate inquiry, is causing a stir within some circles. I say a few, because it's not really front page stuff. Religions have discriminated against particular groups for centuries, and even the most progressive churches still discriminate. (You can't be an Anglican bishop without first being Anglican!). Though what has become an issue, is whether the government is justified in securing the right of religious organisations to discriminate when it comes to services they provide, like hospitals and schools.

It is well known that most religions organisations don't recognise, respect or tollerate certain practices; from homosexuality to unmarried couples. Often these groups that are marginalised become (or already are) secular or atheist because of this. Though there are some who wish to identify with a particular religion, despite not being fully accepted by their chosen religious organisation. There are many reasons as to why this occurs, yet the main rational is because they personally get a tangible benefit from identifying with that faith. Be it a good feeling that they will have an eternal life, or the comfort of being accepted within a particular community. Religion brings a benefit to people who subscribe to it.

But that benefit is severely diminished when the value that is placed upon particular practices and beleifs, is erroded by the state or others. The Australian constitution protects freedom of religion. That allows individuals to freely associate with religions of their choice and not be discriminated against because of that, but it also allows religious organisations to operate independently from the rules of a secular state. Most often this is held to mean they don't pay tax. But it is much more. Religious organisations don't have to subscribe to a particular organisational structure like a public company does. Nor are they required to change their belief from creationism to evolution because the state doesn't believe in it. This freedom enables religious organisations to run themselves in the way they and their members see fit, not the public or secular government. Just because the state believes discrimination is abhorrent, does not mean it can impose that value on a religion.

People of similar faith congregate around each other for a 'shared' experience. They get meaning and benefit from existing in such a close and similar community. Religions that discriminate, actively choose to do so because that is (typically) what the majority of the congregation want. If the majority of members of the Catholic church accepted the notion of abortion, they would not excommunicate members who receive one. While not completely approving of it, most of the Catholic church has stopped excommunicating members who get divorced. (It was a bad retention strategy.) Some Anglican churches have 'gay only' services that particularly target gay Christians. Why? Because that is what the Church as a whole wants. Religion morphs over time and some faiths modernise, others don't. What's most important is that the ones that don't still bring value to the people who believe in such orthodox faiths. The 'purity' of their religion comes not from just being able to exclude those who are divorced, gay, or had an abortion, but those from other faiths, those who don't truly follow their practices. And this is why for religion, discrimination is is a tool that enables practice.

As a free citizen, you have no right to access a religion. You may choose your faith, but you have no right to demand access to your faiths organisation. As a Christian, you can't walk into a Synagog and demand a Rabbi give you a traditional Islamic wedding ceremony. They wouldn't allow it on religious grounds. It would be against teachings, current orthodoxy or because its members find it disrespectful and 'immoral'. It doesn't matter if this was something of your choosing or not, because the rest of the church's religious practice is harmed. If you disagree with their religious view, change the church you attend, change that organisation and it's members viewpoint, or start your own religion (hello Church of England). It is completely within the rights of a religious organisation to discriminate against certain people, so they can actually provide the religious benefits that its members want. The government shouldn't shy away from defending this right to discriminate. Otherwise churches, religious ceremonies and certain practices just become "acts for hire" by members of the public who want to gawk at people in funny costumes.

When it comes to a religion discriminating against an individual for a "public services" they want, it becomes a trickier issue. A religious organisation which receives public funds to run a service, such as a school or hospital, should not be able to discriminate on who they hire or who they let in the front door. Government funds come from an assumed secular source, the taxpayer. The funds are not there to help provide better services to one religion, but to any citizen who may wish to access those services. Funds that are raised privately by churches are for the sole purpose of assisting those they wish to assist, mainly those who are interested in their faith. It is perfectly acceptable for a privately run religious school to deny homosexual teachers from working there, as it is to bar non religious students from going to that school.

It sounds horrible if you are in that minority. And most people are, as you can't be part of every faith. Yet those with such strong strong beliefs who want to bar and discriminate so as to guard their faith and its practices, need to be protected. For some this is done by not having a gay priest. For others it's not having a sinner in the pews. Those who wish to access a special religious social service, like a Catholic hospital or Islamic school, do it for a religious reason. They want their child to be taught a certain way, they want a particular kind of care, or only want to be surrounded by certain people. If that's their wish, they or their church can pay and provide for that particular religious service. They pay for a service that comes with a complimentary sermon. As for everyone else who is considered a minority, there are many local secular government services provided, from hospitals to community housing. So let those with a strong faith live and receive their services as they wish.

Links:
Gillard's bizarre act of faith leaves vulnerable unprotected - National Times
Anti-gay rights to stay - Sydney Morning Herald
Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012: Explanatory Notes - Attorney Generals Department

Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easier to!

2013-01-14T12:37:00.000+11:00

The US has long struggled to pass meaningful law reform on gun control and ownership. If it hasn't been the National Rifle Association (NRA) watering down policy, it has been the Supreme Court overruling it but upholding the second amendment of the constitution. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting has inspired many on Capitol Hill to modify existing laws. While some political pundits and commentators are optimistic that the small progress that can be made now will set a trend for more discussion and policy in the future, there isn't much to be optimistic about. Passing small, watered down and compromised policy in the aftermath of an unparallelled national tragedy, only raises the bar for when policy discussion can occur again. It just affirms that policy will only ever follow after tragedy.

Joe Biden's "there is no silver bullet" approach (ignoring the politically incorrect pun), does have some merit. Yet in attempting to be holistic, it has become sidetracked with issues not directly related to gun violence and gun control. There is degree of dissent amongst experts and social scientists regarding the link between violent videogames and gun violence. Regardless of the link, current laws are too lax at preventing children from being exposed and participating in videogame violence. Though it really is skirting around the main issue of gun control when almost anyone is able to access a gun in the first place, because the NRA and other lobby groups have severely limited the ability of Congress to pass laws to restrict or even control sales.

The NRA is really clutching at straws trying to defend the right of US citizens to bear arms. Sadly though, their pathetic catch phrases and argumentation work.

"...this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans"

Given that the NRA lobbied to put a clause in Obama's healthcare reform policy that prevented the US government from collecting data on gun ownership, can we verify this claim? When 40% of gun sales in the US occur without background checks, how do we know these people pay taxes, are hardworking, or are even honest enough to say who they really are? It's a desperate attempt by the NRA hide reality with meaningless rhetoric.

Even when the NRA doesn't cry out against gun reform, many US citizens do, claiming they have a right to protect themselves and their families. I couldn't agree more with them. But I strongly disagree in their desired method of how they want to defend themselves. Let's say you want a gun to protect yourself from a home intruder. A gun is both a very big threat to that intruder, and it can be used to stop someone from breaking into your house and hurting you. All you need is gun with 4 or less bullets, depending on how bad your aim is and how many people you're expecting to try and break into your house. But an assault weapon with an extended clip of more than 100 bullets isn't needed to ward off your local burglar. That's the kind of weapon used to take on the FBI, SWAT or US Army. So in that circumstance you're not really wanting a gun to protect your family, but you're looking for a mass killing machine that will allow you to overpower anyone or anything that comes in your way. That's not self defence, but mass murder.

The mantra of "self defence"and "protection" by the NRA, gun lobby groups and gun toting citizens really doesn't lend much weight to their claim for gun ownership. It is a mantra to have more police officers, more home security, a right to have personal panic rooms and to sleep with a baseball bat beside your bed. You may have a right to defend yourself from a burglar or random aggressor walking down the street, but you do not have a right to kill them. And what's a gun really for? It's not a tazor gun which incapacitates, or baton which can ward off and injure someone, or pepper spray which causes temporary blindness. It's a contraption that shoots small metal balls at high speeds, designed to kill a target. It's not a defensive weapon. Even if it is, there are better alternatives available, eliminating the right for US citizens to "bear arms", but to now use more sophisticated personal defence devices. And that is a discussion the NRA really doesn't want anyone to have.

Links:
How the Video-Game Industry Already Lost Out in the Gun-Control Debate - The Atlantic
Joe Biden Gun Control Recommendations: Background Checks To Be Top Priority - Huffington Post
Joe Biden meets games companies as gun control taskforce readies proposals - The Guardian
White House has 'agenda to attack the second amendment', says NRA - The Guardian

Pokies reform should be a straight forward policy.

2011-11-04T00:08:00.000+11:00

Poker machines provide a substantial amount
of revenue for many Australian clubs.
(Image Source)

The petty politics that is going back and forth between Liberals, Labor and the independents over the Government's proposed pokies reform is ludicrous. The policy, which would require players to set a pre commitment for how much they are prepared to lose. The policy sounds straight forward enough; help stem the flow of problem gamblers who continue to feed coins into these machines. But the fury that has erupted in Canberra isn't because the policy is contentious or damaging, but because it is an issue that is relatively unimportant, and thus everyone can take a different position; just to be politically different.

One fact that has been long neglected in this debate, is the research conducted by Linda Hancock from Deakin University. Her research into pre-commitment has found that for problem gamblers who find themselves stuck in 'the zone' or a cycle of gambling to get out of debt, they very rarely act rationally. However if the Independents and Nick Xenophon get their way, there will be a maximum pokies bet of $1 introduced, limiting the maximum loss to be around $120 an hour (instead of over a possible $1000 at the moment). Linda Hancock's research, while mostly being ignored by politicians from either side, is damming evidence that pre-commitment legislation on pokies is needed, if just to help stem the losses for problem gamblers.

It is at this point, that the opposition become ludicrous in their stance against the pokies reform. They should be capitalising upon this and criticising the government for being too weak to truly tackle problem gambling. Instead, their discussion paper, just released, is almost a carbon copy of the government's policy, only with the change to make pre-commitment instalment on machines voluntary, and a greater emphasis on counselling and alcohol training. Though their catch cry, along with the AFL and NRL and Clubs NSW, is that local sporting and RSL clubs will go bust. Though the icing on this cake of hypocrisy is that they too acknowledge that this mandatory pre-commitment legislation will do nothing to help stop problem gamblers. Let's unpick this brilliant piece of logic

First: (The Opposition) The scheme won't work. The evidence proves so - Yet they would like to introduce the same themselves, albeit voluntarily. If we acceptance their logic that a pre-commitment scheme won't work, then neither should theirs!
Secondly: Pre-comittment lockouts on poker machines will kill off local sporting clubs and RSLs - Hold on, you said it wouldn't work, so how will they loose revenue and be forced to close?
Thirdly: They will still lose some money - Not only is that a concession that it will work, but if that's the case, then they're profiteering of the worst cases of problem gamblers. That's highly unethical!
Fourthly: But the installation of pre-commitment lockouts will also be costly and expensive - So clubs won't install them voluntarily under your proposal either, because it will still be too costly, they'll lose money, and they will have to close.
Fifthly: It'll force these problem gamblers onto the internet, where they can gamble even more: Well put limits and regulation upon that too! Pre-commitment on pokies and internet gambling restrictions are not mutually exclusive ideas.

This storm in a tea cup debate about pokies reform is just low brow political postulating. The government is playing a very similar game, claiming that the opposition are in the pockets of the gaming industry and are prepared to hurt Australian families, especially those effected by gambling problems, for cheap political points. It's very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Though industries and lobby groups like the NRL, AFL, RSL and Clubs NSW are playing equally dirty, by fudging figures and disingenuously representing the consequences for them for such a proposal.

It's coming towards the end of the year and both parties are trying to create artificial distance between each other and their policies. However in doing so, they both neglect to pass what should be, a straight forward policy to assist (to a limited extent) problem gamblers. Though least of all should discussion or a proposal about comprehensive gambling policy be made. That would be all too bold.

Links
RLS jobs at stake - Queensland Times
AFL joins NRL in pokies revolt - The Sydney Morning Herald
Abbott attacked over Pokies discussion paper - Lateline transcript
Abbott talks up opposition to pokies reform - ABC
Abbott needs pokies rethink: welfare group - Sydney Morning Herald
Clubs use tricky numbers to outfox pokies reform - The Australian (and surprisingly enough, it's not behind a paywall....yet)

The Congo's poverty will not end with mining

2011-09-24T22:30:00.000+10:00

Gold miners pass mud along a human chain in an open pit mine
North-eastern Congo. (REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly)

The Congo is one of the most impoverished nations in Africa, with more than 70% of its population living below the poverty line. Yet this troubled nation sits on more than $24 trillion worth of minerals. Such mineral worth is greater than the annual economic output of both the US and entire European area combined. But accessing and distributing such wealth has not only been unsuccessful in reducing poverty within the Congo, but it has directly attributed to increased violence with militia rebel groups, slavery and social instability.

President Joseph Kabila, who is seeking re-election in the coming months, has had a change of heart and is now seeking to tap into the Congo's troubled mines to bring economic prosperity to all if its people. In the past, foreign firms have been wary of investing in Congolese mines because of its bad reputation for human rights abuse, but also because of the instability of the country which regularly dips into localised, violent civil war. There is a critical need for foreign investment to reinvigorate the Congolese mineral sector and ensure efficient production. Local companies don't have the expertise, technology or skills to excavate minerals on a scale that rakes in exuberant profits. Though in neighbouring nations where this foreign direct investment does occur, typically, these profits mostly go back to the foreign companies, not the country itself. However in the Congo, where localised mining in the east is increasing, it is often decentralised and unaccountable to government officials, which causes other significant problems.

The history of civil war and militia violence that has plagued many African nations, including the Congo, means that local development of industry is hampered by systemic corruption. It is estimated that 98% of the mines operating in the east of the Congo is controlled, or have strong ties to militia groups. Because of this, local militia groups tax those who work within the mines, restrict which ethnic groups the profits go to, but most often just funnel the profits into munitions and war campaigns. Sadly, due to government ineptitude and corruption, whatever control government agencies do get over these mines leads to very similar outcomes.

What is most shocking about Congolese mining though is the way in which its operations seem only to be entrenching the poverty cycle. As most Congolese citizens live below the poverty line and have an income of less than $2 a day, or live on subsistent farms and have no income at all, the existence of mines should have very little affect upon them. However, as mines pay money, the notion of working in a mine for cash can become an attractive option for at least one member of a family. Such money, if received, can be used for buying more farm equipment, or much needed medicine. Though when most mines only pay their workers between 50c and $1 a day, the likelihood of them becoming indebted to the mine for other costs incurred (such as food, shelter or 'protection') leaves them in a position of virtual slavery. And as militia groups are the ones who benefit most from the mines, their campaigns of looting and disrupting local villages drives more people off farms and into mines, creating a vicious cycle of poverty and slavery.

As violence around mines becomes worse, and the profits from these minerals fund new conflicts, the international communities (though mainly the US') response through the 2010 Dodd-Frank banking act to restrict the importation of 'conflict minerals' has only plunged more citizens into poverty. For some mining operations, output has slowed by more than 95% as the only way to export these minerals is to do so illegally; which in and of itself results in less profits going to the impoverished workers, and less no security for working standards. The intentions of such a policy is commendable, as it attempts to stop multinational corporations purchasing cheap minerals which cause conflict within a post colonial nation. Yet the ban and reduction in purchasing of these minerals is already hurting tens of thousands of Congolese citizens who have moved to a life in the mines.

Even in a perfect world, whereby local governments weren't corrupt, where there are no militias and all the profits went back to the people; a mining boom in the Congo would still hurt many citizens. When a country finds a new export that brings in unprecedented financial capital from overseas markets, it drives more people to move into that industry because it is highly profitable. The consequence of this occurring rapidly is called the "Dutch disease". Simply put, the exportation of this new wonder good drastically increases the price of the dollar. This kills off any other industries which export goods, (such as textiles in the Congo) because international buyers can no longer afford the good due to the inflated dollar. It also rapidly increases the amount of imports into that nation. Because of the high dollar, it becomes cheaper to buy goods from overseas (such as food) than at the local market, which then kills off domestic industries. Then if at any point the export market crashes, such as if there is another global recession or minerals are found cheaper elsewhere, an economy that has completely re-geared itself for one industry is left with nothing to produce for domestic consumption or export. This effectively kills the economy, and damages it for decades to come. Though if magically, because of better governance and more responsible foreign investment, the mining sector in the Congo could be revolutionised, the Dutch disease would only hit the east of the Congo were most of the mining occurs.

The sad fact being is that we don't live in a perfect world. So there is little chance that the "Dutch disease" will reach the Congolese economy at all. Instead, the continuation of corrupt and militia driven mining will still occur, even while an international ban is in place. Though even if removed, it would cause just as much harm by increasing militias' ability to buy arms. It appears as though there is no solution to this most unfortunate circumstance. While it is depressing to end a post on such a dreary note, many economists, international institutions and trade experts advocate for varied solutions to help end poverty and instability in Africa (with varied and questionable degrees of success). What is clear though, is that mining in the Congo is not one of them.

Links:
Congo rape victims face slavery in gold and mineral mines - Guardian.co.uk
Digging for victory - The Economist
Still smuggling - The Economist
Mr Copper - The Economist

US debt ceiling woes

2011-07-30T18:20:00.000+10:00

"I told you so"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links

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

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

Talks resume as Senate kills off debt bill - ABC news

Gillard politically sore, but not censured

2011-06-19T23:04:00.000+10:00

Spooner Cartoon: Courtesy of the National Times

The Gillard government can't seem to win a trick at the moment. Be it the much debated (and despised) Carbon Tax, proposal to enforce plain packaging of cigarettes, to even the Malaysian solution. All have served to only drive Labor lower in the polls. Though this outcome can be expected from a government that lacks the nuance to sell their own successes, especially in contrast to a powerfully articulate and dogmatic opposition. With the Gillard government trying to push through large, often quite unpopular policies, it has come with little surprise that a motion to condemn Gillard's "Malaysia" solution has come about.

Condemnation of government policy from the Parliament is unheard of. That is because the government of the day makes up the majority of the Parliament, and so no condemnation motions are able to pass. Though in the case of a minority government, as Gillard herself admitted, the circumstance of policy being condemned is more likely. However seeing a policy condemned, rather than it not being passed, is more interesting. Foreign policy (which the Malaysian solution comes under) is directed by the executive (Government) without the need for Parliament's approval. This means that it's the government's decision alone when it comes to foreign policy. Unlike normal policy, which gets put before the Parliament, foreign policy does not. This means that the Parliament gets very little time or place to object to it, apart from MPs and Senators airing their views in the Media. However this may change when the Greens move to propose a bill requiring refugee and asylum seeker foreign policy to be put before the Parliament, instead of leaving that power to the executive. As the minority Gillard government couldn't knock down the condemnation motion, it is most likely that they won't be able to thwart the Greens and Parliament's attempts to strip the executive of this power.

Despite the condemnation motion passing, the very motivation behind it was mere coincidence, rather than mass Parliament outrage at the Malaysia solution. The motion only got support when the Liberal/National coalition and Greens finally managed to agree on something. For the Greens, it's the view that offshore processing is inhumane and wrong. For the Liberals/Nationals, it's the view that the Labor party is just plain wrong. While the general agreement between these parties led to a condemnation of the government's policy, it wasn't strong enough to censure the Prime Minister, as the Greens thought such a move would just be a mere political "stunt". Following Tony Abbott's belittling questions to Gillard about the history of such a motion, and Julie Bishops comparison of Julia Gillard to a third world dictator, it's hard to view these comments as anything less than a stunt.

The Malaysian solution is yet again a fizzle of a policy for the Gillard government. When the Labor party isn't chasing opinion polls to ensure support, it isn't successfully managing its image of being a strong government. The merits of an 800 possible refugee swap for thousands more is ludicrous. Even though Malaysia appears to be signing up to the UNHCR, the likely hood of its signatory resulting in better treatment of human rights is a stretch.

Despite the condemnation motion, Labor (if still in government) will pursue ahead with the Malaysia solution. Maybe after that, the polls will start to pick back up. But until then, unless Labor and Gillard manage to woo the public with strong effective policy, they'll have to withstand the tense time of being down in the polls.

Links:
PM under fire over Malaysia deal - National Times

Parliament condemns Govt on Malaysia asylum deal - The World Today: ABC online

Defiant PM says it's not about polls - National Times

Asylum-seeker swap deal must have UNHCR approval - The Australian

PM avoids censure as Malaysia deal condemned - ABC Online

UN enters into the fight for Libya

2011-03-19T00:59:00.005+11:00

Muammar Gaddafi air forces strike anti government rebels
Image source: AFP and The Australian

Within hours of the passing of a UN resolution authorising military action against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, western nations are preparing air strikes against the despotic Libyan dictator. The UN has authorised military action to prevent Gaddafi's forces from completely crushing civilian led rebel opposition, which only weeks ago, looked ready to topple the Gaddafi government. So far, Britain, France, the United States, Norway and Qatar are countries that have pledged support to enforce the no-fly zone. The French government has indicated that it will start to militarily intervene within 'hours', and Britain's prime minister, David Cameron, has announced that Tornado and Typhoon jets have been placed ready to take action against Libya. The Arab League of Nations has been calling for weeks for the no-fly zone. But it appears that for once, the UN has answered, and done so quickly. Libya's response has been confusing: Muammar Gaddafi's claimed he'll take Benghazi within hours, his Son has claimed the family will hold Tripoli, and Libya's Foreign, Minister Mussa Kussa has declared a ceasefire. Basically, Libya is in turmoil, and the situation changes by the hour.

Despite the ever changing position of the Libyan government, it has been outstanding how fast the UN has reacted to the situation. While it may have taken weeks for the resolution to come about, when it comes to international co-operation and military intervention, it usually takes several months. But the UN functioned effectively this time, because there was a universal consensus that a no-fly zone was needed. Debate was had, thought it didn't bogged down. No country within the security council voted against the proposal, five only abstained. For P5 countries like Russia and China, the use of their veto power would have decimated the resolution, and most likely dragged out debate on the issue for months. While countries like Germany and Poland have indicated that they won't assist in the efforts to enforce the no-fly zone, their acceptance of the international communities wishes to intervene in this matter has been critical assisting the passing of this resolution.

The UN security council resolution has authorised "all necessary measures" to ensure the safety of the Libyan people. Surprisingly, this resolution is more than just a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone gives the ability for the 'international community" to ensure no aircraft (Libyan or otherwise) to fly above Libyan territory. However the UN has authorised "all necessary measures"except the use of ground forces. This means that missile strikes and aerial attacks on Gaddafi's forces is legal.

However by the UN taking such an aggressive approach towards the Libyan situation, it may in fact, only assist Muammar Gaddafi in rallying civilians to fight against both the 'West', and the rebells. As with most North African and Middle Eastern nations, there is much anti-west sentiment. Governments, like Gaddafi claim that 'the west' is an invading force, corrupting the youth of Libya, destroying their culture, taking over their economy; basically causing anything that is bad within society. To outsiders, it sounds pretty bonkers. And that's because it is. But western nations haven't been perfect in their dealings with Arab and North African nations themselves. The US, despite putting a trade embargo upon weapons trading with Libya, it has happily allowed such trading via proxy through Egypt. The risk of the UN taking such a hardline stance against the Libyan dictator is that it gives something for Muammar Gaddafi to point to as 'evidence' that he was right all along. There is also the danger of causing further oppression to the Libyan people. Airstrikes, no matter how targeted, don't always kill exactly who they're intended to kill. As the civilian death toll rises, more and more Libyans who sat in the middle of the war and was neutral to both sides, will start to side with Gaddafi. Civilians will chose whichever side kills the less, and if that's Gaddafi and his forces, then the UN's efforts will backfire by strengthening the dictators regime.

Though there are also practical difficulties in establishing a no-fly zone in Libya. There is firstly, the complication of the 'cease fire' that Libya's Foreign Minister, Mussa Kussa has announced. It will have to be seen whether all of Muammar Gaddafi's forces will adhere to this change in policy, or even whether Gaddafi and his family will adhere to it themselves. But secondly, there is the issue in being able to enforce a no-fly zone. Libya's military is highly outdated. They have fighter and bomber jets, but they're old cold war jets that have been made by the US. If they are even sent up into the air, they will be easily shot down. The only circumstance in which they could be used, would be to fight against those enforcing the no-fly zone. And if the Libyan army is successful, it will cause a lot of pain and loss of face for the UN. But Gaddafi has irregularly used these jets thus far, because the Libyan army uses helicopters instead. Fighting rebel groups are easier with helicopters. They're easier to manoeuvre and redirect in small scale warfare, such as taking over certain towns. But US jets aren't good at shooting down helicopters. Fighter jets fly too high and too fast to be able to combat low flying helicopters. So the US and major countries such as France, who will be enforcing this ban, don't have the technological capacity to fight on the Libyan army's level. Solutions will be found to this problem, but it means that combat between the no-fly zone enforces and the Libyan army will most likely be closer, meaning casualties are more likely to be higher than expected on the NATO side.

The UN has responded well to the international communities calls to implement a no-fly zone upon Libya. Muammar Gaddafi must not be able to stop a revolution from occurring by killing his own people. As the head of the Libyan state, he has a duty to protect his people. When he can no longer do so, other states are justified in acting to ensure civilians are kept safe. The UN, significantly encroaching upon Libyan's sovereignty, is rightly doing so when the consequences of not acting is that either a dictator succeeds, or anarchy rules. The situation in Libya is most likely going to get worse before it gets better. But hopefully, this no-fly zone will speed up the revolution that's been waiting to occur, and do so whilst shedding the least amount of blood.

Links:
Libya announces immediate ceasefire, calls halt to military operations - The Australian
UN clears way for no-fly zone - ABC PM program

The colonel charges ahead - The Economist

France says military action against Libya will come 'within hours' - The Telegraph

Military strikes on Libya within hours: France - ABC news

The inane sport of criticising politicians' sincerity

2011-02-09T18:41:00.000+11:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PM defends response to flood - The Age

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

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

Levy turns flood reconstruction into political mess

2011-01-29T21:34:00.000+11:00

Gillard and Bligh tour QLD flood areas
Image source: The Herald Sun

Despite a natural disaster that cost numerous lives, uprooted thousands of Queenslanders and left them homeless, and a reconstruction effort that will take years to complete, it is good to see politics in Canberra hasn't changed much. Both Liberal and Labor are squabbling at each other and all who will listen about how the other side isn't playing fair. Now they're turning to the popular kids - Oakshot and Windsor - to pick sides and tell the others they are wrong. For all the talk of a "mateship tax" and politicians keeping one eye on the "Lodge", the efficacy of the tax itself is being ignored. Instead, angry talk back listeners and radio hosts like Niel Mitchell are deciding on the validity of the tax, based on its popularity. No matter how the Gillard government plans to raise funds for the reconstruction effort, some people will be unhappy. But a longer term approach to disaster recovery funding is what really needs to be discussed.

The first step the government took to addressing the financial pitfall for the Queensland floods was winding back and cutting down on "Green investment" spending. While such actions were necessary, amongst some circles, it remains unpopular all the same. Julia Gillard herself may not believe (or want to acknowledge) that the floods of Queensland, NSW and Victoria can be attributed to climate change, but a reduction in "Green investment" won't make the flood waters rise. A lot of the Federal government's environmentally friendly initiatives have cost a lot, yet delivered little. The danger that exists in withdrawing funding from environment initiatives, is that the funds won't return. Once government coffers start filling up, new promises will be made in other areas, and the funds will go there.

The political debacle over recovery funding that has ensued, is paying little attention to the actual methods the Gillard government is doing to assist the recovery effort. Both Gillard and Abbott have done their fair share of hugging and 'meeting and greeting' flood victims in front of media packs. But it is the mentioning of the word 'tax' that is causing an even bigger stir amongst the opposition and tabloids. Reducing funds to existing schemes and delaying promises is one thing, but instituting a tax is laden with politically damaging connotations. Abbott was quick to put on the rhetoric about a tax not being about "mateship", but a cover up scheme for a government that is spending too much. Yet for all the spin and hot air, the tax itself is economically credible. The government must spend money on reconstructing Queensland's savaged infrastructure. As Queensland is a major industrial and mining hub of Australia, it makes economic sense to rebuild roads and rail that once were the economic lifelines of Australia during the GFC. Yet even principally, the Federal government should assist. As a Federation, each state assists others in times of need; it is the very essence of our federation. Otherwise we would be a cluster of 9 different independent States.

People may be outraged that they have already given to Queensland flood relief funds, yet that money only goes to helping people directly after the event (through relocation and clean up costs), not rebuilding roads, rail, hospitals and schools that have been washed away. Funds for the reconstruction need to come from somewhere, and raising revenue by adding a levy to income tax, at this point in time, appears to be the most economically sensible method. While NSW Premier Kristina Keneally claims that such a levy will put too much pressure on households and mortgages, this tax won't affect such pressure. By legislating such a tax, the RBA can clearly see funds exiting the market and slowing down the economy (because as people pay more tax, they spend less). Hence the RBA will defer increasing interest rates, because the Federal Government will be (inadvertently) correcting the economy cycle. At the end of the year, tax or no tax, families and households will be relatively the same. It is a question really of whom will be taking money out of your pay packet: the Government for rebuilding Queensland, or one of the big banks?

The political squabble and concern for people's hip pocket aside, one of the popular kids in the school that is the Australian parliament, has raised a valid point. Rob Oakshott believes that a national disaster reconstruction fund should be established. As natural disasters sporadically occur within each century, a more structured planned system in financing the recovery effort needs to be established. Every time a disaster occurs, whether it is a cyclone, flood or bushfire, the government's bottom line and spending promises are compromised in order to pay for the clean up and reconstruction. Gillard's flood levy may pull Queensland out of the mud this time, but it doesn't guarantee funds for any other disaster that could occur within the next few years. The real debate that should be occurring, is whether the flood levy should be transformed into an established "disaster fund" levy. That way, funds (or partial funds) will be on hand in times of National and State crisis. As politically dangerous taxes can be, Australia may continue to place itself in financial danger if it doesn't acknowledge and plan for future events like the Queensland floods.

Links:
Flood levy does RBA's job - The Age (Business Day)
Flood levy to test Gillard's leadership - SMH
Levy flushes out a nation of heartless bastards - ABC 'The Drum'

Gillard faces battle for flood levy support - ABC Online

All bark but no bite - National Times

No excuse for floods tax: Abbott - The Australian

WikiLeaks is not helping this war

2010-11-30T20:35:00.001+11:00

WikilLeaks founder Julian Assange - Image source Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:
WikiLeaks degenerates into gossip - The Economist

At-loss China accepts unified Korea: WikiLeaks - AFP

China ready to abandon North Korea: WikiLeaks - ABC Online

WikiLeaks cables reveal the problem of Pyongyang - Guardian

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

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

Anonymity is a necessary part of democracy

2010-11-17T16:53:00.001+11:00

A New Yorker cartoon from 1993

Comment boxes at the end of online articles are the norm these days. The ability for the reader to fill out a short form and then tap away their thoughts before posting it to the author and the world, is only a few clicks away. It is democracy in action. It is an open relationship. The author can not sit on his or her high podium and dictate to all who reads, what is important and what isn't. If so, with the plethora of online media, people will be very quick to change. But through spam, vitriol, and often straight out bullying and libel, online comment boxes can become quite an unpleasant place that ruins the experience and democratic process for all involved. Though in no way should a few bad eggs ruin the benefits of online anonymity for everyone. Being anonymous is a right that may not be explicitly enshrined in the constitution or a bill of rights (to which we don't have), yet it is practised extensively throughout Australian society.

Being able to be anonymous empowers the individual. It gives them the ability to speak their mind without the cost of consequence and repercussions. Free speech is the first step. Being able to speak out on political and social issues is critical to the functioning of an effective society. Though while Australia isn't a dictatorial country that limits free speech, there are still consequences for speaking out on issues. This can be referred to as the "cost" of speech and opinion. Standing up at a rally with a megaphone and blurting out your thoughts brands you and your identity with the words that come out of your mouth. At that point in time you choose to associate your "brand", - your face, voice and attitude - with a cause that you believe in. Though 20 minutes to 20 years later you may not want to be associated with that same protest. People build up perceptions and prejudices about you because of your participation in that event. Their viewpoint of you, being either positive or negative, changes. This is the "cost"; people have perceptions about you and your "brand". The only way to change and remove that cost, is to change your identity and your "brand". Of course, try changing the perceptions that have been built up in peoples minds; like BP being an environmentally conscientious company for instance.

In comparison, Aung San Su Chi choses to associate herself, her identity and her "brand", to the cause of democracy and liberty in Burma. However many of her supporters who made statements to western media just before she was released, chose to be anonymous. They chose not to forever brand themselves with her identity for fear of persecution. In Australia, persecution doesn't always come at the end of a gun. It can be a look, comment or vibe you get from a friend, passer by, or even your boss. It doesn't have to be overt. Surprisingly enough, these judgements don't even need to occur. All that needs to happen is this thought process:"What will people think?. Suddenly the "cost" of free speech and participating, outweighs the overall benefits and "return" of speaking out. Under this system, free speech comes at a cost. The consequence of this is that less people participate. They won't voice their opinion, won't participate in public discourse, won't leave a comment on the end of an online article. In China, where to participate in a protest you must register your details with the government, participation is low and sometimes doesn't even occur because of fear of government reprisal. In Australia, the majority of people don't fear their government, they fear the judgement they receive from there friends and family around them. In order for democracy to properly function, participation in public discourse needs to occur because everyone should have the ability to help shape ideas and contribute to society. This is why we vote in secret ballots; so citizens can feel free to vote for whomever they choose. Similarly, it should be the same when making a comment online.

When you remove your identity from free speech, the "cost" to you becomes almost negligible. The person serving you on the other side of the counter doesn't know you are 'Sally_528', neither does your boss or maybe even your partner. Suddenly all those judgements and consequences that that could be possibly be made against you, are now made to the "brand" ('Sally_528'). You have a greater ability to speak out and participate without reprisal. Some claim that this lacks credibility, as there is no face to be put to the name, no system of accountability. But a face doesn't really matter, a brand does. If all 'Sally_528' does is spam comment walls and write drivel, then people and authors will start to ignore her comments, and the "brand" looses credibility. Similarly, when you read an article, say from the Economist, you may not intimately know who wrote the article, but you trust the name of the Economist. It is the same principle with online commenting. People trust certain authors and commentators, just as they trust certain parts of Wikipedia, even though they may have not the slightest idea who wrote it. And that is a good thing, because then peoples' judgements are not clouding or disregarding the information that is presented. Political, cultural and social prejudices are put aside. The information that is displayed has to taken on its merit.

Yes, drivel in comment columns are annoying, but they can be ignored. If need be, they can even be deleted. Systems and laws that that require people to disclose their identity, like South Australia's proposed bill earlier in the year (that was quickly repealed), prevents people from making a comment or adding to a discussion on an issues, without reprisal or judgement. All online speech, just as with voting, should be anonymous unless an individual choose it to be otherwise. When a persons identity (which they can hardly escape from) becomes attached to their speech and participation in public debate, it comes at a "cost" to them. Though the real cost this has on society and Australia's democracy, is a reduction in participation, ideas and freedom.

Links:
Internet comments may one day receive the recognition they deserve - Sydney Morning Herald

In defence of anonymous pricks - ABC The Drum

New media have made deriding politicians a national sport - The Daily Telegraph

News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments - The New York Times

Silent progress on the international stage

2010-11-15T14:50:00.000+11:00

Gillard and Obama talk for the media - Image Source AFP

Julia Gillard has been jet-setting around the globe, representing Australia on the international stage. She hasn't yet been nicknamed after an aircraft like Kevin 747 yet, though the Liberal Party machine or Joe Hockey may churn something out in the near future. Interestingly enough, Kevin Rudd, when not in bad health, has been doing the same. His role as Minister for Foreign Affairs has seen him give a berating lecture to the UN, criticising it for all talk and no action. It is about time someone else other than Colonel Gaddafi gave the UN a good dressing down. Yet the real progress that has been made hasn't been Gillard getting used to foreign affairs, but what she and the international community have done in regards to trade liberalisation. Not to mention strengthening Australia's bilateral and multilateral relations.

Foreign Affairs in Australian politics occasionally gets as juicy and zealous as "boat-people", Afghanistan and or something to do with New Zealand. When it comes to election issues, it's all about domestic politics with the exception of the aforementioned. Yet as all major parties declare that they are for 'responsible economic management' and 'furthering Australia's national interest abroad', Australia's involvement with free trade agreements are swiftly glossed over. Instead, images of the protesters and rallies being held outside of the G20 meeting, and the dress on Gillard's APEC doll are much more exciting. Then again, reams of documents outlining every miniscule detail about every product coming under a FTA (Free Trade Agreement) doesn't make for an interesting headline. But the agreements and relations that Australia has been fostering within these last two meetings, have set the framework for a more positive economic future for Australia as well as the Asia Pacific region.

Gillard's conscientious effort to become more diplomatically engaged with other heads of state sets a positive outlook for future relations. It may seem corny that Gillard calls Obama her "mate", but such superficial and symbolic relations can be significantly built upon in times of need. Howard's chummy friendship with George W. Bush was a significant factor that lead to Howard evoking the ANZUS treaty soon after September 11, and unconditionally supporting the US in both its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. All the diplomatic hand shaking, smiling, and pandering to the media about being buddies and good friends is bluff. But it is bluff that can be turned into powerful political capital when necessary.

Despite the leaders circus, minus the funny attire this time, the most important and significant outcome of both the G20 and APEC summit has been the continuing push towards the finalisation of a multilateral free trade agreement. Surprisingly enough tariffs and barriers to trade still extensively exists amongst most countries. China's (below market value) fixed currency acts as a practical barrier to imports while strengthening their exports. Similarly, the US Federal Reserve's decision to artificially lower its dollar via a $600 billion stimulus package acts as a barrier to trade. Such barriers are hard to regulate in an international environment, especially when it is the 'big two' (China and the US) who are playing dirty. But barriers like Japan's 778% tariff on imported rice can be dismantled and regulated easier. For many reasons (though mainly shorted sighted political self interest), developed countries block or try to slow down multilateral trade liberalisation agreements, like the Doha round, which benefit emerging economies more than it does them. Though with developed countries seeking post GFC recovery, trade liberalisation that encourages economic development, is what they appear to be turning to. Despite Japan having numerous conservative governments that have failed to create significant growth, Japan's is showing signs of accepting, or even supporting, more free trade within the Asia Pacific area. If economic growth is going to occur, Japan wants to be part of it.

The US backed free trade block, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is gaining momentum and support from many countries within the Asia Pacific region, including Australia. Having such an agreement would not only benifit Australia, but the entire region. It would open up Australia to the fastest growing export market, as well as foster stability within an otherwise relatively unstable region. Both Obama and Gillard acknowledged that regional stability comes with economic growth; which is the ideological objective of multilateral free trade agreements. Along with this, many APEC countries have agreed that the Doha round has been the elephant in the room for too long, and that agreement and action needs to be reached. Unsurprisingly enough, Gillard pledged Australia's support.

Suddenly and silently, action appears to be occurring. The more media gusto and grandeur that is placed around these events, the greater the flop they usually are - Copenhagen anyone? So this relatively unnoticed summit that has fostered consensus, may yield some results. Though despite the international political acknowledgement that there are mutual benefits from an Asia Pacific free trade area, it could still silently slide of the table and into the abyss. Though all is not lost. Howard and his buddy Bush used their relationship to finalise the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. If so, let us hope that Gillard can use some of the political capital she has built up to further bilateral free-trade agreements with China and our smaller regional neighbours. Plus, she has always got Kevin Rudd on hand.

Links:

Gillard on the go is being undersold - National Times

APEC leaders agree on free trade zone - ABC online

Resist protectionism, Julia Gillard urges leaders at G20 summit in Seoul - The Australian

Japan is test case for Pac Rim free trade zone - Associated Press

Unite for free trade, Gillard tells G20 leaders - National Times

A very slow succession

2010-09-17T22:42:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

US watches 'leadership process' in North Korea - AFP

South Korea Offers Aid to North - Wall Street Journal

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

This is not just a minor win for Gillard

2010-09-09T21:52:00.000+10:00

It’s not going to be ‘business as usual’ in Canberra anymore. Julia Gillard just managed to make government, but that doesn’t mean she has a mandate to govern. The mandate “swear jar” proposed by Rob Oakshott sounds like a good idea. Thought just like his “unity cabinet” proposal, it’ll be tabled as a cabinet agenda item just under 'world peace'. But as a few political doomsdayists pack their bags for NewZealand, the rest of the world is welcoming Australia to the "minority" club. Currently, minority governments in the western world are the norm. Both Canada and Britain have them, not to mention previous minority state governments in Victoria and a current Labor/Green minority government in Tasmania. Having a government that need the support of the parliament parliament and its sitting MPs, combined with structural reforms to the way parliament operates, will be a nice change (if nothing else).

Though the first thing that needs to be cleared up before parliament sits is the term 'mandate'. If you look it up in a dictionary, it states that it's an official order or commission to do something. So when an MP is elected to parliament, regardless of party or whether they're part of the government, they have a mandate to represent their electorate because their electorate voted for them. Previously, a party could claim to have a mandate to govern the nation and form government when it clearly held the majority in the House of Representatives. So before we pull out Rob Oakshott's 'mandate', rules should be drawn up. Every MP in parliament has a mandate to look after their electorate, and in this political situation where every MP counts in order to pass legislation, we're more likely to see MPs serving their electorate rather than following party lines. This shift towards US style politics, where party lines are seen more like 'guidelines' rather than holy scripture, will create a more dynamic and representative parliament. Yes, inner city suburban interests will clash with rural and country Australia issues. But because each MP represent the same proportion of people (not the same geographical area), it all works out in the wash in the end. With more MPs like Malcolm Turnbull willing to cross the floor for specific issues, will remove power from political leaders (from all the parties). This will force leaders to acknowledge the demands of caucus and the parliament, and ultimately be more flexible. It's hard to envisage what exactly is going to occur. If Labor loose just one MP, government could be handed over to the Coalition unless someone else decides to cross the floor. Only time will tell.

While many eyes and ears have been focusing on the 3 Independents in regards to their choice of party to support, and then for what reasons, significant changes to the functioning of parliament have been signed off by both sides of politics; albeit with some resistance. The first major change is the restructuring of question time. Questions will be limited to 45 seconds and answers cut off at 4 minutes. Pity this couldn't have been applied retrospectively to Rob Oakshott's decision speech. Questions and their answers must be relevant, as dictated by the discretion of the speaker. There will also be two speakers, one from each side of the house. Both will act as quasi independents who won't have a vote. Thus the government isn't disadvantaged by loosing a vote. A new committee will also be set up. Though this committee will vet bills before they reach parliament, weeding out those that are just designed to waste time. To what extent this committee is going to be held to account for its decisions however, is questionable. It may be good at stopping some of Katter's crazier policies from being submitted, though it could equally prevent some progressive polices from being entertained. But if formulated and executed right, it will make parliament more efficient.

Over the coming days and weeks, Gillard will be doing her all to stop the Labor party from descending into chaos. She will also be trying to determine how she'll be able to pass the legislation she wants by getting support from the parliament. This government can't just rally the troops to blindly support it's policy. She has to sell it, convince the parliament that it's not only in the national interest, but also in the interest of each MPs and his/her electorate. The Coalition and Abbott, if they receive the numbers, could introduce their own legislation and get it passed. The Greens and Independents are hoping to do likewise. Whether this can be achieved or not, is yet to be seen.

Links:

Trio get their wishes on changes to Parliament - The Age
Gillard all smiles but it could end in tears - National Times
First cracks appear - The Age
Rob Oakeshott and Wayne Swan collide on mining tax - The Australian
Leaders face drama of rewarding their political victims - National Times
Gillard calls on Labor to stop the leaks - National Times

Australia joins a crowded global club where minorities rule - National Times

Mad Hatter Katter

2010-09-03T20:39:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links:

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

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

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

The irrelevance of a boatphone!

2010-08-17T17:53:00.000+10:00

When Tony Abbott appeared on Q&A (16/8/10) the other night, it was a good chance for the Australian pubic to quiz and see on display the talents and competency of what just might be, the next Australian PM. It was a chance to quiz Mr Abbott about his policies. But while many issues were raised during the discussion; from the economy to gay rights, the refugee and asylum seeker policy that Abbott touted sounded more like a laughable idea created by the Chasers on "Yes we Can-berra", rather than a serious idea. What I'm referring to here is Abbott's suggestion of using a "boatphone".

But before we can even laugh at the idea of "boatphone", let's shed some light on the current situation regarding Australia's boarders and 'irregular maritime arrivals'/boats. According the the Liberal party under Tony Abbott, but also Pauline Hanson, Australia is under an invasion from illegal boat arrivals who are just flooding Australia and causing massive demographic and social problems, along with contributing to our population boom. Firstly, all asylum seekers who come to Australia (including those who come by air) aren't causing Australia's population to rise. It's the healthy birth rate of 2.3% along with normal immigration channels. So it's a folly to claim that it's the asylum seekers who are causing such problems and subsequently need to be stopped. Considering Australia only accepts 0.6% of all asylum seekers (the US accepts over 40%), asylum seekers shouldn't be the main point of national debate and discourse, let alone be an election issue. Despite this, both parties want to specifically focus on boat arrivals. This has historically been a method of attracting votes from marginal seats who still haven't recovered from the days of 'yellow peril'. The irony in this is that only 4% of all asylum seekers who reach Australia, do so by boat (2010 Department of Immigration stats). The other 96% come by plane. But on arrival, they then aren't locked up in mandatory detention, but instead processed within the community. But to add salt to the wound, the Department of Immigration has also acknowledged that over 80% of all asylum seekers who reach by boat are real refugees, whereas less than 50% of those who arrive by plane are refugees. So both political parties are wanting to focus on a few handful of individuals that aren't a problem, to the detriment of the real refugees on these boats. Aside from this, there is the political neglect for the rest of the nation. Dare I say Indigenous affairs!

I'm just as glad, yet equally appalled at Julia Gillard's public acknowledgement of these facts. The minute scale of this should barely make the political/election radar. Yet she continues to tag along and set aside a fair size of her campaign to this matter. It's slightly better than Abbott making it his slogan - "Stop the boats". Tony Abbott believes that in order to strengthen boarder security, a Howard government's style - "Pacific solution" - of mandatory detention on Nauru should be implemented. Howard's partly justified Nauru because he thought it would act as a disincentive for people to come by boat. What it proved to be instead, was inhumane. High rates of suicide, depression, mental disorders and a lack of basic sanitation facilities, such as running water and bathrooms, led the UN to call for its closure. Now Abbott is wanting to reinstate such a facility under the guise that it'll be "like a boarding school" instead. So what is it Tony; a disincentive or comfy boarding school? Neither is effective or is justified regardless. When it comes to mandatory detention, neither the Coalition or Labor have convincing reasons why we should use them, especially when the rest of the 96% asylum seekers are successfully processed within the community

So how is a "boatphone" going to help Tony Abbott stop the boats? Firstly, he doesn't need one, because the problem doesn't warrant the political attention it's getting. But secondly, if Gillard was to suggest having an "Indigenous-phone", to which she could give directions as to how police should conduct their investigation into remote, disadvantaged communities, her credibility and political career would would be over before you could mention the name :"Mark Latham". Tony Abbott shouldn't have to tell the navy how to do its job. He acknowledged that he'd be giving directions based on expert military advice from those one the naval ship. So under what circumstances would he be able to provide anything useful, other than just agreeing to whatever the commander recommends? Would he contradict the commanders advice? Does Tony know better than the expert actually there? Maybe we could all text in whether we want a particular boat to be turned around? It could be like Australian Idol, xenophobic style!

This "boatphone" is ludicrous. It's not policy. It's worse than a stunt. It is evidence of politicians gone mad by the need to have nuanced sound bites in order to sound like they're saving the world.

Links:
I'll take military advice on refugee boats: Abbott - Courier Mail

Holy asylum seekers! Tony Abbott to take charge of boat people hotline - News.com.au

PM labels Abbott's 'boat phone' idea nonsense - The West Australian

2010 Federal Election: it finally begins

2010-08-14T21:31:00.001+10:00

I considered writing about the 2010 Federal Election once it was called, but in all honesty, I couldn't be bothered. Parties and candidates had careful, pre written scripts and sound-bites, and everyone was playing it safe. Policies were thrown out like tidbits, with only a few in marginal electorates willing to swallow them up. But it's now only a week until the polls, and the heat is on. This is the week that makes or breaks a party, shapes the publics opinion about what type of leader each party has. Enter the real Julia, enter the 'underdog' Abbott, enter all minor parties (sorry, that includes you Bob Brown) who are vying desperately for attention and votes. I can't give a summary of the whole campaign thus far in a single post, but what I hope to give is a snapshot of what's occurring, and insight into each leader, campaign and their policies.

The leaders

Julia Gillard - highly competent and good with sound-bites. The 'real Julia' isn't scripted, but neither is she a loose cannon. Like Barack Obama, she isn't playing up her stark opposition to all the other candidates (gender in this case, instead of race), however her method of gaining power has ultimately undermined some of her credibility.
Tony Abbott - a robust politician who's been around long enough to know how the political game works. Has run a highly successful ad campaign with tweet length policy statements. A defeat at the election will assuredly result in his removal from leader, though if he became PM, the marginal supporter base that got him to the position of opposition leader would swell.
Bob Brown - asks tough questions and attempts to bring back issues that both major parties often (conveniently) forget. Because of his age, engaging with the younger demographic of Greens voters is an issue, as across TV he comes across as very stoic. Though he's very enlivened on radio.

The campaigns

If you don't live in a marginal seat, especially west Sydney or southern Queensland, it's understandable if you don't know an election is occurring. The obviously disproportionate amount of time each party is concentrating and pork-barreling marginal seats is disgraceful, but I guess this is modern democracy at work.

Labor - currently running a huge fear campaign nation wide against Tony Abbott. It's cheap and dirty, but it's eating away at the gains Abbott has made in the first 3 weeks of the campaign.
Liberals/Coalition - arguably have run a fear campaign from the start (stop the waste, stop the taxes, stop the boats and pay back the debt). Though unless they can change their rhetoric or find mud to sling back at Gillard apart from the old "Labor can't manage the economy, voters who are moved by fear campaigns will be swayed more by Labor.
Nationals - best jingle for their ad. It makes "stand up Australia" sound even more corny that it already is. The best ad of the campaign thus far.
Greens - horrible original ad, but Gruen Nation made a better one for them (that otherwise would have been the best). But because it was commissioned by the ABC, it can't be used.
Get up! - clearly the winner in this election, for running the best ads, campaigns and promoting issues better than any other party. It says a lot about the power of lobby groups. When it attacks a party/candidate, it really hits hard!

The policies

Here is a very brief overview of some of the policies that have been flagged and have become issues within this election. As the week progress, new topics (hopefully about Indigenous affairs or something of equal note) should arise, rather than the typical (but almost guaranteed) economy and border protection policies.

The economy - the main question is who's going to pay back the debt, and who's going to have the largest surplus? Despite the fact that any economist with any credibility (including Joseph Stiglitz and the RBA) acknowledges that Australia's government deficit is not a problem, and if no one payed it back, it would have virtually no affect on the economy; this becomes a moot point. But then it's a question of who can you trust to manage the economy? Both parties have shown equal competence (when you take a bipartisan approach) because they've both had very similar policies (which each party has vehemently denied for political reasons), thus it's also a moot point. So when it comes to the economy, both parties are competent, yet they want to stake the whole election on it!
Boarder protection and stopping the boats - since neither party has been able to conclusively stop the boats, and since the boats only make up 4% of all asylum seeker arrivals, this shouldn't be a big issue. But xenophobia and fear make good campaigns, plus it's easier to tweet STOP THE BOATS. The main difference is East Timor or Nauru (Labor/Coalition respectively), but if you want a completely different option, then the Greens are for community processing, which is what we do for the 96% of all asylum seekers who arrive by plane.
The environment - Labor are wanting to build community consensus by having a talkfest (National citizens assembly) and maybe sometime in the future have an emissions trading scheme. The Coalition are going to have a Standing Green Army (will this be able to invade New Zealand?) of volunteers planting trees and scrubbing coal or something equally as ludicrous as Labor's 'group talk with butcher paper' solution. But the Coalition is also wanting to give financial incentives to businesses who reduce their carbon emissions. Though whether it's an ETS or incentive scheme, it's going to cost money. The Greens are still advocating for a hardline ETS, and despite the fact they may hold the balance of power, it's unlikely it'll ever pass.
Hospitals/Schools/Childcare/Mental health - both parties have shown some interest in these areas, and have surprisingly from both sides, committed more funding. The coalition is all about handing over power/money to the hospitals and principles' of schools, where Labor is about national standardisation and control. Considering the fiasco with the pink batts scheme, this may not be a wise move. However giving free reign to whoever is in charge of an institution, as the Coalition would like, opens up the opportunity for local incompetency.
Indigenous Affairs/Gay marriage/Community Housing/Arts and Science etc - either ignored, condemned, or barely mentioned. More debate and policies over these issue may still come, but it's unlikely. The Greens are aiming to bring some of these issues into the overall debate in this last week, although the chances of them ever becoming serious issues at this stage, is highly unlikely.

How you should vote!

I could tell you how to vote, but I won't. Everyone has their own views about politics, policies and issues, and that should be respected. Though when you do find a party/candidate you like, don't vote for them because an ad told you so or because you voted for them before. Justify the reasons why you like them (or don't like the rest) and take a minute to find out more about their polices.

Though as a side note: if you're in a safe 'blue ribbon' seat, for the House of Representatives ballot, I encourage you to put the current candidate last. Don't vote for the safe incumbent!!! The more marginal your seat is, the more likely your electorate will be pork-barreled and receive election attention. And if this election has highlighted anything, marginal seats are the places to be.

So don't forget to vote this Saturday, 21st August (8am-6pm).

Julia Gillard: A tragedy in the making

2010-06-24T22:40:00.000+10:00

I feel it poignant that at the end of one of the most interesting days in Australia politics, that I give my two cents about the end of the Rudd government, and party selection of Gillard to the office of PM. In the media fray after the spill, I came across the interesting headline, 'The King is dead, long live the Queen'. For me, it really summed up the situation that had entailed. Julia Gillard, as popular and powerful as she might be at the moment, will most likely suffer the same fate as Rudd. She is but another political tragedy in the making; a capable leader that can be removed for (limited) bad press and factional infighting. But beforehand, a look at the past PM, Kevin Rudd.

As much as I began to criticise the Rudd government about its political inaction and obvious, disastrous blunders, it was a party, who had a leader that would have been more effective than the alternate PM, Tony Abbott. As in the 21 out of 23 newspolls since May, Rudd polled above Abbott by a substantial margin, predicting him to win the next election. He also had the power of a first term government on his side. Couple this with the fact that Abbott was considered by some analysts, to be unelectable, and was partially encroaching on the polls because he'd kept his mouth shut. Politicians have done backflips before with even smaller margins; take the Howard government implementing the GST for example. Rudd was a politician cashed up with political capital, but he wasn't prepared to use it or take a risk. For that, he's now been punished by his own party.

Though his departure has to be one of the most courageous and selfless deeds of any politician within the last decade. He put the vote of leadership to the party, clear and simple; sorting out the rumours that had been slowly building and spreading. The party, as seen last year with the Liberals, often almost self destructs before a caucus vote occurs. But Kevin Rudd did it to quell rumours. Mistakes made by him in questioning Gillard's faithfulness, pushy factions, power hunger MP's and the end of his perfect public image, turned it from a vote to a slaughter. His subsequent decision not to challenge Gillard, because of her huge support, further strengthened her legitimacy to rule and didn't cause the party to melt down. While he may have been soft on "the greatest moral challenge of our time", he was a swift, decisive and audacious in this decision, which I believe is one of the greatest bows from office a PM has made.

This quick overturn, from having Rudd as PM one day, to Gillard the next, fundamentally rocks the cornerstone of Australia's democracy. Political parties don't recognise the mandate for politicians to rule. As Rudd stated during his press statement before the caucus vote, he had been given the mandate, by the people, to govern as PM. At the '07 election, Australia decided it was Kevin Rudd to be the PM, not Julia, (despite her popularity). And from newspolls, which were sliding, but weren't at all seriously hinting at the Rudd government not being reelected, confirmed his ability to lead the Labor party. The ability for the party to realign it's leadership, so quickly and unexpectedly, is almost a miscarriage of representative democracy, as it further diminishes the power of the people to choose its effective leader (and cabinet). Australia effectively chose the 'kitchen cabinet' style of the Rudd government, and while not particularly effective, it was still preferential to the alternative, highly conservative Liberal front-bench. I'm in no stage advocating that there should never be a way to remove a PM from office internally. Though systems like a vote of no confidence within the parliament, or at least having the partial legitimacy of being massively down in the polls, would justify the silent spill that occurred today. It's like the the Labor party are moving back into the era of being controlled by union groups and factions. The Kevin Rudd "car" wasn't broken or out of fuel, it needed an oil change, and maybe bit of spit and polish. But dumping him is a great waste of a popular political leader.

So what changes are we likely to see under the Gillard rule? Since Gillard hasn't taken any hardline policy steps as deputy PM, it's hard to tell. Despite having factional support from the left of the party, there's belief she may move right. What's likely to disappear, is the ability for the Labor leader to choose their own cabinet, which Rudd did with his landslide victory. Lindsay Tanner will not be contesting the next election. Despite being one of the better performers of the Rudd government's cabinet and front bench, he's seen the writing on the wall and is now practically handing over his seat to the Greens. They will be the biggest benefactors of this change in leadership, even if Gillard clearly wins the next election. The ETS is not going to rise from the grave, and putting political spin on it, in any case, is difficult. Because of Gillard's heavy involvement within the 'kitchen cabinet' that has been effectively blamed for Rudd's downfall, she is too, part to blame for the fails of micro managing government's role. Though this will be well dug up when it comes to mudslinging campaigns during the next election, sometime this year.

I'm more than supportive of Julia Gillard, as a politician, and as PM. But the process that occurred that put her into power, for me, undermines most of my faith within her to be a substantive, withstanding PM. It also erodes for me, the power of the PM. The almost instantaneous ability to remove a PM from office, in such a way, needs to be reformed. No matter how successful Julia Gillard may become, a dive in the polls and the miniscule threat of loosing the election could see her deposed of. And for a politician with her ability and strength to lead, in good times and in bad, the current system makes her a tragedy in the making.

Links:
Labor wastes a perfectly good PM - National Times

Labor decides salvation lies in panic - National Times

In new PM, Abbott has a tougher opponent - National Times

I may delight, I may disappoint, but I'll be working hard - National Times

Lindsay Tanner resignation opens door to Greens in seat of Melbourne - The Australian

Gillard says challenge 'a tough decision' - ABC Online

Is there such a thing as 'digital privacy'?

2010-05-28T17:56:00.000+10:00

The discussion about privacy on the internet is continuing to heat up, with Google now being taken to a US court for 'illegally' obtaining and storing data it received when driving round in the US, mapping for Google's Streetview. Criticisms have now moved on to Facebook, for its continual change of privacy settings. Governments around the world, including the Australian government, are struggling to apply normal legislation about privacy to these companies, and the internet at large. Do people make a conscience choice to give up personal information to companies and third parties? Or are they being misled? Regardless of what they choose to give up, the most concerning issue is what's being taken without your knowledge or consent. Tougher laws are needed, to give clarity to people interacting with the web, but also to companies who are providing ever expanding services. It's about time Australia introduced a comprehensive internet "bill of rights", clarifying laws already murky, and start setting precedence for protecting users privacy.

The main misconception with online privacy is that if you don't disclose any personal information, you're completely safe. Though even though you may not disclose your address, name, or picture of yourself, even more personal information about you can be surreptitiously disclosed. A US phone company was able to pinpoint a random customers exact location with over 90% accuracy, by only using past records of their phone usage. Thus whatever you've done in your past, can now be dug up to effect your present. And with digital media, it is even easier to track, record, analyse and distribute this data. From what you like to buy, to what you search the most on Google, all this is recorded. Even when you do a Google search or use a website, you may not be imparting 'vital' information about yourself, such as your name or location, enough information can be gathered about you without your knowledge. AOL once recorded the search results of individual clients then gave the clients a random ID. Through the compilation of just search data, other companies were able to track down individuals, by only having a list of search terms.

But it's not just AOL who does this. Google records your ISP number (it's like a car registration number for your computer), thus it records all the searches you conduct. One of the great points of Google is that is brings back search results that you want. Though it can only do this through gathering information about our habits. Are we legally able to opt out of this system? Can we have our records expunged if we choose to? Did we ever legally sign a contract with Google allowing it to do this? NO! And that's the problem. We inherently allow them to do this, every time we hit search! Such practices need legal clarification, so we know our digital rights to privacy, and companies know how much data they can collect.

Though companies, such as Facebook and Google, have a direct interest in obtaining our personal information, because it relates directly to profits. The more information they know about us, the more personalised the 'ads' become, thus the more likely we are to click on them and let Facebook and Google make a profit. The majority of websites are based on advertising models, so they want to know what we like, in order to sell it to us in an add. But what if we don't want to relinquish such information? With companies like Facebook assuming that we are happy to reveal this information, as seen with their lackluster privacy policy which is about to be radically changed due to user backlash, it's hard for us to choose what information we would like to reveal and what information we want kept hidden.

Google's blatant storage of information it 'accidently' harvested from unlocked wi-fi networks when it was conducting its Streetview mapping in the US, is an example of how sometimes, these companies are happy to overstep the mark for profit. So what we need are clear rules, outlining what rights we have on the internet, and legally, what companies can obtain without our consenting. While the government's proposed internet filter is meant to weed out the nasty side of the internet, clarification about everyones rights to the internet is a more important step. Because the real danger of todays internet isn't a virus or illicit material, located on an unknown server. It's the 'legal', daylight robbery of everyones information, regardless of whether its a photo, name or search details that when complied, can track you down, that is the real threat.

As seen when people mix their digital life with their real life, things can quickly turn sour. While Facebook was only the platform and not the cause Nona Belomesoff's death, greater awareness and clarification about privacy laws can prevent other harms from occurring; such the chat-roulette location scandal. I implore the Australian government to consider outlining in great detail, the legal rights to privacy people have in this digital age. At the moment, internet based companies are evolving their services and are harvesting information faster than the legal or political system can catch up. It's time we clarified, whether we do have a right to 'digital privacy'.

Links:
Facebook bows to privacy pressure - The Age online

Teen's murder sparks Facebook privacy plea - ABC online

Forget Facebook privacy, your digital life is being monitored - National Times

US judge wants copies of Google Street View data - The Australian Online

From "Super Tax" to super spin.

2010-05-21T18:23:00.000+10:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources tax - cracks widen - The Australian Business

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

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

40% of minerals go to the nation - The Age

Rudd's ETS - a dead horse with whiplash

2010-04-30T21:13:00.001+10:00

As much as I wanted to believe the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) would save Australia from the "climate change doesn't exist" idea of bygone days, it didn't. And it could never have. The policy was dead from the start. This 'dead horse' of a policy has been hung, drawn, quartered, minced through the media and whipped into a frenzy by Canberra. The outcome? A dead horse with whiplash, and a public being primed for an election. Considering the ETS policy's imminent death (or "delay", call it what you like), let us all revel in the bittersweet hindsight of what could have been.

It was the Kevin07 election that really got Australia governmentally, acting against climate change. With the years gone by of the Howard government still refusing to sign Kyoto, let alone admit that carbon pollution and climate change was a problem, Australia wanted change. Enter Kevin Rudd and his new government. First act by Mr Rudd, flying over to Bali and ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Finally, an Australia leader who took climate change seriously and was proactive! Next, Ross Garnaut was commissioned to produce the Garnaut report, outlining the best system that Australia could implement to reduce our carbon emissions and impact on the environment. From this, the report found an emissions trading scheme (ETS) was the best method. From within a year, there was action, vision, and a plan to tackle climate change. Everyone, including the media, was aghast at the pace the Rudd government was taking to solve climate change. Comments were even made that things were progressing too quickly. Oh, the irony now!

As soon as the Rudd government started planning out the policy, Penny Wong (the climate change minister) was bombarded with lobby groups, the coal industry, the Liberals and Nationals, all attempting to water down the policy. The Greens, environmental lobby groups, along with the majority of the scientific and international community, were trying to set the policy to be inline with internationally accepted targets. The outcome? The coal industry, energy sector and Andrew Bolt won. A very weak, emissions target wise, CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), was produced. It was here the vision, action and policy died. The once galloping horse was now dead. But this aside, there was the challenge of passing the bill. The Greens wanted higher targets, the Liberals and Nationals lower targets, or no ETS, CPRS or any policy at all. Squabbling, name calling, numerous amendments, an economic crisis, 3 Liberal leadership changes, angry letters to the editor and many 7.30 report appearances later, an even more watered down, delayed, yet still un-passed ETS bill, hovered somewhat like a plague in Canberra.

Ultimately Rudd could have called a double dissolution to try and pass the bill. Even though he didn't sell it to the public that well, he still would (most likely) have remained in government to be able to call a joint sitting of parliament if need be. From all opinion polls, public support was strong enough to carry the government through to another term if a double dissolution was called. But Copenhagen loomed and we waited to see what came of it. Nothing. Big surprise. Australia took nothing to the table but empty rhetoric, and so did everyone else. From here more squabbling, name calling, amendments etc, etc, etc, were made, until recently. The clocked turned over and it was 2010, an election year. With too much controversy and failings surrounding the Rudd government on numerous policies, including the CPRS, political salvation was needed. Hence the government has come out and "delayed" (scrapped) the CPRS bill, but on the bright side $2.5 billion has been saved. Rejoice! $2.5 billion is figure more easily represented on a graph than Australia's moral obligation to act on climate change.

And here, the poor dead horse, which had now been flogged, whipped, damned, herald and abused, is used as fertiliser for this years budget. So, still reveling in the beauty of hindsight, what should have dear Rudd have done right from the start.

First, be tough. A first term government with large reserves of political capital and public support should not be beaten around by a (then) fragmented and cannibalistic opposition, or wealthy and morally bankrupt coal and energy sector lobby groups. The policy would have had the Greens support, and a few progressive Liberals may have crossed the floor in the Senate, enabling the bill to pass. Even if not enough support in the Senate was reached, an early double dissolution would have easily seen the Rudd government back in office, and a double sitting of parliament would have easily passed the bill. Though even if all of this hadn't been done; an ETS, despite being watered down, should have passed to ensure that Australia is continually taking action, but mainly, to motivate the main emitters like the US and China to take action. New Zealand rapidly passed an ETS scheme hours before Copenhagen, just to prove that they too are taking action and that they will hold the larger emitters to account. This form of environmental foreign policy is something that is sadly missed across this side of the Tasman Sea.

Even as Rudd said himself, "inaction costs more than action". So shake that sauce bottle again and take a bit of your own advice. Despite the unlikelihood of the Rudd government loosing office in the next election due to the major CPRS policy and election promise backflip, continuing on the historical path of inaction, will lead only to regret.

Links:

Poor political skills doomed Rudd's climate policy - The Australian (opinion and blogs)

PM left to stew in his own juices - The Age

Government admits failing to sell ETS - The ABC online

Greatest moral challenge turns out to be Rudd's dearest folly - National Times

No progress on Indigenous Health

2010-04-26T15:36:00.001+10:00

While Kevin Rudd wants Western Australia to sign up to his National Health reform package, Australian citizens who are in most need of healthcare reform are still waiting for change to occur. On February 13 2008, Kevin Rudd promised to bridge the heath and life expectancy gap between Indigenous Australians and Non Indigenous Australians. At a time where a National Health reform package is on the table for discussion, with an aim to improve the health of all Australians', Indigenous health has been practically ignored. It seems the most opportune time to bridge the gap has been sacrificed, for the sake of a government concerned with being re-elected.

It's not only the Federal Government's fault for ignoring Indigenous health and social issues, but also the fault of the Australian public. Because the general public is not directly effected by the atrocious health and social well-being of Indigenous Australian's, there is little pressure put on governments to act decisively on this matter. The geographical remoteness of these broken communities prevents wide scale media attention, further pushing Indigenous health and affairs into the dark. While these are the main factors preventing Indigenous issues from being front page news, the political and social awkwardness that comes from making policy and dealing with Indigenous affairs, muddies this process. Ultimately it is easier practically and politically, to speak in general terms about "bridging the gap", rather than taking action.

When it comes to assisting these broken communities, an overarching policy must be put in place, combined with individual, town by town specific action. Some communities suffer from high rates of crime because of a lack of jobs, others alcohol abuse, others systemic health problems. The intervention was a necessary first step, but it wasn't and isn't going to solve the entire problem. What is needed is an overarching policy from the Federal government, committing funds to rebuild communities that have been neglected of government services for decades. It's not just throwing money at the problem, it's setting out a plan of action with legislation necessary to enact it.

One of the main reasons Indigenous health is so expensive is because Indigenous Australian's are over-represented in Australian hospitals. The cost of preventing chronic and serious health problems is cheaper than treating it. Thus without local preventative health measures, such as sanitation, local clinics and local GP's, the cost of Indigenous health will always be expensive (and wasteful). It is laughable that the Federal Government is promising 80 new Indigenous health officers, and believes this will make a meaningful contribution to closing the gap. Promising every remote Indigenous community a shower would be more effective, as only 30% s have a working shower. The lack of such basic sanitation has lead to a swine flu outbreak amongst the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory, with Indigenous Australian's 12 times more likely to be hospitilised for swine flu. This figure is compounded by the fact that access to the 'free' swine flu vaccine would have almost been almost impossible for communities that don't have a doctor or a healthcare worker.

While Indigenous Health and "the gap" can't be closed overnight, making no policy, and taking no action is not going fix the problem either. Opportunities for reform are passed up on and the political capital for action just isn't there. Will it really take another "little children are sacred" before the government and parliament open its eyes? While the Australian government has apologised on behalf of all of Australia for the'stolen generation', Kevin Rudd might as well start writing his next sorry speech, on behalf of the 'Ignorant Generation'

Links:
Swine flu hit Indigenous people hardest: study - ABC Online

'Alcohol and indigenous violence linked' - The Age Online

NT says it will sign health deal if more money is offered - The World Today

Govt promises more Indigenous health officers - ABC online