Modia Minotaur

Another Star drops off the Stick

2007-05-04T20:39:00.000+10:00

After a flurry of mixed messages from the political punditry, it now appears increasingly likely that former ACTU inamorata and sitting member Jennie George may become a victim of "Super Saturday", as the ALP production-line preselection slaughterhouse has become known.
As late as yesterday, most commentators were smugly opining that dead-cert Greg Combet would be slipping comfortably into the Green Room to further extend the ranks of ACTU retirees, but some are not so sure. The surprise inclusion of Ms George's seat of Throsby in the Saturday list, and that nothing approaching a ringing endorsement of her has come from former factional allies, seems to suggest that her days may be numbered.
If this does happen, she will be the third female MP to be shown the door, and this must surely hit the tripwire on Labor's Affirmative Action plan.
A likely profile for her replacement? Right Wing, Celebrity, Female.

The Young and the Odious

2007-05-03T21:07:00.000+10:00

You might have assumed that the NSW Election was a point of crisis for the far-right in the NSW Liberal Party. Their endorsed leader, Peter Debnam (remember him?) was demoted and replaced by the relatively moderate Barry O'Farrell, who instantly set about making clear his belief that the machinations of David Clarke and his ilk were no longer welcome in the NSW Liberal Party, and had never been welcomed by the greater public.

It would have been nice to think that this would be the last we see of this troubling epoch in NSW politics. The powerbrokers, broken and defeated, are left to slink into the darker corners of history, tails between their legs, to allow true party democracy to be restored.

If only.

This week's announcement that the notorious Alex Hawke plans to challenge long-term plodder Alan Cadman for the seat of Lindsay was certainly a suprise - but it was a very unpleasant one. To get an idea of Hawke, I'll yet again link Chloe Hooper's article in which he plays a starring role, , and remind you that former Liberal leader John Brogden took the quite extraordinary step of personally naming Hawke, the instigator of the right-wing takeover of the traditionally moderate Young Liberals - as one of the instigators of his political demise. Hawke is at the vanguard of a very unpleasant and anti-democratic trend.

As this week's fascinating episode of Four Corners revealed, such people do not enter politics has nothing to do with the basic interest in improving society that is held by the majority of politicians; even nothing to do with advancing the principles held by a particular party - but instead, everything to do with the gaining and wielding of personal power and the serving of personal agendas.

I've said it before, and it's worth reiterating - such a trend is a serious threat to our political system. This is true enough on a State basis, but even more concerning should it spread to Federal politics. I predicted right-wing challenges on moderate MPs - the notion of challenging long-serving but unspectacular MPs in safe seats provides a much quicker path to power. It will be interesting to see whether the situation is duplicated in similar seats as further Federal preselections open.

The Lieutenant takes the Mission

2007-05-02T21:12:00.000+10:00

Todays Sydney Morning Herald carried what appeared, at first glance , to be an encouraging report on John Brogden's life after politics.
The article detailed how Mr Brogden has been able to stare down his personal demons and undertake a worthwhile public duty fronting Lifeline, and speaking candidly about recovering from the debilitating illness of depression.
However, a line at the end of the article, almost an afterthought, brought me abruptly back to reality:
"Alex Hawke, whom Mr Brogden accused of undermining him before his resignation, is a surprise candidate for preselection in the federal seat of Mitchell. The lieutenant to the Liberal right-wing powerbroker David Clarke will stand against the sitting Liberal, Alan Cadman".

This is very disturbing news.

Despite holding one of the safest Liberal seats in the nation, and being second only to Phillip Ruddock in length of Parliamentary service, Mr Cadman has struggled in the past to retain his preselection, securing it by a mere 3 votes in 2004.
One would hope that Mr Clarkes particularly noisome cadre, whose last public performance was to bludgeon to death any chance that the Liberals may have had to win the NSW election, will be denied the opportunity to present their poster-boy for election to Federal Parliament.

World's Best Practice

2007-05-02T12:18:00.000+10:00

With so little praise lavished on Australia's immigration system, the almost-terminally punctilious Kevin Andrews must be beside himself at this item from the UK.
The somewhat tongue-in-cheek article does highlight some little understood facts about "who comes to this country, and the manner in which they come".
I can sense the palpable relief sweeping the populace that the chronic hairdresser shortage is being addressed, and finally some serious attention is being paid to skilling a workforce that can artfully turn your favourite companion moggie into a footstool.
Still, as UK Immigration Minister Liam Byrne points out, this will serve as the model for the UK system to be introduced next year, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Paratroopers suit up

2007-05-01T21:28:00.000+10:00

Amongst the usual done deals and media puff that are part and parcel of the ALP National Conference, one under-reported decision warrants further scrutiny.

The decision to allow the ALP Federal Executive to appoint candidates to NSW seats was neither unexpected nor overly contentious, with many precedents in the recent past. Some high profile Walk-Up-Starts, notably Maxine McKew, have already strapped on the Kevlar for their drop into significant seats, however the list issued today naming those seats which are subject to nomination rather than preselection makes interesting reading.

No surprises that the seats of Blaxland, Charlton, Eden-Monaro, Fowler and Wentworth are on that list, as the overtures to the likes of Greg Combet, George Newhouse, Colonel Mike Kelly and Bernie Riordan are well documented. Two seats, however are a little surprising, they being Throsby and Hughes.
Throsby is held by former teacher and ACTU gaffer Jennie George by a more than respectable margin and has to date not been suggested as a landing point for any of the Parachute Corps new recruits. Even stranger is the seat of Hughes, currently held by the laughable Danna Vale and it is here that at least one intriguing possibility emerges.

Given the Prime Minister's devotion to cricket, is it possible that a much capped former player (and Hughes resident) has been successfully implored to pad up for ALP, and help put the PM back in the pavilion?

Into the Breach

2007-05-01T20:09:00.000+10:00

With the venerable Minotaur charged with the task of bedding down a new Government, Pete has forsaken the working-class charm of Milltown to keep Modia Minotaur open for business.
So, with nets set, gaffs ready and crew at their posts, let's trawl the already thickening media swill for some issues worthy of comment

Shutters Up

2007-04-28T08:14:00.000+10:00

Clearly, I haven't been updating as much as I'd like to, but my lack of time and new job are leading me to question whether I'll be able to keep maintaining poor old Modia Minotaur at all (sniff ... ), and certainly, to consider new ways of keeping the show on the road in the meantime. I have asked a guest blogger to step in for the moment. He should be up and posting within a few days - please make him welcome.

One Baird In, One Baird Out

2007-04-16T22:16:00.000+10:00

Veteran Liberal MP Bruce Baird has announced that he plans to retire at the next election. His announcement comes a matter of weeks after his son, Michael Baird, took the seat of Manly from independent David Barr and followed his father, a former Deputy Leader and Transport Minister, into NSW politics.

Baird must be confident in two things - firstly, that Peter Costello is unlikely to assume the Liberal leadership any time soon, given that Costello's ascendancy would have given him his best chance of attaining a Federal ministry after fourteen years on the back bench.

Secondly - and he seems quite open about this - Baird suspected his pre-selection would have been challenged before the election. This is notable in that Baird is acknowledged as the senior statesman of the Liberal moderates and, as such, first in the firing line of pre-selection challenges. As pre-selections take place in the next few months, it will be extremely interesting - and telling - to observe who else is either subjected to such challenges or steps down in anticipation of them; including Judi Moylan, Marise Payne and perhaps even Baird's neighbour in the seat of Hughes, Danna Vale (who, when she isn't digging up Gallipoli, occasionally has some sensible and reasonable things to say). Vale and Baird hold their seats by comfortable margins, but that's rarely the point when such pre-selection challenges take place.

Petro Georgiou is a notable absence from the above list - but let's not forget that Georgiou, considered at severe risk of losing his pre-selection to former Alexander Downer staffer Josh Frydenberg, ended up romping in over his young turk challenger.

It's entirely possible that a number of young and ambitious locals are currently drumming up support amongst influential figures in order to challenge the moderates.

Howard has previously been very talented at painting the Liberal Party as a `broad church'; at letting dissidents such as Vale and Georgiou off the leash every now and then (in the phenomenon American political observers are now referring to as `catch and release' ). A monochrome party makes for a church that is decidedly less broad, with a support base likewise.

Whether such pre-selection will be nipped in the bud, or encouraged, or successful - as occurred in the NSW election - may say a lot about the character of what could be the next government (and yes, despite the current euphoria over Labor's polling, we can't lose sight of the notion that the government may still win after all).

Farenheit Rises

2007-04-15T12:08:00.000+10:00

Quentin Dempster's interview with new NSW Liberal leader Barry O'Farrell is a good demonstration of the truth behind The Chaser's mock headline - `Iemma Supports Debnam in Leadership Battle' (you'll have to wait to read the interview - Stateline has clearly become slack once more, but once it comes online it's well worth reading).

The fact that O'Farrell has not been elevated to the leadership before now just goes to show exactly how bloody minded the factional battles within the party are - fortunately, the new Shadow Cabinet suggests that the influence of David Clarke et al may be waning.

Despite the numerous moderates supplanted by Clarke-backed candidates in pre-selection, only one has made the shadow cabinet, in former Deputy DPP Greg Smith, who was named Shadow Attorney General, as was widely tipped. The other two debut MPs to make the shadow cabinet are the woman who almost missed out on a seat in parliament because of Smith's successful battle for Epping, Pru Goward; and Michael Baird, the son of Federal MP Bruce Baird. Both are acknowledged moderates.

O'Farrell has long been acknowledged as one of the best parliamentary performers - he's clear and forceful and, increasingly important in the current political climate, he doesn't give the impression that anyone else is behind him pulling the strings. Hopefully, he'll keep the government on its toes - not a bad thing.

Sunrise and False Dawn

2007-04-15T11:47:00.000+10:00

When Kevin Rudd became Opposition Leader, I expected he would instantly step down from his long-running role on Channel 7's `Sunrise' - or, if he did not, that he would politely be asked to do so. Two representatives of two political parties doing a regular informal discussion is one thing; one of them being the leader of one of those parties is quite different. Nevertheless, Rudd kept his place in the cult-like organisation known as the `Sunrise family' (while its rival, Channel 9's `Today', duplicated the successful formula with a regular tete-a-tete between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott). Holding on to this role was always ill-advised, and now, much like the Paul Gibson controversy (I'm glad I didn't have time to blog that, it was all just too depressing), someone has found a loophole.

A press gallery backlash is common when politicians refuse to make themselves as available as journalists would like. We saw exactly the same thing with Mark Latham, who was notoriously choosy about who he spoke with. The fact that Rudd was always so well known for being at the media's beck and call makes any reduction of access or excess media management all the starker.

Rudd's decision to join Sunrise was always an extremely canny move, as I've said before. It is both easy and foolish to remember that while you might be able to get meaty policy across on the 7.30 Report, the sort of people whose vote will change based not only on your policy, but by whether or not they actually know who you are, don't watch the 7.30 Report. Neville Wran was one of the first leaders to recognise the impact of the mass media, while Paul Keating was the first to use talkback radio as a tool of connection with the public.

However, Rudd's continued participation on the Sunrise show was risky not only because of the potential for such controversies as the one that is currently raging, but for Channel 7 itself - it risked the implied support for one party over another. As for Rudd, the notion of dedicating your early morning media time, by default, to one channel, is quite extraordinary when you think about it. Did the leak about the alleged false Dawn Service in Vietnam emanate from other members of the media from opposing organisations? Almost certainly.

My two predictions for the near future - first, Walt Secord, famous for heavying the media on behalf of Bob Carr and now Rudd's senior media advisor, will be told to change his heavy-handed style, or even ejected altogether in the long term. Second, Rudd will exit the Sunrise family, or at least become only an occasional guest.

Wow, What's The Time?

2007-04-15T11:44:00.000+10:00

Logging on to my blog today, I had a bit of a Rip Van Winkle experience. I imagined the period after the election would be much more relaxed - it proved to be quite the opposite, what with a new job and the final semester of a Masters. Hence, the lights have been off at Modia Minotaur. I'm thinking of asking some guest bloggers to step in for the moment - but in the meantime, I apologise for my silence!

The Casualties

2007-04-02T13:07:00.000+10:00

Peter Debnam has finally decided to step down from the NSW Liberal leadership, allowing Barry O'Farrell to stand unopposed.

The surprise is that it's taken this long. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who expected Debnam to step down on election night (it's becoming somewhat of a tradition amongst State Opposition leaders). During his leadership, Debnam managed the uncanny feat of focusing attention on his own ineptitude and lack of scruples at a time when the government was dealing with what otherwise may have been an election-losing scandal in the form of the arrest of Milton Orkopoulos. More recently, he witnessed a large proportion of his shadow frontbenchers lose their pre-selections. In clinging on and then being tipped off at the last minute, he ensured that the perception of his leadership carrying little authority, and that turmoil in the NSW Liberal Party is worse than ever, remained intact.

All known puns regarding Speedos have since been used, so there's not much else to say.

Meanwhile, Morris Iemma has sensationally delayed the swearing in of Paul Gibson as a member of his new cabinet, pending a police investigation whose details remain unknown.

And what can you say about that? Just shake your head with a bewildered expression, like I did.

A Closer Look at the NSW Cabinet

2007-03-31T21:27:00.000+10:00

Now, you'll find plenty of dull, descriptive posts about the new NSW Cabinet on the internet at the moment (for example, the one below). Perhaps a more useful question to ask is not `who makes up the new NSW Cabinet', but `What is the nature of the new NSW Cabinet'?

Firstly, as I previously noted, it is very new. Only twelve Ministers remain from the Cabinet formed by Morris Iemma upon his ascendancy roughly eighteen months ago. Of them, only four were a part of Bob Carr's final cabinet (John Watkins, John Della Bosca, Morris Iemma and Michael Costa). None at all remain from Carr's first cabinet of twelve years ago. That's certainly some generational change.

Secondly, it is not a smaller cabinet, as I had predicted, but remains at 21 (though it was previously 19, this number is artifically small, given that nobody was elevated to replace Carl Scully or Milton Orkopoulos). This is quite a surprise to me - probably, I underestimated the amount of negotiation such a move would require - however, I wouldn't be surprised if they presided over fewer and more amalgamated departments. Reducing the workload of a number of overcommitted Ministers, such as Tony Kelly, Frank Sartor, and especially John Della Bosca, was a smart move.

Thirdly - and perhaps most significantly - it's a far more Left-wing cabinet. Only five members of the Left participated in the previous cabinet, and just three of those in major portfolios. This week's new cabinet features no less than seven Left MPs, though fewer in major positions, with the notable exception of Phil Koperberg. Again, creating a Minister Assisting for Koperberg's hefty new portfolio is a good idea. It will be particularly interesting to see which legislation will come under whose jurisdiction, given rumours that the Energy and Water portfolios will be virtually stripped. There is plenty within the Planning portfolio that could decently come within this new role, given that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act produces an increasing amount of business for the Minister for Planning. Any change would represent a fairly drastic shift - but given the unpopularity of some of Frank Sartor's decisions, it might possibly be considered.

The shift to the Left may be interpreted as a sign of further healing between the two sides of Labor who have, at various times in the past decade, hated one another more than they collectively hated the Opposition. The matter appears to have particularly improved since Mark Arbib took over as the General Secretary of the NSW ALP from an unpopular and hard-nosed Eric Roozendaal. A glance across the parliamentary benches at the debacle taking place within the NSW Liberals would tell why bringing all factions into the tent in a major way is a sound move.

To this, I would add something somewhat controversial. Under Iemma himself, we have seen a very subtle leftward drift. When elected, Iemma named often neglected areas such as disability services and mental health as part of his reform agenda. In the latter area especially, the first advances in many years are already being seen.

Like everyone, I waited for the traditional law and order auction before last week's election. It never came. Though the notion that some large shifts in law and order policy have been made under Iemma's leadership has some legitimacy, it was simply not an election issue, either for the government or the public. Quite rightly, the government condemned Peter Debnam's pledge to lower the age of criminal responsibility to ten, rather than instantly arguing that it should instead be eight. Some of this may be attributed to the rare alignment of planets that produced both an Attorney General and Police Minister from the Left - but let's hope it's indicative of a wider trend of focusing on the social justice issues often described - and just as often dismissed - as nothing more than the topic of intellectual argument for the Left.

New Blood

2007-03-30T19:29:00.000+10:00

What surely must be an unprecedented number of new faces make up the new NSW Cabinet, including a few that didn't figure in anyone's rumours. Nearly half of the cabinet are new Ministers, while three of those - again, surely unprecedented - are newly elected MPs. Several years of painstaking reconciliation between the two dominant factions seems to have paid off, with the Left particularly benefiting from the reshuffle.

As previously reported, Deputy Premier and Minister for Transport, John Watkins has been given the further responsibility of Finance. This makes a lot of sense when you think about it, and it's further evidence that Watkins doesn't plan to act as a mere figurehead.

Finance is one of several portfolios that has been removed from John Della Bosca's previously unwieldly list of duties. He retains Industrial Relations as well as picking up Education from the departing Carmel Tebbutt.

David Campbell will take Police. Campbell is, as I mentioned, someone who has been on a rapid ascendancy since his initial elevation. He's done a decent job of the difficult water portfolio and has proven a surprisingly effective media performer, so this new role is not the surprise it might have been. Despite some rumours of a serious demotion, Tony Kelly has retained most of his portfolios, aside from Justice and Juvenile Justice. As predicted - and in line with most other states - these have gone to the new Attorney General, former barrister John Hatzistergos. His former portfolio of Health has meanwhile gone to Reba Meagher.

Believe it or not, that's more or less it from the previous cabinet. The duties of Eric Roozendaal, Ian Macdonald, Joe Tripodi and Frank Sartor remain largely unchanged, though Sartor has shed a few duties and picked up Arts (his retention of Planning coming as a surprise, given his heavy-handed style has proven unpopular with many). Macdonald's adoption of Energy is not the promotion it sounds, as much of the portfolio duties will be moved to the new Climate Change portfolio.

Amongst those promoted on the Right are Kristina Keneally, who takes Della Bosca's former portfolios of Ageing and Disabilities; Graham West (Gaming and Racing and Minister Assisting the Minister on Citizenship) and Matt Brown who, in one of the biggest surprises, replaces a demoted Cherie Burton in Housing.

Controversially, Paul Gibson has been elevated in Burton's place. Gibson's relationship with the former wife of fellow incoming Minister Phil Koperberg has, not surprisingly, been the subject of friction between the two men. It's just as well their portfolios are not likely to bring them in to contact; nevertheless, Gibson's eccentric behaviour makes him an odd choice for cabinet. Amongst his new duties are the newly created portfolio of Minister Assisting the Minister for Roads (Road Safety).

In an earlier post, I named six members of the Left who had been rumoured to be elevated, and predicted about half actually would. In the event, all six were (Peter Primrose to President of the Legislative Assembly, replacing Meredith Burgmann) - and largely at the expense of a number of incumbent Ministers for the Right. Long serving MP Paul Lynch has been given Kerry Hickey's Local Government, Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health). As predicted, Diane Beamer has also been demoted, and her Fair Trading portfolio given to Linda Burney, who has also taken Tourism, formerly held by Sandra Nori.

Given the fact that Burney has already served in Parliament, it's somewhat surprising the three first-termers - all from the Left - have taken jobs usually given to (and in most cases, taken from) more experienced colleagues. This is particularly true of Nathan Rees, who takes Emergency Services from Tony Kelly Water Utilities, like Energy, is likely to be largely subsumed by the new Climate Change.

In perhaps one of the biggest risks of all, this important and high profile portfolio has been given to newcomer Phil Koperberg. Koperberg's experience leading the state's firefighters is legendary, but will he be able to find his feet in politics swiftly enough? I imagine the learning curve has already been very steep. He will be assisted in this role by Verity Firth, the former Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney, who has also taken her predecessor's portfolio of Women, as well as two areas previously held by Frank Sartor. Ironically, her disagreements and negotiations with Sartor over local development issues that helped secure her win in Balmain.

Now, if that's not an influx of new blood, I don't know what is - the changes virtually constitute a new government. Certainly, it's a clear and final break with the Carr era. The question remains as to whether inexperienced Ministers will be more accident prone as they find their feet - but it should also be noted that a number of genuine talents will genuinely enrich a Cabinet that was looking threadbare by last weekend's election.

Bob Debus to Contest Macquarie

2007-03-30T10:26:00.000+10:00

Former NSW Attorney General Bob Debus has confirmed that he will stand for the seat of Macquarie in the upcoming Federal Election, citing his desire to see a Labor government elected and a number of issues both within and outside his former portfolios addressed at a Federal level. Before retiring from NSW Parliament at the election, he was the last remaining Minister from the Wran Government, the country's longest serving Environment Minister, as well as the NSW Arts Minister. He is perhaps best known as the target of an extraordinary attack last year by Peter Debnam, involving allegations made under parliamentary privilege but later comprehensively disproven. Coming as they did at the time of the Milton Orkopoulos scandal, Debnam's monumental blunder has been identified by many observers as a key turning point in the Liberal election campaign. This, perhaps even more than any reiteration of his policy to cut 20,000 public service jobs, led to many people deciding they `couldn't risk Debnam'.

Debus should be a formidable candidate in Macquarie, a seat which, as I said earlier, is held by Liberal MP Kerry Bartlett but is notionally Labor after the redistribution. Should Debus win - and of course, should Labor win - his name will almost certainly be raised as a potential Federal Attorney General.

Early Oil on the New NSW Cabinet

2007-03-30T09:47:00.000+10:00

The Sun-Herald's Alex Mitchell has just appeared on ABC 702 with some early details of the new NSW Cabinet, which will be finalised at caucus this morning and sworn in on Monday. Even though I find Mitchell a noxious worm, his information tends to be pretty sound.

Here's what we're looking at:

John Watkins to retain Transport and pick up Finance, as a counterbalance to the Right's Michael Costa retaining Treasury

John Hatzistergos to take Attorney General, to the surprise of absolutely no one

David Campbell, currently best known as Minister for Water, for Police - a major step upwards for a Minister whose rise has already been pretty swift

John Della Bosca to replace Carmel Tebbutt in Education

Reba Meagher to take Health (and, I would have to assume, dropping her other demanding portfolios)

New Left recruit Nathan Rees to replace Kerry Hickey in Local Government

Kristina Keneally to be promoted to a portfolio as yet unknown (I've been predicting her elevation since the last major reshuffle) for an unknown portfolio (perhaps Di Beamer's former portfolio of Fair Trading?)

Matt Brown, also strongly rumoured, and also to take an unknown portfolio (perhaps Aboriginal Affairs?)

In addition to these, I would suggest Linda Burney for Reba Meagher's former portfolio of Community Services. The race for the new Environment, Climate Change and Water portfolio seems wide open - it seems inconceivable that such a prominent portfolio would be given to a new Minister, but Phil Koperberg's name seems to be coming up in connection with it more consistently than with the more obvious choice of Emergency Services.

All (well, most) will be known later today.

Peter Andren Headed for the Senate

2007-03-29T13:47:00.000+10:00

Bathurst area Federal independent Peter Andren has today announced he plans to stand down from his seat of Calare, in order to contest the Senate in the next Federal election.

Phew, what a day!

Andren has held Calare comfortably for many years and is regarded as pretty popular amongst both his colleagues and constituents. However, last year's Federal redistribution had a substantial effect on his seat, slicing off the areas in which his support is strongest and adding demographically dissimilar areas in which he is little known. Speculation has since raged that he would challenge the Liberal Party's Kerry Bartlett for the neighbouring seat of Macquarie.

Instead, he has taken neither option, pledging to redress the balance in the Federal senate.

I can now confidently predict an almighty stoush for Calare. While Andren was unassailable under the old boundaries, he was markedly more vulnerable under the new. The big question is to whom the votes Andren currently wins would flow should an Independent not follow him in the seat (and please, dear God - don't let it be Pauline Hanson! Surely she's finally got the point!). It's generally assumed that the Nationals would be the beneficiaries, though it's interesting to note that they polled fourth in Calare in the 2004 election (when both a Liberal and National candidate stood, splitting the vote - but splitting it in favour of the Liberals, who themselves were outpolled by Country Labor) and didn't have a candidate at all in Macquarie.

Perhaps the current member for Macquarie, Kerry Bartlett, will decide to shift to Calare, vacating a seat that is now nominally Labor. The recently retired NSW Attorney General, Bob Debus, has not confirmed or denied whether he will be standing for this seat, which contains much of his former State seat of Blue Mountains. It would be interesting to know what influence the absence of Andren - and perhaps even Bartlett - would have on his decision. Regardless of the candidates, this area is truly going to be one of the flashpoints of the Federal election.

As a first aside, I wonder - no, in fact, I predict - that this will be first of a number of campaigns based on wresting the balance of power from the Howard Government. It's a pretty popular issue to campaign on, but it will be extremely interesting the impact the high profile of the issue will have on the makeup of the next Senate.

As a second aside, I note that the Federal ALP requires a swing almost exactly the same as that achieved against the NSW government on the weekend to oust the current Federal government entirely.

Carmen Lawrence to Retire

2007-03-29T13:31:00.000+10:00

I thought my first day off in months would be a quiet affair - I shouldn't have been so naive - but one thing I didn't expect to hear was the resignation from Federal Labor MP Carmen Lawrence.

Where do I start? Lawrence is the member of the Federal ALP that has most consistently impressed me over the past few years. She is eminently sensible, balanced, and principled. Sometimes, she has seemed an almost lone voice of sanity, especially during the Tampa crisis, at which time she resigned from the Shadow Cabinet in protest of the party's weak stance on the asylum seeker issue. Prior to her time in Federal Parliament, Lawrence was of course the first female Premier in Australian history, while in 2004 she became the ALP's first elected party president.

I have heard her speak most convincingly on a number of issues, from the place of women in politics; factionalism (at last year's Fabian Society forum, at which Robert Ray's comments unjustly hogged the limelight and her superior speech almost entirely ignored), to the use of fear as a political weapon.

It sounds like I'm gushing, and I suppose I am - chiefly because she's been an MP worth gushing about. It's always a terrible shame to see the resignation of a progressive and courageous politician, but she can certainly leave confident in the knowledge of her continuing influence.

Torbay to Speak

2007-03-29T10:04:00.000+10:00

Independent MP Richard Torbay has announced that he has been selected as the first independent speaker in NSW to be chosen despite a clear parliamentary majority won by one party.

Torbay is the member for the Northern Tablelands, a seat which he not only won with an astounding 70% of the primary vote in 2003, but won again this year with a further 10% on primaries. He is well known for being the kingmaker of the Independent movement - ABC's Stateline had an insightful report last year on exactly how well organised and integrated a movement this is - and also for not being backward in coming forward (some have suggested his ultimate aim is to be the first Independent Premier of NSW).

It's an interesting decision on the part of the newly elected Labor government. Certainly, it will be seen as a way to increase accountability and impartiality within the parliamentary chamber. The unspectacular conduct of Federal speaker David Hawker demonstrates that a poor or biased Speaker leads to a poor quality of parliamentary debate. However, Torbay has also made demands on behalf of his own electorate in taking the position. I'm not sure how that would sit with the Opposition. Labor's Paul Lynch - an extraordinarily uncompromising politician who wouldn't have made life easy for either side of the chamber - was reportedly asked to fill the position but turned it down.

The complete cabinet is expected to be announced later today.

What next for David Hicks?

2007-03-28T19:59:00.000+10:00

John Howard physically struggled against triumphalism following the guilty plea entered by David Hicks today. The Albrechtsens of the Australian media showed no such restraint, and shall no doubt be sharpening their knives for the Left for months to come.

One of the biggest problems during this case has been to separate the principle from the situation. To support a fair trial and humane incarceration for Hicks is not to argue in favour of his guilt or his innocence - it is to emphasise the inarguable fact that nothing disqualifies anyone from a fair process, whether they are defending a parking fine or mass genocide.

The situation is very reminiscent to that faced by the Labor Party in the 1950s, when the Menzies government launched the Communist Party Dissolution Act, a referendum proposing to ban the Communist Party from Australia. Opposition Leader H.V. Evatt - a pivotal figure not only in the formation of Australian foreign policy but in the creation of the United Nations - successfully argued against the ban, which was narrowly defeated.

Evatt's courage and audacity in this battle cannot be underestimated. The Petrov Affair was gripping the nation, and anti-Communist hysteria would shortly contribute to the split of Evatt's own party and the creation of the DLP. Defending the right of the Communist Party to exist would have been seen in almost the same light as defending the right of Al Qaeda to exist. Nevertheless, Evatt - no fan whatsoever of Communism or the Communist Party itself - was able to objectively separate the principle of defending freedom and democracy from the specific circumstances. To twist the now-familiar argument, banning the Communist Party would mean the Communist Party had won.

Like that battle, the David Hicks issue has never been one of guilt or innocence, but of the defence of democratic principles. Losing sight of this and personalising the issue is something of which both sides have been guilty. Hicks and other Guantanamo Bay detainees have repeatedly been referred to as `terrorists'. They have also been described as completely innocent. Either description misses the point.

Debate will probably rage forever more on whether Hicks' plea truly represents his guilt, or was simply designed to expedite his return home. While it's a shame we are now unlikely to hear the case for or against him outlined in court, it's entirely likely that the military commission process wouldn't have helped to reveal the truth either.

The inarguable fact remains that Hicks was held and tried in unjust circumstances, and that the Federal Government did little to redress this. For this, they still remain culpable.

NSW Liberals in Disarray

2007-03-28T12:48:00.000+10:00

Perhaps one of the biggest surprises of election night was the fact that Peter Debnam did not announce his resignation. Bigger still - he continues to maintains his faith in his own leadership, and continues to refuse to step down. This comes despite the fact that it now appears unlikely that the Liberals will win any seats from Labor, and extraordinary rumblings that the Nationals - who performed far better - may exit the Coalition while the Liberals sort themselves out.

This could be the final showdown between the party's far-Right and its moderates (well, those that managed to wrest back their preselections from same). The overthrow of John Brogden was largely seen as the final stage in the David Clarke-fueled far Right's gradual encroachment upon the party machine, and the beginning of its inroads into the parliamentary party. It has since seen to the preselection of a number of allies and the deposal of its enemies, such as Patricia Forsythe and Steven Pringle.

When Barry O'Farrell was overlooked as party leader in favour of the lower key Peter Debnam, it was viewed as a surprise result, especially given that he was a natural successor as Brogden's deputy, and second only to Andrew Tink as an effective parliamentary performer for the Coalition. Since then, O'Farrell is rumoured to have been approached at least once to challenge Debnam, but has refused.

When you look at it, who could blame him? He faces the job of uniting a party that is obviously deeply divided, and demonstrating leadership towards and of not any particular faction, but of the party as a whole. He is currently approaching this task by refusing to commit anyone to any particular shadow portfolio so as not to alienate the various factions (a process that says a lot in itself).

Should Debnam hold on - surely, after all of this, he can't possibly - what then? More of the same?

Should O'Farrell triumph, we can all only hope that he makes it his task to address the pernicious influence of David Clarke and his cohorts. He will plausibly be able to argue that they have helped to make the party unelectable. However, whether Clarke's tactics makes the party more or less attractive to the general public never seems to have been one of Clarke's major priorities, and the notion that he may continue to drag his party into extremism must frighten a good many Liberals as much as the rest of us.

Carmel Tebbutt Resigns

2007-03-25T20:59:00.000+10:00

I have just heard that the Member for Marrickville, Carmel Tebbutt, has decided to resign from the frontbench to spend more time with her young son. This is a most unexpected development. Tebbutt is widely considered one of the most effective members of the Ministry; not only a potential Deputy Premier, but a potential Premier. Her decision is understandable, but a sizeable loss to the newly endorsed NSW Government. Rumours suggested that she may take the Health portfolio after the election; evidently, they were wrong.

This makes for yet another extra place on the front bench - one likely to be taken by a member of the Left - and a new Education Minister.

Intriguing.

NSW Election Washup

2007-03-25T12:24:00.000+10:00

I crawl out from under a day which started with tying coloured balloons to the gate of a local primary school and ended with a particularly boisterous victory party (praise daylight saving!) to deliver this analysis of last night's results.

In a broad sense, many predictions proved correct - that the swing against the government was not uniform, but differed across seats and areas, and in some places - particularly the traditionally working class Western Suburbs - involved a swing towards Labor. Perhaps Merrick and Rosso's sentiments weren't far off the mark when they told Peter Debnam that the reason not everybody goes to the beach every morning is that some of them live in Penrith (for the record, Debnam is officially the Shadow Minister for the Western Suburbs).

However, several results demonstrate that certain trends have completely gone under the radar of most commentators - and perhaps, also, that over-analysis has distorted predictions. The decisions people made were, ultimately, much less complex than many had predicted. In fact, it largely appears most people have voted on local issues and based on their respect for individual local members and candidates. Fancy that!

As I predicted, the Greens primary vote remained nearly static, both in the Upper and Lower houses. In the inner city seats such as Balmain, seen as serious prospects, the party's primary vote was almost completely static (intriguingly, the Liberal Party made the bigger improvement, up 2.4%) and the seat ultimately won with ease by Labor's Verity Firth. Things initially looked a little more dicey in neighbouring Marrickville but sitting member Carmel Tebbutt was ultimately returned convincingly. Perhaps it's premature to declare the chances of the Greens winning a Lower House seat entirely over - but it's certainly significant to note that they have never once met the high expectations they and others have consistently predicted of them, and that statewide, the Christian Democrats won a larger swing.

One intriguing and unexpected turn of events is the fortunes of the National Party's sitting MPs, who have seen healthy swings towards them in nearly all the seats they hold. This would ostensibly seem to challenge the prevailing wisdom - especially given the distinctly unspectacular Federal National party - that the party is gradually being marginalised by Independents who are seen as better advocates for local issues. However, it also demonstrates the phenomenon - well known to Federal Labor - that it's all very well having the most popular local members, but it won't do you a bit of good if you don't win seats. Nevertheless, the party are likely to be pleased with Geoff Provost's defeat of sitting Labor MP Neville Newell in Tweed, the state's most marginal seat. Iin the end, it wasn't `Better The Neville You Know'. Instead, voters decided to `Give Geoff A Go'. (Yes, those were the real campaign slogans. And the NSW ALP copped it for `Heading In The Right Direction'!)

What of those high profile independents we heard so much about - in particular, the triumvirate of Hunter Valley local mayors, Peter Blackmore for Maitland, John Tate for Newcastle, and Greg Piper for Lake Macquarie? Despite Blackmore winning a large swing towards him and coming second on primaries, Frank Terenzini (succeeding the retiring John Price) retained the seat of Maitland for the ALP. The ALP also held Newcastle, after a controversial and closely run race (which, at one point last night, the ABC's Antony Green called in favour of Tate with some confidence). Dumped MP Bryce Gaudry may have left his run too late and split the Independent vote.

In the end, it was Greg Piper, who was given the smallest chance of the three, who in fact won the safe Labor seat off incumbent Jeff Hunter, in an intriguing result that nobody seemed to see coming. Thinking back, it's a wonder this is the case. Hunter has had to see off a number of high profile local issues - most notably, the highly controversial Centennial Coal mine at Cooranbong, the subject of the landmark Land and Environment Court obliging the company to take the greenhouse gas pollution potential of their product into account. Some pundits suggested this ruling would be a factor in left-leaning urban seats hundreds of miles away - in the end, it doesn't even seem to have been a factor in its own electorate. Instead, a loss of faith not only in Labor, who have held the seat since its creation, but all the major parties (the Liberal and Greens both saw major losses) - was clearly a deciding factor. Though rural independents have made ground, one interesting point is that the majority of gains made by the Liberal Party have come at the expense of urban Independents, such as Manly's David Barr and Pittwater's Alex McTaggart (the latter elected in somewhat abberant circumstances - the by-election following former Liberal leader John Brogden's resignation)

The Centennial Coal issue is a good demonstration of the impact of the `vocal majority' on policymaking and electioneering - well organised interest groups who are ultimately unrepresentative of the larger community. They exist on both ends of the political spectrum. Parties do listen to them, but in many cases, a little too closely. Take the seat of Monaro, for example, where the creation of the Batemans Marine Park stirred massive protests from environment groups, who thought protection measures were not great enough, and local fishermen, who though protection measures were far too stringent. Both groups threatened to use their influence to tip the incumbent, Steve Whan from his seat. In the event, he was returned with an increased majority.

I think it's also fair to attribute this victory - like that of Barry Collier and Alison Meggarrity in Miranda and Menai, their fourth successive victory in `naturally Liberal' seats - to local members who work incredibly hard, sometimes in opposition to their own parties (Whan was a vocal opponent of the government's plan to sell the Snowy Hydro scheme) on obtaining results and winning the trust of their local communities. At a time of endless celebrity candidates, the ultimate value of a good local member is something that must never, ever be neglected.

I won't take off my psephologist hat and make too many broad statements about why the government won and the Liberal Party lost, but suffice to say, this was a poor result for the Opposition and, at least numerically, a pretty spectacular result for a government about to enter its fourth term. However, there is some truth in Peter Debnam's proclamation of the victory as voters giving `one last chance' to the current government, and I say that as a member of the ALP. To win a fifth term without performing spectacularly will be a big ask - almost unprecedented - especially if the Opposition finally get their act together. The Iemma Government will have to work hard to retain or obtain the trust of those who did not vote Labor out of any particular passion. It is possible, especially if Iemma elevates the best talent and continues working hard on defining the party as something new and different from the Carr Government. It'll just be an awful lot of work.

Shuffling the Deck

2007-03-22T23:40:00.000+11:00

Cross posted on Larvatus Prodeo

It used to be customary to wait until after an election before starting to speculate on the makeup of the new cabinet, but like every other aspect of this year's campaign, traditional notions of what happens, how it happens and why just seem inapplicable this time around, and I'm still not quite sure why.

Before speculating on the next NSW cabinet, I should note that, for a government that everyone expects to cruise comfortably to victory on Saturday, an extraordinary number of local candidates - in seats both marginal and safe - are expressing a genuine, non-agenda based pessimism about their individual chances. Usually, candidates have a rough idea of their prospects this close to an election. Many that I know of are so unsure as to their position that they would be no more surprised if they suffered a whopping defeat than if they won a crushing victory.

Thus, both possibilities should always be kept in the back - and perhaps the front - of the mind.

Assuming the government is returned, there will certainly be a significant reshuffle. Morris Iemma will want to make his mark on what was previously a mostly inherited cabinet, and one that is overdue a spring cleaning. He has reportedly been given full sway by factions for this job. Given various mooted demotions, as many as nine positions could be up for grabs (and ostensibly, an absolute minimum of four, given the departure of Sandra Nori, Milton Orkopoulos, Carl Scully and Bob Debus).

However, I suspect the Cabinet itself may be slimmed down through a spot of consolidation. A combined Environment, Water and Climate Change portfolio has already been mooted; it's quite possible that similar consolidation will occur in other areas - for example, between Justice and Juvenile Justice (or even a super portfolio combining both with Attorney General, as is already the case in some other states). Morris Iemma has already announced a reconsolidation of the Transport portfolio - split uncomfortably between John Watkins and Eric Roozendaal last year. I can't see Watkins being given the lot, on top of Police - but I certainly can't see Roozendaal doing so either. The furore over the poor running times of Sydney trains occurred during a fairly insulated period of the electoral cycle, but the government will be unwilling to see that particular spot fire flare up again. Could Tony Kelly take transport in place of Emergency Services?

The all-important new Environment super-portfolio will undoubtedly be assigned to a senior Minister - David Campbell sounds like a good prospect, given that he is already Minister for Water. (Will Energy also come under this portfolio? If it doesn't, it's hard to see Joe Tripodi holding on to it).

As to the latter, the current Minister for Health, John Hatzistergos is widely regarded to have a lock on the role of Attorney General. Meanwhile, the controversial Frank Sartor is rumoured to be replacing him in the Health portfolio. This would certainly represent a shift - the hallmark of both Morris Iemma and Hatzistergos' approach to the portfolio was distinctly low key. Sartor is not, by nature, a low key person. Perhaps such an appointment would be designed to ensure he became one.

Sartor is also said to have expressed interest in the Arts portfolio. He could plausibly handle both, but it's also possible that, in line with the creation of the Department of Arts, Sport and Recreation last year, a single portfolio combining all three policy areas (`recreation' being the current Gaming and Racing).

Sartor's portfolio of Planning will be one of the most contentious, and it's a wide open field - John Della Bosca? Reba Meagher? Cherie Burton, perhaps, moving up a step from Housing? Whoever is chosen may indicate how the government intends to approach an issue which, in many seats, is the most divisive of them all. It's hard to see Della Bosca being shifted from the crucial Industrial Relations portfolio, in which he has done some solid, often underpublicised work. Who else, though?

Well, that's a few of the old faces - then, who will be elevated to cabinet? Early reports that I read seemed way off - it took several days before acknowledged rising figures such as Graham West and Matt Brown were mentioned (perhaps taking Fair Trading and Local Government respectively - current Ministers Diane Beamer and Kerry Hickey are expected to be shown the door). Paul McLeay sounds a very plausible choice for Housing, but rumours placing Linda Burney in the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio are way off - she has loudly made clear that she is not interested, despite being a former Director General of the relevant department. Nevertheless, she's certainly a shoe-in for the cabinet, quite possibly in the traditionally Left-held portfolios of Women and Tourism.

We'll all know, of course, in a blessed 48 hours, one way or the other. In the meantime, the above was based on speculation, rumour and educated guess - I welcome everyone to make their own suggestions based on same.

The Big Fella and the Big Bridge

2007-03-18T11:21:00.000+11:00

One of my favourite things in NSW Parliament House is the portrait of Jack Lang. Head tilted, square jaw jutted; the anti-guardian angel of the Parliament. I've been looking for an excuse to talk about Jack Lang for some time, and what better opportunity than today's 75th anniversary of the opening of the Harbour Bridge, as well as the final week before the NSW election.

As this year's election approaches, voters could not be more phlegmatic. Regardless of who wins - and the fact that it's already pretty certain says a lot in itself - things won't change much. Standards of living will still be much higher than most of the world, most people will have jobs and homes. Contrast this to NSW under Jack Lang's leadership. The Depression bit harder in Australia than in nearly every other country, including America. Thirty percent of the workforce was unemployed; people who lived in their generation's equivalent of the McMansion one week lived in shanty towns the next. Political extremism, at both ends of the spectrum, was growing.

In response to what he saw as the Federal Government's inequitable and ineffective policies to mitigate the Depression, Lang proposed the controversial `Lang Plan', which included the withholding of interest repayments to foreign interests in order to revive the economy of NSW - a plan which culminated in the hoarding of NSW reserves at NSW Trades Hall to prevent its access by the Federal Government and ultimately, his dismissal by the Governor - one of only two such dismissals in Australian history (the other, of course, was Gough Whitlam.

This was a time when politics were real - when leaders and decisions had a deep, immediate impact on peoples' lives. There's something quite exciting about that today, when politics often seem more like a parlour game or a spectator sport.

It's ironic that unions have been requested not to politicise today's bridge crossing, given that the original opening of the bridge was a politically charged event. Of course, the bridge itself was intended to represent a literal and figurative jumping of the political gap - the working class South now given direct access to the wealthy, isolated North (a noble intention; however, Sydneysiders still define themselves based on the compass points, even 75 years later). Lang's decision to open the bridge himself rather than allow the Governor to do so was controversial. Meanwhile, the famous usurping of Lang at the Harbour Bridge opening by the sabre-wielding Francis De Groot was no mere case of a crazy old man getting a little over-excited. De Groot was a member of an extraordinary organisation, the New Guard.

The New Guard was a right wing grassroots paramilitary that reached its height of influence during Lang's reign. It was no rag-tag underground movement, but a highly organised citizen's militia with a reputed 200,000 members - many of whom were experienced WWI veterans - and an astonishing military arsenal. Photos of New Guard meetings show imagery that would become disturbingly familiar in later years, including a straight-arm salute (Hitler was, after all, elected only a year after the Harbour Bridge was opened). Their plans were nothing short of audacious - primarily, to kidnap Lang, bring NSW under martial law and effect a coup d'etat - possibly a bloody one. These plans were well advanced and came alarmingly close to fruition, with a co-ordinated kidnap attempt foiled only when Lang, by chance, gave his driver the night off and drove home in an unfamiliar car, down a Parramatta Road lined with New Guard members poised and ready to pounce.

Over time, various historians have tried to reasses Lang's impact - to unravel his real legacy from the dedicated worship or pathological hatred with which he was viewed at the time. I find it impossible to figure out which of the two camps I would have been in. Would I have, like so many Sydneysiders, been mesmerised by the powerful oratory of the populist, his `Us versus Them' ideology, and his genuinely progressive welfare and infrastructure policies? Or would it all have seemed a bit mad? Hindsight may be twenty-twenty, but it necessarily excludes context, and subjective opinion is dictated almost exclusively by context.

One thing's for sure. It's exciting to think of a time in NSW politics where the decisions were bigger than desalination or recycled, or who's in the budgie smugglers and who's racing Ferraris - where the participants included the ordinary person, and not just the political elite.

Balancing Power

2007-03-17T18:09:00.001+11:00

Cross-posted on Larvatus Prodeo

In an extraordinary live interview on Friday's Stateline, host Quentin Dempster has challenged Peter Debnam to stand down in favour of his deputy, Barry O'Farrell, who is widely expected to take the leadership soon after the State election (notwithstanding the ridiculous suggestions that Pru Goward would, in an act that would exude desperation, be fast-tracked into the top job). Dempster's main charge was that Debnam's open concession of defeat was disingenous - nothing more than a late lunge for protest votes.

I think Dempster's was a fair assessment. The dynamics change in the final week, as voting intentions solidify, and the message behind this strategy is simple. Sure, we won't win - but you can help us give the government a bit of a knee in the groin (and perhaps get a few Liberals in marginal seats over the line to boot).

Poor old Debbers. Undoubtedly, he knows as well as we do that his lacklustre leadership is destined to expire in just over a week's time, and yet, for one more sordid week, he has to keep up the facade. It's not often that an election is regarded as so comprehensively unwinnable by one side or another, even though the government hardly enjoys the wide support it did at the time of the 2003 election. Protest votes certainly will occur, and while they won't decide the election, they could indicate to the government who represents the perceived cure to what such voters are protesting about.

In all likelihood, the Opposition will win some grudging protest votes, though not as many as they might have had their selection of candidates been more inspiring, and their leadership not been so uninspiring (come to think of it, agreeing to Dempster's suggestion might have been the only thing Debnam could have done to win a late surge of support). In calling the task to government on everything but offering little of substance as an alternative, protesters hardly have much to plump for.

I still maintain that the Greens will not do any better this year in the crucial Labor vs Greens two party preferred seats - and may even go backwards - though they could increase their vote in some suburban areas in which they have never previously been much of a force. This would be good for their primary vote, which has hovered at around 10% for years, but not for their prospects of a Lower House seat. Following the election, as I've already discussed, the Greens may face a wider malaise. Robbed of their key policy platform, they have already begun to move onto others, such as public education and workers' rights - issues on which Labor is on pretty firm ground.

And, of course, there are the Independents.

Much has been said about the cult of the Independent, and the possibility, given the large number of three-cornered contests at this election, of Independents holding the balance of power. There are two strictly divergent views on how good a thing this might be.

One view sees the Independent as the paragon of integrity bravely navigating the murky sea of party politics; the ones who make sure extreme legislation emerges without the spiky bits, and that their own proposals emerge with too-hot-to-handle spiky bits intact. This was, of course, the philosophy of the Democrats - and, as a moderate balance-of-power party, their philosophy worked quite well for a while (cut to today, and the best known policy of NSW's sole remaining Democrat, Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, is to cut NSW State Parliament to the nub and eventually abolish it altogether).

I've also heard a notion being propagated is that a hung parliament would be `more democratic'. Quite frankly, there is little that is less democratic than the elevation of single individuals to the status of parties which are collectively elected. Democracy dictates that the majority view ultimately takes prominence; instead, the opposite occurs, and a minority of only a few individuals may determine wider policy in a manner quite unrelated to their numbers or actual representativeness. Hence, situations such as, for example, the attempted ban of Adrian Lyne's film adaptation of `Lolita' - the only place when such a ban was even suggestsed - not because there was any genuine public groundswell on the matter, but because one particularly conservative Independent, Brian Harradine, had to be kept placated. A party whose policies are distasteful may be voted out; an Independent MP can only be voted out by the constituents of his or her own electorate. Even when not holding the balance of power, Independents receive inordinately generous treatment by governments who want to make sure they are onside, should they need their support in the future.

Certainly, many Independents are very popular - the safest seat in NSW is held by one - perhaps partially due to this phenomenon, but for other reasons, too. Independents often generate a significant personality cult around themselves - sometimes far more than any party could decently indulge in - and though they are not held to any party line, nor are they subject to the accountability processes party membership affords. (Peter Breen soon learned this during his brief time as a member of the Labor Party). Clover Moore, for example, is often described as a progressive MP, yet closer examination of her voting record shows that she votes with the Liberal Party far more often than with Labor. The mantra of the Independent - the party line, if you will - is `Trust me, as I'll make a better decision. I just will'. A voter who votes for an Independent is placing an awful lot of trust in that person's individual judgement on every issue.

There certainly is a good argument for `keeping the bastards honest' - again, the formation of the Democrats was a decent and genuinely more democratic idea - but I do think that seeing the people with such disproportionate power being seen as unimpeachable and their integrity beyond question, is one that certainly bears more discussion and debate.

Walletgate II

2007-03-16T22:57:00.000+11:00

The government's constantly churning dirt machine has backfired yet again, with Minister for Aging Santo Santoro the latest to receive a splattering (and the intended target, Kevin Rudd, with barely a speck).

The deposal of Santoro is particularly interesting, given his status as an overzealous factional heavyweight of the Queensland Right (rather unfortunately, given the current climate, he is quoted as proclaiming his desire to be `the Noel Crichton-Browne of Queensland'). Preselected amongst accusations of much branch stacking, there is no doubt that many of his moderate Queensland colleagues won't be unhappy to see him go.

Unlike the majority of his Queensland colleagues (such as George `Lying Rodent' Brandis), he is also vocal supporter of John Howard, and one of the few who didn't bite his tongue and stare at the ceiling during Walletgate. In Santoro, Howard has demoted a significant and fairly influential supporter who may at best, lose this influence; or at worst, take revenge.

As the pressures continue to mount on Howard, at what point will a leadership challenge start to sound like a realistic proposition?

As I've suggested before, Howard may simply choose the easy way out - retiring before or at the election to allow for a smooth leadership transition and to avoid the embarrassing prospect of becoming the first Prime Minister in eighty odd years to lose his seat. Should he dig in his heels - not only against Labor, but against leadership aspirants (including but not restricted to Peter Costello) - the blood could really flow.

The question is - does the deposal of Santoro suggest that this process is already occurring; that the internal balance is drifting away from Howard?

We forget it is just six months from `Walletgate' - the brief, tantalising period last year when it seemed Costello's decade-long frustration would finally bubble over - and this occurred at a time when Howard was still marching comfortably all over the Opposition.

If I were Peter Costello, I'd probably be allowing myself a small smirk right now - but I'd then remember Kevin Rudd and the fact that the government has a bigger fight on its hands than any time in the past decade and wonder if I wasn't being handed a poisoned chalice.

Update: The Oz also thinks that was a case of friendly fire. Let's not forget - this is the state we're always hearing that Labor needs to win ...

Are the Greens Irrelevant?

2007-03-11T12:00:00.000+11:00

When someone suggested me that the Greens are, far from being on the ascendancy, a party whose relevancy has come and gone, I initially found the idea quite startling.

The party today launched its election campaign, in what is considered their strongest area - inner city Newtown, part of the seat of Marricville, held by Education Minister Carmel Tebbutt since the 2005 by-election. It is one of several seats in which the Greens, and not the Liberals, are generally the second-running party. This includes the neighbouring Balmain (formerly Port Jackson), which gave the party its biggest chance to win a seat in the 2003 election.

Even despite this, the notion of the Greens as a spent force - at the very least, in their current incarnation - is an interesting one to explore.

First and foremost, the core policy focus of the party has been usurped by the major parties. To be an environmentalist is no longer to be a fringe dweller - or a member of the Left, for that matter. Even those parties who have not taken up the cause of climate change acknowledge that it is an issue whose time has come. Rather than foregrounding the Greens, this has had the paradoxic effect of backgrounding them. This seems illogical in one way, but in another, it makes some sense. If the planes stopped flying over the No Aircraft Noise Party, there'd be no No Aircraft Noise Party.

Secondly, to survive, the party must do such distasteful things as make preference deals, like the one that was struck this week (though it isn't as rosy for the government as it may appear on first glance). It's been widely suggested that this deal would `anger' Greens supporters. Third party supporters often seem to forget that, in a country with a two party system and preferential voting, the idea is to make sure that, if your party doesn't win, the next best option wins instead. Greens supporter in these crucial inner-city seats are no `doctors' wives'. For some, the idea of preferencing anyone is repugnant, let alone the Big Bad ALP (the situation is particularly distorted in places like Marrickville and Balmain, where two parties that should have much to agree on end up spending more time getting stuck into one another than into the common enemy in the Liberal Party). The local myth about the Greens candidate who missed preselection because he wore a suit shows the way that the sort of professionalisation that the party requires to become a legitimate third-party force lies in direct opposition to the romanticised anti-establishment notions that attract many to the party in the first place. What would the hardcore supporters do if the Greens `sold out'?

It will be interesting to observe the fortunes of the party in the next few years. Despite being repeatedly feted to make their mark electorally, their primary vote has remained virtually unchanged for some time - the rhetoric of even the Greens themselves is turning away from winning a lower house seat in NSW to increasing their representation in the Upper House. It also appears the NSW preference deal is related to a wider deal designed to deliver the party balance of power in the next Federal senate. The Greens clearly believes the sizeable burden of holding the balance of power could be the making of the party. With a grassroots support base that would be far more furious at the party for even the slightest abandonment of its principles - perceived or otherwise - than were supporters of the Democrats were when Meg Lees supported the GST, it could also be the breaking of it.

Silly Season for Ministerial Accountability

2007-03-11T08:32:00.000+11:00

Both John Howard and Kevin Rudd have clearly taken their cabinets aside, asked them to go through their files with a fine toothed comb, and to report back with any - ANY - indiscretions that may be used to batter their party. It's a standard of disaster management - assume everything will come out eventually.

What a lot of hysteria. The idea that what Kelvin Thomson or Ian Campbell did was more worthy of their sacking than the countless lapses of ministerial accountability that have occurred under the Howard Government. Amanda Vanstone or Philip Ruddock for the Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon debacles? Alexander Downer for the AWB scandal? All still there.

Having worked in an electorate office, I know the process of writing personal recommendations. The letter of request will come across an MPs desk - usually accompanied by supporting paperwork (such as further recommendations from friends, colleagues or dignitaries). In some cases, the MP will meet with the person. In most cases, the often voluminous paperwork supporting the person as an upstanding citizen is relied upon. This is how Morris Iemma came to write a recommendation for a terrorism suspect - because criminals tend to get where they are by covering their tracks (let's not degrade Mr Thompson by reminding ourselves that Naomi Robson made the same misjudgement).

As I suggested upon Ian Campbell's departure, there is undoubtedly a political element to this situation. Thomson had only been away a few days when `party sources' began to mutter that the only fair and decent thing for him to do would be to leave Parliament altogether, and cede his seat to the ACTU's Greg Combet.

Just for the record, Combet categorically denied any plans to run for Parliament in today's Meet the Press and described the current game of Who's Holier Than Thou as `silly season'. Well said. The trend of substituting personal attacks on MPs for true parliamentary debate (and it's still going on) is not only childish, it places a drag on democracy. Every time discussion turns to a largely irrelevant personal pecadillo, it turns away from proper debate on the issues that matter.

Which is, undoubtedly, just the way the government wants it.

Update: Crikey! A feral Alexander Downer certainly didn't back away from the personal during today's Insiders! No relaxed and comfortable there!

(And thumbs up to the natty new Insiders website!

Morgan Mellish

2007-03-07T19:22:00.000+11:00

Following today's airline accident in Indonesia, I'd like to suggest that you do whatever you do - pray, have a moment of silence, or just a little think - about Australian Financial Review journalist Morgan Mellish, who, along with four other Australians and nearly fifty others, is feared dead in the accident.

In recent times, Mellish was justly well known for his Walkley Award-winning expose on the Robert Gerard scandal, which ultimately led to Gerard's resignation - and, while he was being presented this award, ducking a feral Glen Milne as he drunkenly attempted to settle his differences with Crikey's Stephen Mayne.

It's all sad and senseless.

The Future for the NSW Liberals

2007-03-07T18:51:00.000+11:00

The NSW election being almost done and dusted, it won't be long before attention turns to the future of its Opposition - and it seems the jostling has already begun.

It's fairly safe to say that Peter Debnam will offer his resignation should his party be unsuccessful - or, if he does not, the pressure on him to do so will eventually prove unbearable. Nevertheless, there are no obvious contenders to take his place. Deputy leader Barry O'Farrell has reportedly refused chances to revive his leadership aspirations. Immediately elevating a new candidate such as Pru Goward would be extremely risky.

Into this mix - and, intriguingly, before rather than after the election - comes an editorial by conservative attack dog Piers Akerman strongly suggesting that one John Brogden would be the only man to drag the party out of the doldrums (whilst `demolishing' the `myth' that Brogden had been comprehensively been brought down by dissidents within his own party) and issuing an open plea for his return to the fold.

Could Brogden be on the comeback trail?

Most commentators agree that the election would have been far more competitive with Brogden leading the Opposition. It's entirely plausible that the David Clarke might be faction fingered for costing the party the election with its white-anting. The moderates - who admit they are no less bloodthirsty in their pursuit of power than their opponents (some of whom have suggested that the only way to counter the stacking of branches with far-Right members is to stack them with their own supporters instead) - will certainly push this line in an attempt to pull the party back into the centre. In such a climate, the notion of Brogden quietly and slowly reasserting himself is a viable prospect, if he has patience and feels up to it.

Someone in Akerman's corner certainly seems to see things falling out this way, anyway.

Taking One For The Team

2007-03-03T21:23:00.000+11:00

Forgive my silence. Despite there being so much to blog, spending all day, every day working on the State Election has left me pretty wrung out and not particularly willing to spend my leisure time writing about what I do all day, every day.

The Brian Burke affair cuts through this. It's been a slow-burning issue - it could be said to have started the moment WA Premier Alan Carpenter unwisely lifted the ban imposed by his predecessor, Geoff Gallop, on his MPs meeting with Mr Burke - and it's an unsual one, growing and mutating from a parochial state issue to one of deep Federal concern. At first, it claimed a series of WA Ministers - for one of whom, it is alleged, the ban was specifically lifted. Then, as we all know, it was touted as the end to Kevin Rudd's honeymoon - every political honeymoon cruises for such a bruising, be it this or Mark Latham's pledge to bring troops back from Iraq by Christmas. Now, it has claimed a Federal scalp - not of a Labor figure, but in the person of Ian Campbell, the former Environment Minister.

Campbell's movement to Human Services was widely viewed as a demotion, and he remains - or remained - one of the last moderates in the Howard cabinet; perhaps as a Minister whose career had peaked and was now on the wane. Following a bruising week of questioning for Kevin Rudd, who admitted meeting with the digraced lobbyist several times, including appearing at a dinner he had hosted, Campbell admitted to a lesser interaction - a single meeting - yet has been showered with praise and regard by the government for `retiring with his honesty and integrity intact' - in contrast, it is implied, to Rudd.

The Burke scandal has been the only productive line of questioning against the resurgent Opposition since Parliament commenced this year. To implicate the successful new leader in such a scandal must have seemed manna from heaven for the Government. So too would the revelation of Campbell's involvement to the Opposition - the issue was not Labor's exclusively, but for all those politicians who had met with lobbyists (which must surely be nearly all of them). Campbell's involvement was completely minor - probably minor enough for him to have survived the scandal.

Campbell's resignation has allowed the government to take the high moral ground. The phrases that an Opposition would use - that Campbell has `fallen on his sword' and the like - have already been co-opted. The Opposition, faced with what may have been an opportunity to turn the situation onto the government, are sent back to square one.

Is it possible that Campbell took one for the team?

As a senator falling out of favour, his parliamentary days are numbered. Was Campbell - perhaps on the promise of some post-parliamentary position - asked to be the fall guy to ensure the biggest threat the Government has faced remains inside the box in which it had finally been locked? His departure allows the Government to renew their attack on Rudd, and only at the expense of a Minister who may have been fairly willing to get out of the game anyway?

All speculation, of course. But interesting to think about.

McKEW FOR BENNELONG?

2007-02-25T19:21:00.000+11:00

Early reports are coming in that Maxine McKew is planning not only to stand for election in this year's Federal Election, but as the Labor candidate for Bennelong, a seat currently held by one John Howard. I stress that these reports are unconfirmed, but I should also add that they do come after suggestions on this morning's Insiders that a `serious' candidate was being prepared for the seat.

Wow, let's take a moment to digest this.

Rumours have, of course, been circulating for some time that McKew would enter politics - no doubt much fevered Googling is going on as I type (and perhaps a few are stumbling upon this post as their first point of reference) - but this - well, this just blows it all out of the water, doesn't it? If true, it's audacious, ambitious, inspired - and a little bit scary.

It's little known that Bennelong is not only a marginal seat but has been made still more marginal after last year's redistribution, to the point that it was even suggested that long-time seatwarmer Alan Cadman would be asked to cede his adjoining, far safer seat of Mitchell to the Prime Minister (and who knows - this may still occur. Should it do, it would be pretty powerfully symbolic in itself - the Prime Minister quite literally on the run).

Nor was it easily won in the 2004 election, given the candidacy of Andrew Wilkie (the ONA officer who blew the whistle on the planning of the Iraq War). Today, the seat is held on around 4% - not only a very surmountable precentage, but easily within the threshhold of the uniform swing required to bring Labor to power.

Can this seat be lost?

All Opposition parties will need to be very smart, and very mature about this. My greatest fear is that, as in the 2004 election, a number of candidates may run, splitting the vote. You would have to hope that, at this of all times, everyone would put aside their individual differences and work their hardest towards the best chance of the seat changing hands. The preference deals alone should be fascinating.

And, should it start to look that Howard is truly threatened - would he finally find that 'his party no longer needs him'?

What a fascinating year we have ahead of us, kids. What a fascinating year!

I'll leave you with the following snippet from an episode of Lateline just before the last Federal election (surely, it will be oft-quoted by this time tomorrow), between McKew and spin doctors Geoff Walsh and Lynton Crosby - former directors of the ALP and the Liberal Party respectively:

MAXINE McKEW: Just a quick final point, Lynton, I gather the PM hasn't given any commitment to the voters of Bennelong in his own seat.

He hasn't given any commitment that he will stay as their member whether the Government wins or loses, shouldn't he?

LYNTON CROSBY: Well, he will do what's right for the people of Bennelong.

He's done what's right for the people of Australia for the last eight years by keeping the economy strong and the pressure off interest rates.

MAXINE McKEW: Shouldn't they know on October 9 if they're electing a member for the full term?

LYNTON CROSBY: They'll know that if they elect John Howard they will get a member who will continue to effectively represent them.

MAXINE McKEW: For how long?

LYNTON CROSBY: For as long a he's able and willing to do the job and as long as they elect him to do the job.

MAXINE McKEW: Geoff Walsh?

GEOFF WALSH: Well look, Max, in this uncertain election which is going to be so tight, perhaps there is one thing that is certain and that is regardless of the result, we'll probably see a by-election in Bennelong.

If Mark Latham wins the election, you can bet that John Howard will want to get out of the parliament quick smart, and if the Liberal Government is returned, he'll be out as soon as Peter Costello can arrange it.

In all of the uncertainty there's one thing we can probably bank on.

MAXINE McKEW: Well we'll see about that.

We will indeed.

Insight: Terry Hicks vs Philip Ruddock

2007-02-20T19:07:00.000+11:00

I know I've left it a bit late (I just arrived home after a surreal day of watching army helicopter whiz past my window), but tonight's episode of SBS's Insight, which will put Philip Ruddock against the father of Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks, Terry Hicks, should be some great viewing. This issue is moving at a mile a minute - hopefully towards justice, not towards further delays.

Watch it, read the transcript, and join the chat!

Fabian Society Forum & Cafe Talk

2007-02-19T19:55:00.000+11:00

The series of montly Fabian Society events is upon us again, which obliges me to give these always thought provoking, sometimes controversial events a bit of a free plug.

First up for this year should be a cracker, with NSW Secretary of the Australian Labor Party Mark Arbib making a rare public appearance - something that is even more extraordinary given the event's proximity to the NSW Election.

Who will the NSW State Election and does it really matter?

WEDNESDAY 21st FEBRUARY 2007
LHMU Auditorium, 187 Thomas St, Haymarket
6:30pm

The NSW State election on 24 March 2007 is almost here. The issues that dominate include the water crisis facing NSW all the way through to Work Choices. Is Iemma or Debnam the best bet for NSW? Do voters see a difference? Does it really matter: does control of an Australian State in the modern Federation matter that much?

With:

Mark Arbib (NSW ALP General Secretary)
Elizabeth Farrelly (Sydney Morning Herald Journalist)
Antony Green (ABC Election Analyst).

Chair: Geoff Gallop, President, AFS (NSW Branch).

Members of the Fabian Society: Free. Non-Fabians $9/$6. Further details from AFS (NSW Branch) Secretary Simon O'Hara.

Hot on the heels of the main forum is the next Fabian Society Cafe talk, a more informal discussion with one speaker.

Fabian Society Cafe Talk Series
The Massive Escalation Required to Win the Climate War

WEDNESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2007
Berkelouw's Bookshop Cafe, 70 Norton Street, Leichhardt
6:30pm

Speaker: Murray Hogarth.

Just last week the IPCC released its latest, sobering, report on climate change. In the light of that report, Murray will talk about how politics, business, the media, the environment movement and the consumer will shape our future now that the science of climate change has advanced to a high level of certainty.

Murray Hogarth has been helping major companies to understand and respond to their social and environmental challenges since 1999, when he joined Ecos Corp after a 21-year career in print and TV journalism. His media experience includes reporting with 4 Corners and the 7.30 Report, and with the National Times, the Australian and, as Environment Editor, the Herald. Murray's new book on climate change, "The 3rd Degree", will be published later this year.

$5.00 to get in. Coffee and cake included in the price. All money goes to the venue. Please RSVP to Sean Kidney

See y'all there!

Iemma vs Debnam, Blogged Live

2007-02-16T19:29:00.000+11:00

Well, he we are at the greatest of all great debates (I'm buying the hype, yes) - the first ever televised debate between a Premier and Opposition Leader.

A flurry of initial thoughts as Debnam speaks first. First thought: Peter Debnam looks slightly stoned. Second thought: Peter Debnam is a grandfather? He's kept that quiet. On purpose, or just because it wasn't relevant? Third: Debnam has been around since the Greiner days. What a long, depressing slog it must have been. And fourth: Lord, a flag lapel badge.

Both Debnam and Iemma look nervous, though Iemma quickly warms to the camera. He was a very uneasy media player early on in his leadership. He's doing much better nowadays, though he would hardly set the world on fire with his inspiring words.

Iemma's leading line? It certainly made me choke on my cup of tea! `Who can you trust!' Where have we heard that one before? It's undoubtedly an effective line for incumbent leaders, and I think this is the reason behind the government's negative campaign against Debnam. Considering a protest vote? You better not - you just can't risk it.

Water looms as a deciding issue now that both sides have settled on definitive points of difference - the Opposition, to plump for recycled drinking water; the government to reserve it only for industry and, in carefully chosen words, not to `force' the public to drink. Debnam argues that the government has `pushed the panic button' in commissioning the desalination plant. I would argue that, had it stuck to its guns, it would be built by now and we may not be having this debate (well, this part of this debate). Neither man will offer an answer on why Sydney has not moved to Level 4 water restrictions. Foolishly, the notion that there is a stark political motivation behind opposing desalination - two crucial seats within Coo-ee of Kurnell - has never occurred to me before.

The debate warms up. Iemma leans towards his opponent. This is not the bland, kindly talking headfest I feared it could be.

Fifth thought: Nobody should bring props to debates. Ever.

One interesting point - does Debnam's water plan recognise climate change? Does Debnam recognise climate change? He refuses to mention the concept. Iemma notices and begins to pick at the scab. His rhetoric turns to emphasising the urgency of the climate change fight. This, he implies is the real crisis - not the crises of such things as housing affordability that Debnam listed at the beginning of the debate.

As an aside, I note that climate change is a unique sort of policy issue, in that neither side can legitimately blame the other for causing it. Thus, the response comes from a particularly rarefied political atmosphere - that of theory, speculation, and ideology.

Debnam continues not to mention climate change - something quite notable. Discussion moves to the Opposition policy to scrap the Native Vegetation Act - a little known policy in wider circles, but, depending on how you look at it, one that prevents farmers from clearing land for farming at the expense of the environment, or `makes land management illegal'. Doctors' wives, take note.

Debnam's environmental policy continues on its shaky course. He opposes co-operation between states on carbon trading, yet supports the idea of such trading being advanced in the Federal sphere. Odd.

The conversation moves to the economy, and gets stuck. Iemma blames national interest rates for the stalled NSW economy. This is disingenous. Debnam knows it, but he can offer no riposte. Throughout the debate, whenever money is mentioned, the rhetoric descends into mud slinging.

Debnam makes one last attempt to tie Iemma to the Carr Government, an angle that never stuck, and doesn't again. With development, he makes a clearer hit. The unpopular Frank Sartor is a sore point, with his policy of increasingly centralised policymaking (it's interesting that people are so aggravated by this, given the unprecedented centralisation in Canberra). Isn't it interesting, though, to see the party of Bob Askin painting themselves as passionately anti-development?

Iemma is particularly strong in emphasising the effect of public service cuts on the health system - it's easy to forget that he was once a well regarded but low key Health Minister, who helped bring NSW out of the times when - rightly or wrongly - people feared setting foot in a public hospital. The issue of dental service is one that is destined to loom once more in the Federal election.

Sixth thought: If Debnam hopes to be Premier, he MUST learn to speak of `Directors General', not `Director Generals'.

I'm pleased that law and order is one thing this election will not hinge on. Think of the Carr era advertisements that implied we should all be cowering inside our homes waiting for the government to get out their big stick. There's nothing like that this year, even despite the riots at Redfern, Cronulla and Macquarie Fields. Debnam's determined opposition to the so called `softly softly' approach sounds outdated to my ears, and Iemma's emphasis on early intervention would sound encouraging if I didn't know that the government won't throw the book at whatever boneheaded teenager is delivered a `lenient' sentence by one of those know-nothing judges. Though given the opportunity, Debnam does not rescind his promise to `arrest 200 Lebanese'.

Dempster's focus on alcohol abuse is odd initially - I don't know that there's a great anxiety about this in the community - but his linking of the issue to the government's closeness to the hotels industry elucidates it. Neither Debnam nor Dempster (nor certainly Iemma himself) hold onto this potentially lucrative thread.

Finally, the debate moves to education. If there is any section in which Debnam scores a victory it's this one. A support for public schooling that is rare in a Liberal leader, countered mostly by motherhood statements from Iemma in response. The government must have been glad that it was so short.

A curve ball whizzes past in the form of a brief discussion on Federal/State relations. Neither want to touch this one with a ten foot pole, and neither do.

The debate ends abruptly, and it's been a surprisingly quick one hour.

Iemma sums up his position. First thought here - Iemma has been Premier for only eighteen months. Once one leader's gone, the other one seems like they've been there forever (and very little Iemma speaks of extends back more than eighteen months either). I like Iemma's message about looking the community in the eye and facing up to the state's problems. I don't know how much of it I really believe, having seen many courageous decisions - from Egan's land tax to the poker machine tax - either diluted or rescinded altogether.

Debnam pushes the `twelve long years' argument, and reminds the public that they'll be stuck with the government's least popular ministers for the next four years. This is persuasive, though the situation's not much better in an Opposition which has seen a large proportion of its front bench dumped in favour of the likes of Greg Smith. I wonder how the pledge to cut 20,000 public service jobs is playing in the public? In this industrial relations climate, I'd imagine many people hear `20,000' and `jobs lost' and need to hear nothing else.

Seventh and final thought: The first time a politician has namechecked his website in a televised debate.

Some interesting stuff to chew over, and keep an eye out for the transcript available on Monday.

Uncle Joe vs Aunt Julia

2007-02-15T18:57:00.000+11:00

What with the 7.30 Report's ongoing series of specials and tomorrow's first-ever televised debate between State leaders Morris Iemma Peter Debnam on Stateline, the ABC is fast becoming the venue for Great Debates (though not, by common consensus, on `A Difference of Opinion').

Yesterday's head-to-head between Julia Gillard and Joe Hockey was a must-watch for anyone who's been following the evolution of the industrial relations debate. Finally, in The Avuncular Joe, it appears the Government have found someone who is able to locate the bruises in the ALP's policy and how to exert subtle pressure on them. Meanwhile, the ALP have finally found someone who can convincingly describe the real world impact of the WorkChoices legislation. It's only taken both sides two odd years to find the right people to prosecute what may be the deciding policy in the next Federal election, but there you go.

(Before we go any further, according to my dictionary, `Avuncular' means ` Regarded as characteristic of an uncle, especially in benevolence or tolerance.' Some would argue that this is excessively kind to uncles, but others would say it's excessively kind to Joe. I imagine his nieces and nephews are the only ones who could end this debate).

The style of Kevin Andrews was along the lines of `We're right. They're wrong. You'll realise this eventually. We won't tell you how or why. You just will. Now - stop bothering us about it'. While conceding that the policy would take years to have its full effect, Labor at least has kept matters in the present, pointing to real victims of the legislation as just the start of a longer, more malevolent trend. It's easy to scare people about things that haven't happened yet. It's harder to convince them to stick around for the modest benefit afforded by the current pain, especially when this benefit is so subjective.

Hockey has the sense not only to acknowledge - if not concede - the weak points in the government's policy, but also to pick out the equivalent points in Labor's. Unfair dismissal laws are something many advocates of the broader cause have been muttering about with some worry. The previous regime did, in some cases, lead to small business people sending themselves broke defending against incompetent or malicious employees. It did need fixing, but not removing altogether. We can expect the government to hammer this point at the exclusion of the less popular aspects of WorkChoices.

Hockey remains unable to convince us of any connection between productivity and WorkChoices. In a sense, I wonder if the Howard Government's repuation for good economic management does not hinder its argument. A generation of people now knows nothing more than good economic times. Why should rights be surrendered to make them slightly better? Or, if the argument is that changes are necessary to maintain this prosperity - why now? It's all ticked along quite nicely so far. The Opposition's version of the future is still a more convincing one than the Howard Government's. Perhaps this explains the government's constant insistence that Labor's policy `belongs in the past'.

The terminology has also been subtly massaged. The description of WorkChoices as `deregulated' industrial relations system has, interestingly and oddly, been pushed back into play. The Howard Government may argue that deregulation was their aim in WorkChoices, but anyone who has attempted to lift a bound copy of the complete revised Workplace Relations Act would disagree. This is really the crux of the WorkChoices debate - not what each side can deregulate, but how and what each side will regulate. It's much the same as what I've said before about big government. Even those government that claim to be small are really just selective about which parts to make big.

Uncle Joe was still a bit slippery on some things - his decision to counter Gillard's apt analogy on the negotiating power of Australian netballers with the suggestion that Ricky Ponting has exactly the same job ahead of him in thrashing out a contract as a teenager working for KFC was, in the world of salary cap scandals and corporate sponsorship, about the worst he could have picked. But what was best about this debate was a willingness to engage and chew over the issues. In fact, this is the first time that I can think of that this has actually occurred since the IR debate began. The issue, which felt somewhat stale and stalled towards the end of last year, is finally a going issue once more, and it's on for young and old.

It's slightly troubling to me that, less than a year out from the election, Labor's industrial relations policy is acknowledged by both sides as a work-in-progress. Such things as the continuing pledge to abolish AWAs still leaves open the question of their replacement, and no consistent answer has availed itself. It will be interesting to see what the ALP's upcoming Federal Conference comes up with.

Isn't it intriguing that televised debates are regarded as such special events, whereas the number of people who watch Question Time could be counted on the number of fingers on one finger? Never mind - the more the merrier, I say. At a time when every political communication with the public is painfully stage-managed - bring back the biff and show us what these policies are really made of!

Modia Prodeo

2007-02-15T18:52:00.000+11:00

I'm very pleased to announce that I've been asked to be a guest blogger on Larvartus Prodeo during the NSW Election. Few people who read my site would need any introduction to LP, and I expect their coverage of the NSW Election will, like their recent coverage of the Victorian election, be comprehensive, multi-angled and very much worth reading.

I'll still be posting over here (including on the election), but please do pop over to the Purple Blog!

Reading the Entrails on Howard vs Obama

2007-02-12T19:16:00.000+11:00

Who would have thought that international news services would consider anything said by the small, grey little man who calls himself our Prime Minister worthy of comprehensive coverage? It's already inspired satire; now all it needs to do is appear in either Jay Leno or David Letterman's daily monologue to be confirmed as an authentic watercooler warmer.

John Howard's comments - essentially, that a win for Presidential hopeful Barak Obama or indeed, the Democrats as a party, would lend solace to Iraqi insurgents - were not only bizarre, and not only extremely intrusive (there is an enormous difference between criticising broader policies and criticising specific people and their parties) but highly out of character. His usual method of gently massaging public opinion is to press a few pre-designated attack dogs into action, sit back, watch the fallout, and either back whoever is the clear winner or refuse to endorse either position but say that it's `important that the debate take place'. Just as it was when, in 2003, the US Ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, was highly critical of the Labor Party's policy of opposing the war in Iraq, implying that it was placing a strain on the US-Australian alliance and endangering the US-Australian free trade deal (and wouldn't it have been a tragedy if that had fallen over). Schieffer's intervention was widely decried not only as an unprecedented and unwelcome attack on Australian sovereignty, but an equally malevolent distortion of Australian democracy, coming as it did during an election campaign.

Instead of opening a `debate', nearly everyone - even those broadly supportive of Howard's position on Iraq (including some US Republicans) - are scurrying to distance themselves the idea (all except some wacky young Liberal backbencher whose name I failed to catch, but who, if my ears did not deceive me, described Obama's comments as `genuinely evil'. I'm going to have to keep an eye out for this chappie, he sounds like he could give Senator Concerted Feverent-Whinge a run for her money).

Howard has also constantly insisted that it is not Australia's job to poke its nose into America's domestic policy any more than it is America's to poke its nose into ours. Apparently, this rule is a flexible one, even despite the fact that this is the man who argued that Mark Latham's notorious description of George W. Bush as the `most dangerous president in living memory'? could destroy the ANZUS treaty? Are Howard's comments any less extreme or intrusive? I happened to agree with Latham on this one, but he soon realised they probably weren't the best sort of comments to commit to Hansard once he became leader of the ALP and eventually contested a job in which co-operation with the US would have to be a given.

Herein lies the most intriguing aspect of this affair. As Obama himself put it, the idea of a Presidential candidate attracting the recognition of a world leader only a day after declaring his entry into the presidential race is something extraordinary in itself. This asks two quite different questions.

Firstly, is Howard so concerned about the possibility of Obama becoming president that he feels he must prevent it at all costs? Does he really believe there would be such a clear connection between a Democrat win and all-out chaos in Iraq? Does he perhaps believe that his own domestic support would collapse without the support of a sympathetic White House? (If it's the last point, he truly is drifting out of touch).

Alternatively, is Howard so unconcerned about the possibility of Obama or the Democrats winning the next election that he's happy to throw caution to the wind - to s**t where he eats; to risk starting 2009 with a White House he has already alienated? The Democrats have no right to be any happier with Howard than the Republicans would have been with Latham. Surely Howard must acknowledge that the chance of a win by the Democrats is not impossible - or, even if unlikely, not unlikely enough for him not to maintain civility towards them as a contingency? As our old mate Tom Schieffer pointed out, the strengthening of the US-Australian alliance can be directly attributed to the close friendship of Howard and the current President, George W. Bush.

There can only be one conclusion. Either Howard expects that Obama won't be there in 2007 - or Howard doesn't expect to be there himself. I wonder which it is?

On Your Marks ...

2007-02-12T18:44:00.000+11:00

Antony Green's ABC guide to the NSW Election is now online, as is The Poll Bludger's guide. Both are worth a read for the politically nerdy.

And thus, I officially announce the election season OPEN!

Politics and Internal Politics at the ABC

2007-02-08T20:58:00.000+11:00

Speaking of televised debates, the return of the ABC's regular political coverage culminates this Sunday with my favourite must-see, Barrie Cassidy's Insiders. Another year of hissing at Piers and cheering as David Marr tears strips off him ... this is my bread and butter.

Also starting soon (I couldn't get a precise date off the ABC"s website) is the ABC's new panel discussion show, `A Difference of Opinion', hosted by veteran reporter Jeff McMullen. The show - which, from early advertising, appears slightly like a cross between a Fabian Society forum and the SBS's Insight is billed as the embodiment of the ABC's new, `unbiased' editorial policy. The fact that the ABC was ever thought to need such a policy is sad; the fact that viewers are thought so stupid that a show emphasising the need for this policy is equally sad.

This isn't to say that I don't like the idea of the show - I'll certainly be tuning in to the first episode, and indeed, the clearly labelled left/centre/right format of the aforementioned Insiders has often been identified as an ideal by those critical of the ABC. What gets me down is the apparent fact that some members of the current ABC Board are too stupid to work it out for themselves.

Garrett vs Turnbull: The Real Climate Change

2007-02-08T20:30:00.000+11:00

Oh, I tried not to blog the Garrett vs Turnbull faceoff on tonight's 7.30 Report. I thought it could be a damp squib; a polite gentlemans' tete-a-tete. Instead, it proved fascinating viewing, not only for its own sake but to demonstrate the way in which the ground on which the Government and Opposition are stand is shifting beneath them.

I entered the debate determined to be impartial (believe it or not, this is how I, a dedicated Fabian, enter all debates), but I started to wonder if we'd hear from Turnbull instantly launched into a long, uninterruptable soliloquy - indeed, his technique of debate appeared not only to be to out-talk Garrett, but to out-talk Kerry O'Brien. I was quite surprised at some of the slips in Turnbull's research. Early on, he seemed to suggest that China and India were not signatories to the Kyoto Protocol they are). Nevertheless, the debate remained mainly civil, if rather one-sided.

Then Turnbull really stepped out and accused Garrett of `favouring low economic growth' in his pointing out that greenhouse pollution increases in proportion to the affluence of a society. Garrett's observation - made, as Turnbull said, in 1987 - is an unquestioned fact. The reason that China and India pose such a threat is that their growing middle class will inevitably consume more - more power, more resources, more food, more of everything they were previously unable to buy or import. The difference between these countries and Australia is that they are recognising and anticipating this threat. Both Garrett and Turnbull identified China as a flashpoint; Garrett to point out that China's reduction targets are far superior to Australia's, Turnbull to argue that China's interest in wind power is mainly due to the fact that it has no national power grid and - yes, again - ultimately a matter of economics.

Let's pause for a second and think about how quickly the climate change debate has moved, not only in the last year but the last six months - a period that started with Ian Macfarlane dismissing Al Gore's `An Inconvenient Truth' as Hollywood entertainment, and ended with the Prime Minister making a complete U-turn on carbon trading and appointing one of the government's best known new recruits to prosecute the government's case.

This is what made it so interesting that the arguments Turnbull made sounded so retrograde. Certainly, he is working against his party's history of complete contempt for the idea of climate change - but arguing both that there is no need to panic, and that we should hold off addressing the problem if it proves too expensive seem out of touch when, this time last year, they wouldn't have rated a raised eyebrow.

What a turn of events.

Is this - tantalising thought - is this the beginning of the end for the idea that the economic case is where the buck always stops? I remember a time where you could hear three Howard Government Ministers interviewed in a row about their respective portfolios, and each would arrive at the same conclusion: `The only way to ensure a strong X is by maintaining a strong economy'. This was the argument on which Turnbull ultimately relied during tonight's debate. That the more convincing case was the one advocating for doing something because it's right - even crucial - rather than because it's cheap is a real breakthrough; a real change of sentiment from the early part of this decade.

Turnbull appeared threatened and over-prepared. Garrett appeared - well, relaxed and comfortable, familiar with his topic and confident of his position on it.

Don't take my word for it - wait a few hours and read the transcript!

As a postscript, it will be interesting to see how Garrett and Turnbull continue to prosecute their cases in the media. The way in which various commentators, Ministers and Shadow Ministers become the `go-to' person on various issues is highly influential on how the public views these issues (Kevin Rudd's focus on the AWB scandal is a good example of this). This week, 2UE's John Laws gave Garrett a lengthy and comprehensive interview (fifteen minutes is nearly unheard of on today's radio, even for interviews with the Prime Minister or Premier), concluding with an open invitation to come back and discuss climate change `whenever he liked'. However, I can't imagine that 2GB rival Alan Jones will give anyone other than Turnbull the position of 2GB's unofficial environment spokesperson. As for Ray Hadley, I literally can't manage to picture him raising the topic at all).

Polls and Punts

2007-02-05T23:01:00.000+11:00

Tonight's Lateline, returning from the holidays, has reported that a poll in tomorrow's issue of The Australian, will confirm that the Federal Labor Party has made a dramatic jump on a two party preferred basis, to 56% compared to the government's 44%, with Kevin Rudd now trailing Howard as preferred Prime Minister by only one point.

I'm no poll watcher, and I had initially decided not to make mention of it - just as I passed over this weekend's poll that had the NSW Government in a comfortable winning position just less than two months out of the State Election. Even though the fact that more people agreed it was time for a change than planned to vote for the government is significant, its significance is obvious enough not to have to explain it to my readers (other than to add that the conditions currently existing in the government are so eerily like those that preceded the fall of the Unsworth Government that I'm no longer trusting myself to rely on the government's large margin).

That was until I saw John Howard interviewed on the aforementioned Lateline by Tony Jones.

Wow. He looks genuinely rattled. No relaxed and comfortable here. Political junkies closely monitor Howard's body language. He gets flushed. He gets tetchy. The vocal chords constrict. And then there is The Shoulder. Howard has an odd habit of making a little shrug when he's really feeling up against the wall. I didn't notice a shrug tonight, but all the other symptoms were there - none more when, in a masterstroke of the sort of uncomfortable journalism that is Jones' stock in trade (just ask Tony Abbott), Jones decided to exclusively reveal The Australian poll results to Howard live during the interview. The tension was almost cruel.

I look forward to seeing whether The Australian poll also contains estimates of the ALP's primary support. This is the real meat and veg, with the party saying for some time that it needs to break through the crucial 44% level to have any chance of competition with the government.

T'will be an interesting year, methinks.

Summer Series: Defence or Degrees?

2007-02-03T12:16:00.000+11:00

Watching an old episode of `The West Wing' recently, one phrase captured my imagination: `Education should be as expensive to the government as the military'. Given Kevin Rudd's decision to name education as his first key policy battleground, it's a timely thing to discuss.

The philosophy of military spending is contrary to that of pretty much every other policy area. Firstly, it's extremely expensive, and it's about the biggest of `big government' policies there is. Governments no longer like big government. It costs too much, and people don't like to pay taxes. They're particularly unhappy about having to pay for things that may or may not occur. Climate change is a good example. The argument used by its now dwindling band of opponents is that we should get `proof' that climate change is man-made before we start addressing it. The thorny issue of what happens if it is but it's too late to address doesn't seem to cross their minds. Should a military threat with as clear a potential danger as climate change have presented itself, governments would have fallen over themselves pulling money out of just about every other policy area preparing themselves.

It could be argued that military policy is fundamentally different to any other area; that there's no priority greater than defending a country. Obviously, countries should be prepared for such things, but it's quite puzzling that money is pulled away from the solving of present problems and spent on problems that haven't occurred yet and may or may not occur. The likelihood of Australia needing to defend its own soil is remote to say the least. After all, in a history of human habitation that spans some 60,000 years, this has only happened twice - once by England in 1770, once by Japan during World War II. On only one occasion was the invasion a success, and it was a pretty lopsided battle to say the least.

Imagine if military policy were conducted along the same lines as education - or healthcare, for that matter. We would have a government funded military, but we'd also have a privately funded one, for which people could choose to pay a monthly fee in case of military emergency. Efforts would be made to encourage wealthier people to spend a little more on the private military to take the burden off the public purse. Soon, poorer people would decide they couldn't possibly take the risk of relying on the government army in case of an emergency, and would start digging deep into their too-shallow pockets. After all - if you didn't provide the finest military protection for your children, you'd be a bad parent, wouldn't you?

This would hasten the decline of the increasingly underfunded public military, which the government would refuse to prop up, arguing that citizens had demonstrated their clear preference for the private military - and anyway, why should it be solely the government's job to defend the country? People have to have a choice. To facilitate this `choice', private military would receive ample government funding.

Perhaps, eventually, it would be decided that the best thing for all concerned would be to privatise the public military altogether. Private enterprise would be so much better at running an army, and it could spend a lot more on maintaining expensive infrastructure. Why should it be the government's job to pay for the defence of its people anyway? Plus, some of the money earned could go into the Super Fund - and the rest could be returned as tax cuts! Everyone likes tax cuts! And of course, privatisation means never having to say you're sorry. It's the company's fault, not yours.

But I shouldn't go giving people ideas.

In the 2006-07 Budget, $16.6bn was allocated for education. Of this, approximately $9.5bn is to go towards school education - though two thirds to private schools. Not so long ago, Mark Latham was pilloried for a policy in which - gasp! - Federal funding only went to schools that needed it, rather than subsidising what are, in the end, commercial enterprises with paying customers. The situation is even worse regarding higher education, with the migration of full fee paying students into places for which people with higher marks have unsuccessfully competed well documented.

Meanwhile, $19.6bn was allocated for defence, with a guaranteed 3% annual increase each year until 2010. A good deal of this of course paid to private companies for the construction of infrastructure and resources (though not, following the Jake Kovko debacle, towards the repatriation of the bodies of Australian soldiers). Just imagine the furore if it also went towards paying companies for the privilege of charging others to use their armies.

I sometimes think education is the key to all other policy areas. Ensure a good education is available to all, and Australia becomes a more attractive country in which to invest, a source of the world's best innovations, and a place with a highly-skilled workforce. Such was the philosophy behind the `Clever Country' - and lets not forget this phrase was meant as a riposte to the `Lucky Country', which, despite being reclaimed as a statement of patriotism originally referred to the fact that , as author Donald Horne put it in the book that coined the phrase, `Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck' - a country that has relied on its natural resources rather than enterprise and innovation. It is a cliche, but education really is an investment. The importance of education as a policy area, and the amount of public money spent on it, should reflect this.

Best Blogs of 2006

2007-02-03T12:06:00.000+11:00

Online Opinion's January feature on the best blog posts of 2006 has made for a month of great reading. It reflects well on the Australian blog community, especially in light of a mainstream media that seems ever more timid to delve beyond the cosmetic and into Australia's deeper darknesses, that it consistently produces material that is challenging, wonderfully written, and covers such a diversity of issues. There is a certain sort of economic rationalism applied to the media nowadays - don't report a dull, complex issue of great national importance where you could win better ratings reporting some sensationalised storm in a teacup - that doesn't apply in the blogging world, and journalism in the main is all the better for it.

And I'm not just saying this because I was included. :)

It's Just Not Done

2007-01-27T12:15:00.000+11:00

There's certain things you just don't do in politics.

When former NSW Liberal leader John Brogden attempted suicide a few years ago, those on the Government side were just as dismayed by the tragedy as those in his own party (and in some cases, considerably more, given who it was who drove him out in the first place). The recent funeral of Sir Jim Killen, detailed in this beautifully written snapshot by David Marr, was one example of the way most politicians recognise there are certain occasions for which the weapons of politics simply need to be set to one side.

Not so one politician.

Peter Debnam's attempt to turn a welcoming address at a Sutherland Shire citizenship ceremony into an unpaid political advertisement for local Liberal candidates, an occasion to make policy announcements, and a broader platform for the dissemination of his own personal views on multiculturalism, immigration and integration - it's one of the least classy things I've heard in a while.

Kudos should go to Sutherland Shire Mayor David Redmond - a member of the Liberal Party - who himself put party loyalties aside, deploring Debnam's intention and demanding the excision of those parts of the speech which referred to local candidates. Debnam then endeavoured to spin the issue as a failed attempt to gag him on the topic of `co-operative multiculturalism', whatever that is. Should anyone have bought this, it's a terrible shame. If co-operative multiculturalism involves lecturing those who have chosen to make Australia their home on how they should feel, what they should think, and who they should vote for ... well, if it was me, I think I'd feel like handing back the certificate and going elsewhere.

The Sutherland Shire is a notorious battleground for the Liberal Party, with two key seats, those of Miranda and Menai, seen not only as essential to any chance of success but as `natural' Liberal seats that have accidentally fallen to Labor (one of which came complete with the scalp of then-Deputy Opposition Leader Ron Phillips). The hard work put in by local members Barry Collier and Alison Meggarity has been acknowledged as responsible for bringing these seats under reasonably comfortable margins. The Liberal Party have been lobbying fiercely for some time to change the state of affairs there - sometimes (as it appears in this case) with a subtle nod to the perpetrators of the Cronulla Riots.

The idea of hijacking a non-partisan ceremony to further a political aim is, quite frankly, revolting. It's the sort of thing people leave repressive countries and move to Australia to avoid. There are some things Debnam just doesn't seem to get. He crossed the line in his embarrassing and damaging pursuit of false allegations against the Attorney General, and he has crossed it again here.

I've been very critical of the attack-dog style negative campaign the NSW Government have been running against Debnam, but for one main reason - no one does it better than the man himself.

And So This Is Australia Day

2007-01-26T10:07:00.000+11:00

When you think about it, Australia Day is a peculiar sort of national celebration, and its changing perception is a vivid reflection of the political changes of the last two decades. Nobody above a certain age will ever forget the fanfare of the Bicentennary in 1988, yet such an event seems inconceivable now. At the time, the bands of Aboriginal activists who opposed the event were dismissed as little more than spoilsports. Today, a bicentennary-style celebration would at most spark a national debate, or at least, be largely ignored as irrelevant and not particularly worthy of celebration (as was the centennary of Federation a few years back). It's a great thing that the spirit of Paul Keating's famous Redfern Speech has managed to survive despite the stifling climate of the current government, still determined to remain in the past on this issue. However, while Australia Day is now determinedly more inclusive, the fact remains that it commemorates the annexing of a country whose residents were seen as so insignificant as not to be considered real people. `Terra Nullius' does not mean `empty land' but `land belonging to no-one in particular'. It's also still astounding to contemplate that these same people were not recognised for over two hundred years.

Yes, a black arm-band view of history, but whoever could claim a country that was first invaded and then became a dumping ground for what were seen as the scum of the earth had a happy-dappy past? My ancestors - Irish Catholic recusants; political prisoners just like so many convicts - were hardly humming `Happy Days Are Here Again' either. The fact that the `lucky country' was built on such shaky foundations - that we are not riven by ethnic, tribal or religious tensions as are many other nations (and no, Piers Akerman, we're truly not - pop over to Iraq for an idea of what that really means) - seems a minor miracle. After all, Australia was, from the start of its European settlement, a `cultural melting pot', to coin a cliche. Irish, English, Chinese, Afghani - as I said earlier this week, the notion that multiculturalism has been a failure in this country is a joke. European Australia was built on fundamentally multicultural foundations, and has largely made a success of it.

Many might find it inconceivable that I make such an argument of a country that once had a White Australia policy, that rallied to rid the goldfields of the Chinese, that called Italian and German postwar immigrants `dagos', feared the Vietnamese refugees that arrived following the Vietnam War and today holds that Muslims are poised to declare sharia law in Australia. That racial tensions have arisen is undoubtable; but the fact they have usually ebbed away after the first flush of reflexive fear equally true. I've been to many Western countries that are technically as multicultural as Australia, yet I've marvelled at the way they tend to regard their different cultures as grudgingly coexisting with the `real' citizens rather than making a valuable contribution to a greater national character.

It is only lack of political will that prevents us from achieving the aims Keating outlined in his Redfern Speech:

Imagine if ours was the oldest culture in the world and we were told that it was worthless. Imagine if we had resisted this settlement, suffered and died in the defence of our land, and then were told in history books that we had given up without a fight. Imagine if non-Aboriginal Australians had served their country in peace and war and were then ignored in history books. Imagine if our feats on sporting fields had inspired admiration and patriotism and yet did nothing to diminish prejudice. Imagine if our spiritual life was denied and ridiculed.

Imagine if we had suffed the injustice and then were blamed for it.

It seems to me that if we can imagine the injustice then we can imagine its opposite. And we can have justice.

One day, it would be nice to think that seeking and finding this justice - not only for Indigenous Australians, but Australians from all countries and cultures - is what we will celebrate on Australia Day. Sadly, that day seems a long way off. As the current rash of flag-wielding patriotism demonstrates, a lot of Australians are proud of something. They're still not quite sure what.

The Reshuffle We Had to Have

2007-01-23T23:30:00.000+11:00

Can it be any coincidence that John Howard announced his long-awaited cabinet reshuffle on the day Kevin Rudd hoped to catch the headlines with his first big policy statement? In a word: hardly.

Amanda Vanstone and, more surprisingly, Gary Hardgrave are the big losers. As Phillip Coorey of the SMH and others note, Vanstone wasn't the world's greatest Immigration Minister, yet Philip Ruddock must count his lucky stars that so many of the disasters that germinated during his time in the portfolio bore fruit in hers. It's quite scandalous that Ruddock has still not been held account to some of the worst debacles of the Howard Government - Children Overboard, the Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon scandals, and the David Hicks case to name a few. And, despite rumours to the contrary, he has remained in the cabinet (perhaps because there are so few obvious contenders for his job - bizarrely, the SMH's political correspondent Peter Hartcher suggested Helen Coonan). Nevertheless, Vanstone's recent flaky media performances hardly argue for her retention. Howard damned her with the ultimate of faint praises in describing her career as `colourful'. Vanstone has now refused to rule out a diplomatic posting, despite one not actually being mentioned, which suggests she'll be packing the bags and heading for a cushy overseas post before the year's out.

Kevin `Federline' Andrews has finally been shifted aside to Vanstone's former portfolio after a painfully mediocre period arguing the case for the big ticket issue of Industrial Relations, in favour of Joe Hockey. This is a canny choice. Not the attack dog Tony Abbott would have been but always muscular in his defence of government policy - he famously made a passionate defence of the sale of the Snowy River hydro system hours before the policy was dropped by the government - he is also Kevin Rudd's sparring partner on Channel 7's `Sunrise'. To bring the government's argument to the same sorts of viewers who are already seeing the pointy end of WorkChoices on Today Tonight and A Current Affair must have been too tempting to pass up.

Meanwhile, a bland figure like Andrews is well suited to the portfolio of Immigration as the Howard Government sees it. Let me note my dismay and disgust at the removal of `multiculturalism' from the title of this portfolio. I'm sick and tired of the same people who happily go to Chinese New Year fireworks, eat a kebab on the way home and cook a bowl of pasta for dinner describing multiculturalism as a `failed experiment'. Australia is one of the countries in which mutliculturalism has enjoyed its greatest success, all things considered, and that's something we should be very proud of. `The whole purpose of immigration is to recruit more people to the broader Australian family' says Howard, as if he is reading a company's thrice-revised mission statement. Stomach churning stuff.

Speaking of which,George Brandis has been appointed Minister for Arts and Sport following the retirement of Rod Kemp The ongoing lumping of these two completely different issues into one portfolio demonstrates the contempt in which art is held by the government. As Peter Garrett recently commented - politicians clamour to be labelled a `cricket tragic', but not too many proclaim themselves theatre or dance tragics. I don't imagine Brandis will be working too hard to tip the balance.

And of course, there is the issue of Malcolm Turnbull, taking the portfolios of Environment and Water from Ian Campbell, who made the fatal mistake of making his government look foolish when he worked out climate change was real before they did. Turnbull's elevation is also a milestone for Environment as a portfolio. Finally, it has risen to the top tier of government concerns. No longer is it merely a fringe issue or a matter of simply keeping the loggers and the greenies from actual physical warfare.

Turnbull's ascension instantly brought to mind two things - firstly, the warning given by Warren Denning in his classic book `Caucus Crisis' - that early elevation without proper experience has been the undoing of many a fine potential Minister - and also the notion, expounded by Carl Jung and many others, that a crucial step in the classic Hero's Journey is the usurping of the old king by his literal or symbolic son, who can only succeed him after slaying the father and gaining his powers.

If I were John Howard - or Peter Costello, Tony Abbott or Brendan Nelson for that matter - I'd be watching my back.

Bagging the Flag

2007-01-22T23:09:00.000+11:00

What a ridiculous, shrill, misinformed and ideological furore has broken out regarding the decision by organisers of the Big Day Out music festival to discourage the wearing of the Australian flag at their events. The only voice of reason amongst all others, scurrying for their safe positions and their Political-Correctness-Gone-Mads, has been the Democrats who, quite rightly, point out that those who really do care about the flag should be most upset about the fact that wearing it can now be interpreted as a potential act of racism or ultra-nationalism - `gang colours', as it was described by BDO organiser Ken West.

Firstly, let me point out that I spent the vast majority of my Australia Days at the Big Day Out during the 1990s, and never once did I see an Australian flag on obvious display. Not saying that's a good thing, not saying that's a bad thing. Just saying. I should add, however, that it was not until after the Cronulla riots that concert attendees found it so crucial to exhibit their patriotic fervour.

Flags have been misused and misappropriated many, many times. The ultra-nationalist skinhead movement adopted the Union Jack as their emblem, to the point that the wearing of clothing with the flag on it was banned in many British schools during the 1980s, at the height of the movement. Even the symbol of the swastika remains contentious. Before its use by the Nazis, it was primarily an Eastern symbol of good luck. Such was the power of the transformation of this symbol that debates continue today on what should be accepted as its `right' meaning; what it should or should not symbolise - even in the past few weeks.

One of the saddest misuses of a flag, as far as I'm concerned, is the appropriation of the Eureka Flag by Australian far-right white supremacists. Though some issues fought for in the Eureka stockade did involve race, they were small considerations amongsts a much nobler aim, and foregrounding the former at the expense of the latter is like suggesting the Bible is an anti-homosexual treatise with a few bits about social justice thrown in. It's also a little known fact that outrage following a case of racial and religious vilification - the wrongful arrest of two Armenian miners who worked with local members of the Catholic Church - was one of the incidents that helped spur the rebellion, whose importance in Australian democracy and the formation of the national principles of `mateship and a fair go' that are so often, and so somnambulently, mouthed by those who appear to know little about either trait, is almost without parallel. It is a flag, I should add, that was designed by a Canadian. Someone who `flew here, not grew here'.

Australian flags remain in the windows of many, many houses and apartments in Cronulla. These flags weren't there when I was growing up in the area. I don't think these people are simply exhibiting that they like being Australian. Do you?

Please don't mistake me for a flag nut - the sooner the whole thing's redesigned to reflect the fact that we're no longer an outpost of Old Blighty, the better. I am aware that people who fought in wars are passionate about the idea of `fighting under the Australian flag', and I respect that. What I can't stand is the hypocrisy. Those who do profess to taking flags extremely seriously - those who hold up flag burning as a genuine outrage - who, in America, send flags that are no longer in flying condition back to the White House where they are destroyed and buried in special military ceremonies - are also the ones quite happy to stick this symbol into the top of their hamburgers, fly them off their car's aerials, or wear them as capes to sporting matches.

Well, I'm Australian too, and I've never felt the need to advertise the fact to the world (sometimes, quite the opposite). I applaud the organisers of the Big Day Out for attempting to wrest back the flag from those who propose to misuse it. Maybe, if such people realised national character is not defined by who is or isn't let in the country and, once in, who is excluded from its life because of their race or religion, I wouldn't be so ashamed every time I saw one.

Sparkle and Fade

2007-01-20T00:05:00.000+11:00

This week has seen the end of two State political careers - one its ascendancy, one on the way down - Macquarie Fields MP Steven Chaytor and the Member for Smithfield, Carl Scully.

Nothing much was ever known about Steven Chaytor, except that he was Gough Whitlam's anointed successor. Given that Mark Latham previously held this role, perhaps Gough's choice of prodigy wasn't much better than his choice of Governor General. Seriously - Chaytor appeared to have genuinely earned his rising star status. The situation that Chaytor found himself in is one that appears morally murky, and very unhappy for all concerned, regardless of who did what. And, regardless of what happened, a very short career has now ended, little over a year after it started (following the resignation of Craig Knowles). It would be a disservice to the people of Macquarie Fields should the notoriously flaky Nola Fraser now win the seat from Labor, but it's a real possibility.

At the other end of the scale, Carl Scullly's career has been in the doldrums for some time, and his removal from the police ministry was undoubtedly its final blow. As one commentator put it very aptly, Scully didn't abandon public life, it abandoned him. I note this quote because Scully was acknowledged by all as a tireless worker and very passionate about the idea of public life. One school of leadership theory divides leadership into the aspirational - those who get ahead by encouraging good in those aroudn them - and the transactional - those who get ahead by dealmaking and shifting alliances. Perhaps Scully's greatest mistake, politically speaking, wasn't some of the bad decisions he made, but the fact that he got on board with the factional heavyweights, but not to the point where they didn't abandon him like a sinking ship when it suited them.

Which is the better person to have as a politician - the person who makes the right decisions for the wrong reasons, or the one who makes the wrong decisions, but for the right reasons? There's a philosophical question to ponder over the weekend.

Mother = Politician?

2007-01-19T19:12:00.000+11:00

Arguably, the coverage of Julia Gillard's comments that it would be difficult for a mother to become Prime Minister is another case of `Labor Chaos' journalism. Then again, Gillard was a sitting duck for this sort of coverage - famously childless, with a famously empty fruit bowl ... there must be something a little strange about her, right? I mean - no kids, not married ... red hair, of course ... it's just creepy, isn't it?

It's a terrible shame that this sort of sentiment still exists today, nearly four decades after feminism became mainstream. Childless people - and childless women in particular - are viewed with an extraordinary amount of suspicion. More power to them, I say. Not because I don't like children - but because I know too many people who should never have become parents.

In any case, it's another case of distortion to make a more sensational story. Gillard's comment was not that it would be somehow wrong for a mother to be Prime Minister. Her point was that it is so hard nowadays to balance work and family that it would be extremely difficult (nevertheless, The Australian still insisted on calling its article `Gillard Defends Childlessness'). Female politicians still do face an uphill battle compared to men, there's no question about it. I know several and, without exception, they wouldn't be able to do their jobs without extraordinarily supportive partners - some of whom have had to abandon some of their own ambitions - equally supportive extended families, and a great deal of childcare. The amount of time female politicians need to spend away from their children would alone make the job of Prime Minister emotionally difficult. Do male politicians still feel this anxiety in separation from their children? Of course they do. Morris Iemma is one politician who proclaimed his commitment to his young family would always come ahead of his job (I'm not sure to what extent he's kept this pledge, but it's an honourable one). Yet the direct burden of care - of keeping house and keeping children - still unarguably falls by default to the woman, in most cases.

Would it be possible for a woman with a young family to attain high office? There are some positive examples, such as newly enstated Democrats Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi. There is the extraordinary example of Enid Lyons, the wife of former Prime Minister Joe Lyons, who reportedly personally answered all mail sent to her husband whilst bringing up eleven (!) children, and later becoming not only the first woman elected to the Federal House of Representatives in 1943, but the first female Cabinet Minister. Nevertheless, many female leaders, such as former WA Premier Carmen Lawrence and Meg Lees, admit to putting their careers on hold for their children. I can think of few male politicians - or high executives in business, for that matter - who would say the same thing.

But beyond all of this is a thread of misogyny that is genuinely disturbing. Recent reports from the US suggest that more people would prefer a black president to a woman president. I'm very heartened indeed to hear that America might finally accept a black president - it would truly be a realisation of one of the greatest struggles for human rights of the 20th century, and a wonderful thing. But the fact remains that so many people are nervous of naming a woman the leader of the free world, nearly a century since the world's first unrestricted female suffrage (in New Zealand in 1893 - a generation before America, in 1920) women are still so frequently viewed not as a person, first and foremeost, but in terms of being a mother or not being a mother; and also as people somehow overstepping their natural boundaries in seeking positions of real power.

Beazley on the Political Future

2007-01-18T10:06:00.000+11:00

Kim Beazley's first media comments since losing the ALP leadership have, at best, gone under the radar and at worst, have been fundamentally misinterpreted (most prominently by Christian Kerr at Crikey). First and foremost, an attempt's been made to slot it into what I call the Labor Chaos school of journalism - the school that waits for the slightest hint of insurrection (or whatever Mark Latham's said lately) and uses it as proof that the party is falling apart at the seams. Everyone loves a bit of biffo - it's much more interesting than examining policy.

It could be argued that the solidarity the ALP demands of its MPs leaves it particularly vulnerable to this sort of attack. After watching SBS's recent documentary about the extraordinary and corrupt former US House Majority Leader Tom Delay (I direct you especially to his comment that a contributing factor in the Columbine School massacre was "because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized (sic) out of some primordial soup of mud."), I noted his political technique of `catch and release' - allowing some party dissenters to vote against a bill so long as it won't endanger its passage. John Howard has become very good at this technique, allowing backbenchers off the leash to oppose party policy on local issues, but it's something that rarely occurs within the ALP (Eden-Monaro MP Steve Whan's opposition of the sale of the Snowy Hydro system is one rare recent example). If it did, every note of concern wouldn't sound so much like insurrection.

But this is veering off the track. The SMH headline - `Poll loss the end for ALP, unions' - is a typical Labor Chaos headline, and is quite mischievous. The casual glancer is expected to read this as `Kim Beazley thinks the ALP will lose the next election'. What he said was quite different - and he picked up on a point that I've been arguing for a long time. Certainly, if the Howard Government were returned to power, the government would take this as an endorsement of WorkChoices and it would be bad news for the unions and, obviously, the ALP.

In fact, the larger point Beazley makes is that it would be perhaps even more devastating to the Liberal Party should they lose. The current strength of the Federal Liberal Party gives the illusion of the strength of the party overall, but the truth is quite different. Convincingly out of power in all states and territories, holding little more than a quarter of State seats throughout the country and with a dilapidaded rank and file, the Liberals would also lose a slew of its most experienced MPs who would rather chew glass than sit around in Opposition - people like Alexander Downer, Philip Ruddock and, most notably, John Howard. They would experience a diaspora equal to, if not worse than, the wilderness years of the 1990s - a time even Howard admits was far worse than any strife the ALP has experienced. Beazley put it well when he described them as `a party vulnerable to being out of power' - and also, a party ripe for infiltration by members of extremist fringe groups, as has already occurred within the NSW Liberal Party.

It was an odd little article - I kept waiting to see from which larger and more comprehensive piece it had been excerpted - but Beazley's opinions are not only clear-sighted, but voiced with an eye to assisting the Federal Labor Party win the next election. To ply the line that this is the only chance voters will ever have to trump WorkChoices or there's no going back would be a pretty canny election strategy.

Beazley mentions that he plans to return to academia and, as with former WA Premier Geoff Gallop, I think he'll do very well there.

Summer Series: Is Socialism Dead? What About Christianity?

2007-01-12T09:41:00.000+11:00

Former WA Premier, academic and new NSW President of the Australian Fabian Society Geoff Gallop recently wrote an interesting article for The Australian about Kevin Rudd's particular brand of theology. Essentially, he argues that Rudd, while rejecting socialism, is embracing it under another name - the tradition of Christian social activism. It's a little known fact that this tradition helped spawn highly political and now totally agnostic movements such as the Fabians, so Gallop does have an intriguing point.

By sheer coincidence, the doorbell rang while I was composing this post. At the door were what are popularly referred to as `God Botherers' - two well-meaning gentlemen spruiking a religious magazine. It occurred to me that such people are not unlike the solitary souls who spruik the Green Left Weekly at train stations - doctrinal, insulated, unpragmatic but passionate believers, who are unlikely to win too many new people to either of their movements.

Socialism and mainstream Christianity are two things that began to decline in the early decades of the 20th Century, and perhaps for similar reasons. Priorities have changed, people became more questioning, less utopian, and more comfortable about the idea of profit for profit's sake during the post WWII boom years. As Pamela Bone suggests, also in the Oz, it's very wrong to suggest that religion is a precondition for functional society. However, I think she's put the cart before the horse. For all the depredations for which it was responsible, organised religion at least provided a `model' moral compass and a reason to work towards community and collectivism. Instead, individualism and social and economic liberalism became the key public mood and since then, popular psychology have always searched for replacements for whatever benefits religion provided. All, religious and irreligious, have recognised that the disintergration of community has left us a lot sadder and more confused as a society.

I often refer to the case of the poet, T.S. Elliott who, after the composition of bleak classics as The Waste Land and The Hollow Men, had a nervous breakdown and, to the surprise of all his acquaintances, embraced Christianity. It appears that Elliot embraced the church in the spirit that even if God didn't exist, it would be nicer to pretend he did, especially given the other benefits of belonging. It could be that one day - perhaps sooner, but probably later - people will embrace some of the tenets of socialism - benefiting, perhaps not believing, but at the very least, participating.

Much is made of the notion that a return to mainstream Christianity is already occurring. This is simply untrue. Evangelical movements have certainly made some ground - more so in America than Australia - yet such movements have objectives mainly contrary to the Christian socialist tradition: will God save me? If I pray, will God give me an easy ride and plenty of money? If I'm a Christian, it's only right that I prosper. Essentially, it's Christianity for the age of classical liberalism. It's notable that Kevin Rudd refers to `free market evangelism', because what killed socialism has a similar strain of fundamentalism. It's OK to do whatever I like because God said so. I have to fire workers, put the remainder under poorer conditions and move most of my production to a distant, impoverished country because the Market says so.

Thus, it's very difficult to convince such people that helping others is good just because it's good. If that's the case, it would be very difficult indeed to convince people to produce and share resources for the common good. As a friend recently pointed out, very few of the people who claim to espouse socialism today are fully aware of what it is. When asked, their position will usually prove a watered down, Social Democrat version of a doctrine which dictates that the state seize all personal assets in preparation for a society where the concept of state no longer exists. Pragmatically, this is something very few people would claim to be aiming for nowadays.

I've recently been reading up on the Great Depression. The economic conditions of today - as Ross Gittins outlined in a recent article - are alarmingly similar to those preceding the Depression. I'm certainly not saying that an economic downturn will see people rushing to church and then a CPA meeting, but it will be interesting to see when this downturn - and it will happen one day - will have on peoples' beliefs on collectivism. Will people withdraw; will it become dog-eat-dog? Or will the opposite occur?

A Softening of Rhetoric

2007-01-04T11:11:00.000+11:00

There has, to coin a cliche, been a `noticeable softening in the government's rhetoric' on David Hicks recently, with Mick Keelty the latest to express concerns. It's not much of a softening, but it's something, and it comes after concerted lobbying by the public, the legal fraternity, and the State Attorneys General. Even with a legal breakthrough, Hicks would face at least two more years imprisonment - unless the Australian government intervenes and brings him back to Australia. Increasingly, I'm beginning to wonder if the magic phone call might just coincide with an election campaign. This is quite a turn of events, little more than five years after the hysterical Tampa-driven election campaign of 2001.

There has been a subtle but noticeable softening of rhetoric from the Federal Government in a number of areas. This first occurred to me when reading Tony Abbott's astonishingly sensible - yes, you read correctly - article on integration a few weeks back. It reminded me a lot of papers and articles published by then-Opposition MPs in the mid 1990s, when Labor was still in power and the dominant rhetoric was moderate rather than extreme. As the Pauline Hanson era told us, peoples' views don't change so much; the acceptability of their views does. It could therefore be argued that governments have a limited ability to change peoples' views for the better, but I disagree. It's by stigmatising the beliefs that make for a poor society that a government can prevent such views from flourishing and becoming mainstream. The proof of this is that the Howard Government has been able to take advantage of the opposite trend, encouraging the propagation of views that keep people paranoid and averse to policies of the previous government, such as reconciliation and republicanism.

Perhaps this new softening represents a change in the political atmosphere (and no, I refuse to stoop to that other cliche, `seachange'). This is a good thing for society. I'm very happy that a Tampa incident would be unlikely to generate the same hysteria that it did in 2001. Politically, it may not be such great news for Labor. It's sometimes been said that Kevin Rudd is trying to out-Howard John Howard - to present a face of pragmatism, moderation and dependability that remains regardless of the radical nature of policies they may be advancing. Where Labor may fall into serious danger is if John Howard tries to out-Rudd Kevin Rudd. Labor is already used to the Government co-opting their policies, especially in social policy areas where Labor is traditionally stronger. Should the government also co-opt a political atmosphere that favours Labor, things could get very tricky.

The saddest thing would be if people fell for it. Without genuine belief, such a softening would be no more than a political gimmick. After all, there are still plenty of things occurring that remind us that consistent violations of human rights - such as the detention of David Hicks - tend have the opposite reaction to what they should. Rather than seek to mitigate, the tendency is to punish in kind. Likewise, those who condemn such punishment are themselves condemned by the same people who use the atrocities committed as a justification for their own behaviour. It becomes a sad cycle rather than a genuine effort to make amends. This week, the execution of Saddam Hussein has been shown as an appalling botched and unethical act - news programmes persist in broadcasting images not only before and after his death, but now, leaked footages of the death taking place. Had Hussein himself broadcast graphic images of torture and execution, he would - quite rightly - have been decried as a monster. Does that make those who do the same any less? We need a government that makes a genuine effort to make such things unacceptable once more.

The Invisible Man

2007-01-04T10:48:00.000+11:00

Andrew Clennell's recent Sydney Morning Herald article set the tone for the election commentary with which we'll be bombarded for the next few months. Suddenly, an election that seemed quite a way off is almost upon us.

Which begs the question: Where the heck is Peter Debnam?

To my knowledge - and I could be wrong and have been in the past - he is not officially on leave. He has been doing media - just nothing very substantial. The last news story I recall that featued Debnam, some time before Christmas, was a piece of high-Silly Season puff about him donating 740ml of blood (perhaps mopped up from his Cabinet room). Nevertheless, Barry O'Farrell has made most major media statements that I've seen - not as Acting Leader, but as Deputy - and Shadow Ministers such as Chris Hartcher have picked up the slack. This is particularly odd, as it is consistently asserted that O'Farrell is not interested in challenging, and who can blame him - the same cadre that made sure he lost out to Debnam in the first place would make things extremely hard for him as leader.

This doesn't bode well for Debnam, three months away from the election. Recent polling would certainly not lend any comfort to him. Nor would anecdotal evidence suggests that some Liberal candidates are even shying away from mentioning his name in local campaigning. It's almost - almost - conceivable that he'd leave before the election. In any case, he's not likely to stick around for long afterwards.

Speaking of afterwards - a NSW Government reshuffle must surely be in the planning stages, given that the NSW Cabinet is now two Ministers less than it was this time last year and, with departure of Bob Debus, will be missing a third after the election. It's likely to be from amongst the Parliamentary Secretaries that new Ministers are drawn. Linda Burney, a former Director General of Aboriginal Affairs, is an obvious and excellent choice for that portfolio. As for the rest - well, I'll have to think about that, and so will Morris Iemma, I imagine ...

A Happy 2007

2006-12-31T18:08:00.000+11:00

It's rather surreal to be seeing in the new year with the execution of Saddam Hussein. This is one of those things that was bound to happen one day, which doesn't make it any less strange now that it finally has. It's a moment George W. Bush has been waiting for for many years, as have countless Iraqis.

A common criticism of those who have opposed the war in Iraq is that this constitutes some sort of support for Hussein. Speaking as one such person, I can tell you it does not. Very few people would argue that the world is worse off without a brutal tyrant. Yet those living under equally brutal regimes and poltiical conditions such as Zimbabwe and Darfur might justly wonder why one was singled out but their situation left to fester.

Capital punishment is always an abomination, no matter whether the criminal is a naive young person or a notorious dictator. The notion of broadcasting such punishment is abhorrent, and I have been shocked by the decision to release footage of Hussein's execution to the media. There is no case in which our government can justify the execution of any prisoner. There are not `right' and `wrong' people to execute. Reading about Tony Burke's principled opposition to capital punishment brought to mind John Donne's magnificent Meditation XVII

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.

The reflection that those who seek justice can be as brutal as those against whom it is sort is a sad way to end the year. Unfortunately, it often feels like all my reflections are about long-held, long-cherished principles that don't seem to matter anymore. To return to Donne's meditation, everyone who calls themselves a part of humanity and is concerned about the world has, in my opinion, a duty to themselves and to us all to work for the sort of world they want to live in.

On that note, I hope all of you have a safe and happy 2007. It's going to be an interesting one.

Unnatural Justice

2006-12-21T19:25:00.000+11:00

Another thing that doesn't seem just is the treatment of Steven Chaytor. Chaytor, the Member for Macquarie Fields, who won his seat little more than a year ago after Craig Knowles retired, is accused of bashing his partner. Chaytor claims that he was attempting to prevent her from self-harm after their relationship came to an end. Regardless of whether this is true or untrue, it's obviously a very sad and unfortunate situation for all concerned.

Yet, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? It was widely suggested that no lenience was shown towards Milton Orkopoulos because evidence suggesting his guilt was so convincing. In Chaytor's case, their appears a reasonable doubt that his actions were genuinely malicious. In either case, guilt or lack of guilt isn't the point - natural justice is.

`Natural justice' is a term I generally avoid using. It's been co-opted by the sort of people who assert that any decision that goes against them is obviously a case of corruption or incompetence, because it certainly couldn't be their fault (Chaytor's opponent in the Macquarie Fields by-election, discredited whistleblower Nola Fraser, is someone who springs to mind). But I think it's an appropriate one in this case. Both Orkopoulos and Chaytor have been denied not only the standard assumption of innocence due to us all, but, given their status as public figures, have been branded guilty by default in a way that will stick to them forever, no matter the actual state of affairs. I cannot see how Orkopoulos in particular could ever receive a fair trial. Even if they do, steps have been taken against them by the state ALP that refuse to entertain any suggestion that they are innocent. Orkopoulos, officially an innocent man, lost his ministry, his place in Parliament, and even his superannuation. Chaytor has likewise lost his endorsement for the next election, regardless of whether he is proven innocent in the meantime. Ordinarily, Chaytor would be dealing with the black mark in his career which remains regardless of guilt or innocence - a pretty nasty situation. Even worse, the candidate famously endorsed by Gough Whitlam as one of the next big talents to enter politics will not even have a career to have a black mark upon.

There's a time and a place for political expendiency, but frankly, this just looks gutless.

Don't Care ... Don't Care ... Don't Care ...

2006-12-21T19:06:00.000+11:00

Using what tiny portion of the mediasphere I have reserved, I need to have a little rant.

Today, Shane Warne announced his retirement from test cricket.

I DON'T CARE.

I'm sorry, but I just do not care. I couldn't give a damn. I really couldn't. I really, really don't see how this changes the world. Warne, for those who haven't seen the loving hagiographies taking up the first ten minutes of each major news bulletin, is a cricketer. Big deal. He is apparently a good one. Fair enough. But big deal.

What annoys me most is that Warne, by all appearances an arrogant and egotistical person, is, unlike the rest of the world, allowed to have behaviour that is at best very stupid and at worst, very hurtful, is dismissed - even lauded - as that of a `larrikin' and a `colourful figure'. Such `larrikin' behaviour in virtually any other member of society - a politician, say - would not be tolerated at all. I don't know too many women who would shrug after finding out their partner was running around remorselessly bedding other women and say `Don't worry, love. You're a colourful figure!'

Yes, I was one of those kids whose intellectual achievements were always dismissed at school because they didn't involve hitting a ball, throwing a ball, catching a ball, or kicking a ball. But it hardly seems just, does it? Which is better - running around a circuit very fast, or finding a cure for cancer? Clearly, it's the former ...

Summer Series: Fabian Society Entry

2006-12-20T21:43:00.000+11:00

A funny thing occurs at around this time each year: we enter the silly season. Pollies take their leave, nothing happens and thus, political bloggers have not a lot to say.

This being the case, it's about time to release a few pieces of general policy opinion. This week, the first annual Australian Fabian Society Race Matthews Award was announced. I'm very pleased to say that a friend and neighbour was the deserving winner of the award. The fact that I didn't win (gah) means it's about time to make some sort of use of my own entry, so here it is.

--------------------

Recently, I attended a political forum. The room, aside from my own group, was a sea of grey hair. This made the topic of discussion all the more ironic: why are young people no longer interested in politics?

It is easy for both political parties and the wider public to adopt the uncomplicated view that Australia’s youth are disinterested, ignorant, and unwilling to participate. Instead, there is much evidence that young people are passionate, concerned about their world, and enthuisastic about changing it. Less evident, however, is the notion that they see formal politics as the true agent of change.

Why is this? Firstly, we live in an age in which brands and lifestyles are the common currency. Politicians are rarely depicted in television or film as inspirational figures, but as corrupt, lazy and bombastic (the character of `Diamond Joe' Quimby, the local mayor of The Simpsons, springs to mind). Activists are regularly shown as courageous battlers who fight for what they believe in - for example, the film Erin Brockovich. While mainstream political participation falls, young people are joining charities and activist groups in record numbers.

Mainstream political coverage is often gimmicky, negative, and shallow. Though this reflects the behaviour of some politicians, the full palette of political experience, much less the mechanics of policymaking, remain a mystery to most people. In political reality, there are no ideal solutions. If funding is increased in one area, it is necessarily taken from another. If we pay less tax, we receive fewer services. The inability to impress such issues upon the public makes it ever more difficult for governments to sell their policies.

Meanwhile, politically based shows such as the ABC’s Insiders and Channel 9’s Sunday are unapologetically aimed at a middle-aged choir of the converted. I'm not suggesting that the solution is that Neighbours include a subplot about a rank and file pre-selection, but a news programme that simply and attactively depicts recent political developments may have potential to ensure young adults are better informed. It seems odd that similar shows exist, but only for younger viewers, such as the ABC’s Behind the News. As a result, many teenagers derive their only understanding of politics through the attractive but distorted lense of satire.

Let’s return to that forum. Amongst my group were a number of people involved in party politics - myself included. Others could be described as `lapsed’ - former members of parties who had been willing to participate and contribute but soon became disillusioned by a party structure that had not changed for decades. This is a common complaint amongst young people who do join political parties. Many enter with high hopes, but leave feeling that their ability to affect policy is minimal. Such complaints are not limited to younger party members.

Everyone in my group had one in common: political blogging..The advent of blogging, or keeping an internet diary, is emblematic of the dilemma facing modern politics. Australian youth are better acquainted with the notion of direct democracy than any generation before them. At the click of a button, they may vote in an online poll, elect their favourite `Australian Idol' contestant, or start a blog.. Non-government activist organisations such as the ACTU, GetUp! and Project SafeCom have already learned to harness new technologies to channel the enthusiasm of young people. The internet is immediate. The voice of a blogger will, in some cases, resonate around the world, though the same voice may be inaudible in say, a party branch meeting. This demonstrates not a disinterest in politics, but an inability to find relevant methods of participation within the current framework. Unless this is recognised, parties and governments face an ever-increasing crisis of relevance.

Anyone who has visited a well-written blog will find a crucible of intelligent, meaty debate, and a great sense of community between authors and readers. Thus, the notion of incorporating such things as blogs and wikis (collectively composed databases of information) into the usual practice of party political activity seems well overdue. The worst thing about being young is being misunderstood and disregarded. A truly innovative government or party might provide internet forums in which to discuss pending issues, the results of which could be forwarded directly to the relevant Minister or Shadow Minister - who may themselves even be online to `attend' such meetings.

Currently, only a tiny of proportion of Australian politicians have realised the enormous potential of the internet to humanise politics - to give those whom they represent a voice, and to explicate the political process. In some cases, it is political parties themselves who have discouraged greater online participation; an absurd and counterproductive state of affairs. The NSW Government's decision to solicit online public comment on its State Plan represents a step in the right direction; while NSW MLC Penny Sharpe recently became the first politician in Australian history to formally submit public comment on a policy to Parliament in the form of a blog. However, there is still plenty more that can be done.

How can we complain that Australia’s youth are refusing to participate in politics when they are offered a system that almost actively excludes them? Change is difficult, especially as those who wield power usually obtain it under a system that clearly benefits them. Nevertheless, those participating in the current system cannot simply wait until everyone else changes. For the future health of Australian democracy, it is imperative that many outdated systems be rejuvenated, and the tools technology has placed at our disposal are better used. Until the need for a new approach to participation at all levels is accepted and acted upon, we run the serious risk of seeing Australian politics run by a small and unrepresentative political elite, rather than a new, talented and enthusiastic generation.

Beazley to Quit

2006-12-14T09:34:00.000+11:00

Confirmation came yesterday of the inevitable news that Kim Beazley will not contest the next election. Though there is no word yet on whether he will retire immediately or stand down at the election, I suspect he will do the latter, even though I'm sure he'd prefer the former, to prevent a by-election. British Prime Minister Tony Blair are amongst those who have paid tribute. (it's a little known fact that Beazley and Blair have been close friends since their university days). It's a sad end to a long, committed career.

Water, Water Everywhere ...

2006-12-11T22:39:00.000+11:00

I had wondered whether I should set time aside to discuss the return of desalination to the agenda - but coming across this page by sheer coincidence convinced me that I should have at least a small word.

A little less than a year ago, I felt that I was going out on a limb in defending desalination. How much difference a-little-less-than-a-year makes. Now, the government is not only openly proclaiming that desalination must be part of NSW's response to the drought, but the Opposition is also conceding this (though they currently appear to be scrambling for the new weasel-word name to distance themselves from the earlier controversies - will it be Freshwater Factory, Water Clarification Service, Water Demineralisation Centre ... )

Desalination is a policy that should have gone ahead when it was first proposed - as, let's not forget, a last resort should dams hit record lows, as they have now, at approximately the time it was predicted they would when the idea first came up. Scaremongering and misinterpretation led the policy to be ditched, or at least backgrounded. Now, with no apparent irony, the same sectors who wouldn't touch desalination with a barge pole are now demanding why the government didn't begin addressing the problem eighteen months ago ...

What are the lessons here? In my original post, which I linked above, I made much of the fact that misinformed or badly informed people can sometimes push governments into making silly decisions as a kneejerk reaction. But is this a fault of the people, or of the government? If the government had stuck to its guns and waited for the cries to die down, it wouldn't now be facing louder cries and more demanding problems.

I once heard the success of former NSW premier Neville Wran defined as his ability to know what the public could handle, and then push them just a little bit further. This is also a good working definition for progressive politics. Democracy is not always listening to the voices of the people, and making decisions based on how many Yays and how many Nays; what the latest News Poll says. Certainly, public sentiment should be a guiding principle, but a strong government succeeds by knowing not only what the public wants, but how best to deliver it to them. Making plans that are unpopular in the long term is sometimes - provided, of course, that they are sound plans - the only way to keep people happy in the long run.

The Frontbench: Hits, Memories and Shock Inclusions

2006-12-10T18:18:00.000+11:00

Well, here's proof that Kevin Rudd doesn't read blogs. I can barely find a single member of the new Shadow frontbench whose position I or anyone else anticipated. There's been a lot more chopping and changing than I expected, and those who have been promoted are, in general, not the sorts of people I would have described as having a lot of momentum behind them. Perhaps that's a good thing, I'm not sure.

Case in point is Joel Fitzgibbon, who (again, completely in contrary to my predictions) will make the largest leap forward to the key Defence portfolio, replaciing Robert McClelland, who moves to Foreign Affairs.

A shame, as the idea of Stephen Smith taking this role had really grown on me. Instead, he takes Education and Training, a portfolio I had assigned with some confidence to Craig Emerson, who instead moves to a new portfolio for the Service Industry, Small Business and Independent Contractors. Now, the idea of creating new portfolios is something I did anticipate, and this one is a particularly canny. The phenomenon of the independent contractor is one of the great elephant-in-the-corner issues to emerge in past years, and one with serious implications in many areas - particularly industrial relations.

To grasp back a modicum of respectability as a political commentator, I note that Peter Garrett has indeed been given Arts, as well as a newly named Climate Change, Environment and Heritage portfolio (at the expense of Anthony Albanese, who retains his Water portfolio and picks up Infrastructure). My off-the-cuff suggestion of Jenny Macklin for Indigenous Affairs also proved correct.

A number of portfolios have received a slightly new spin - for example, Sport and Recreation (retained by Kate Lundy) is now Sport, Recreation and Health Promotion; Immigration (retained by Tony Burke) has the slightly dog-whistleish and dodgy title of Immigration, Integration and Citizenship. One I'd like to single out is Bob McMullan's who, in addition to the Federal/State Relations role previously announced, takes control of International Development Assistance, which appears to be the former Overseas Aid portfolio. It's no surprise that such a portfolio should be redefined by someone with Rudd's background, and I hope it will demonstrate that international development assistance helps not only those to whom it goes to, but Australia, in terms of regional stability and goodwill.

Some portfolios have also been consolidated or at least assigned to the same person. Chris Evans' new National Development, Resources and Energy role is one example. However, the lack of consolidation on some issues is puzzling. Why is there a separate Shadow Minister for Local Government (Kate Lundy) and another for Territories (Arch Bevis)? I've never understood the point of having two different people responsible for family and community services - Human Services, Youth and Women (Tanya Plibersek) and Families & Community Services (Jenny Macklin). Though the portfolios precede Rudd, it would have been great to see the situation rectified.

The same is roughly true of people who are given a range of disparate portfolio responsibilities. Do Transport and Roads have much to do with Tourism (Martin Ferguson, who will now have to make controversial statements about uranium on his own time)? I'm sure Tanya Plibersek will do well with Housing, but is saddling her with an additional and quite different portfolio to her others do her a disservice? I'm also concerned that not only has her Childcare portfolio disappeared entirely, but so too has any portfolio with specific responsibility for Children. I've long considered child care another of the great sleeper issues. In this case, it appears Rudd doesn't agree.

There is little unexpected news in regards the key economic team of Wayne Swan (Treasury), Lindsay Tanner (Finance), Simon Crean (Trade) and Chris Bowen (replacing Joel Fitzgibbon as Assistant Treasurer) - with the stark exception of Kim Carr. As Shadow Minister for Housing, Carr oversaw a well-regarded discussion paper on affordable housing. Does he have the economic credibility to take on the all-important Industry portfolio (split, as I predicted, from IR, which has been given, as nearly everyone predicted, to Julia Gillard, who has also been given a new role called Social Inclusion, which absolutely nobody predicted)? Carr's appointment, as many of the others, strikes me as a reward not for the loud voices, but for the ones who quietly and diligently chipped away in the background - much like Rudd himself.

Should some of these voices have been louder nonetheless? Nicola Roxon could have pushed the issue of David Hicks as relentlessly as Rudd pushed AWB, yet I literally don't recall a single statement from her. Instead, it was left up to the State Attorneys General to make a strong statement via the Fremantle Declaration, and to co-ordinate the campaign against his imprisonment to Philip Ruddock. In short, she's been a solid, unspectacular, could-do-better Shadow Attorney General, which makes her elevation to Health Minister all the more puzzling. This, like Education, is a role in which policies must be enunciated clearly and with passion. As always, I stand to be proven wrong, but I'm just not that optimistic that Roxon or Smith will be able to take the fight on what I consider to be two of the most crucial issues up to the government. I hope Roxon's replacement, Kelvin Thompson, is better able to call the government to task over its indifference to issues such as human rights, the death penalty, and privacy.

I'm sure you've detected my lack of enthusiasm by now. I'm not sure why I'm so unenthused, and it's unfair - most of the above have yet to prove themselves in their new roles, and they will probably do well in them. I hope so - next year, we have an election to win.

The full list of positions is available in PDF format here.

Ending the Blame Game

2006-12-10T10:28:00.000+11:00

I am yet to read a scholarly discussion of Kevin Rudd's pledge for co-operative Federalism that has really got the point of what he's on about. Many have dismissed as nothing more than an intellectual exercise. It's certainly an intellectual exercise, but it's also a pretty shrewd recognition of an issue of great populist concern, too.

The fact that the only person that has appreciated this so far is one John Howard only serves to consolidate this view. You don't have to like Howard to concede his ability to read the collective public mind.

Without prompting, Howard began his interview on this morning's Insiders with a pointed defence of current State-Federal relations. Journo Matt Price later argued that recent COAG meetings have been a `lovefest'. This is fundamentally missing the point. It's only a handful of years since a series of rancorous COAGs, culminating in a walkout by State Premiers. Let's not forget how enormously unpopular such behaviour was. I clearly remember the talkback radio that followed: why, at a time when we most need co-operation on the health system, water sharing, transport, infrastructure and national security, are leaders acting like brawling teenagers? The message is clear: people want solutions, not arguments. Recent COAGs have reflected this - the equanimmity even coming, some may argue, at the expense of better outcomes for the states.

Picking up on this issue is a good demonstration of the way Rudd has managed to cultivate two broad-brush constituencies both of whom feel a sense of ownership and allegiance to him, but whom are almost entirely unaware of one anothers' existence. As I said previously, there are those who recognise Rudd as a member of the `Sunrise family' - a mainstream media personality. At the diametric end of the spectrum, there are the readers of the highbrow intellectual The Monthly, where Rudd has been carefully cultivating his credibility on a broader range of political and philosophical areas over the past few months.

The Federal-State issue appeals to both constituencies for different reasons. The latter constituency are concerned about such things as the increasing encroachment of the Federal government into State affairs, the abuse of the Constitution represented by WorkChoices, and the deficiencies in the Constitution that allow such things to occur - a sentiment that goes back to the Dismissal.

The former constituency see a number of practical problems as arising from blame-shifting and poor delineation of State-Federal duties, from water sharing on the Murray-Darling to the effectiveness of hospitals. The `blame game' is genuinely detested; genuinely complained about to and by the likes of Alan Jones. I have even been surprised about how the depth of anger that still exists about the G.S.T. - a tax that was supposed to `solve' the constant debate over the Commonwealth Grants programme.

How Rudd takes this issue forward will be interesting to observe. Firstly - and I hate myself for saying this - it needs a catchphrase or a cover-all term that does not alienate those who are worried about workplace rights but would draw a blank if you started referring to Section 51 of the Constitution. The `blame game' has been used by many (including me), but it doesn't tell the full story.

Rudd also faces a juggling act on issues such as the always contentious distribution of Commonwealth Grants. NSW has made much of the inequity of current arrangements - but also that it is Queensland and WA who are benefiting at their expenses. Given how much has been made of the importance of winning seats in Queensland and retaining the support of Kim Beazley's supporters in WA, I can't see him pushing those states to hand back the dough and do without luxuries such as petrol subsidies. However, formalising State-Federal relations - something Kim Beazley alluded to late in his leadership, but provided few details on - could not only be a popular move, but one which could fix a system which, as the Prime Minister conceded this morning, has been fundamentally dysfunctional since its creation.

Late Frontbench Betting

2006-12-09T11:34:00.000+11:00

Kevin Rudd delayed the announcement of his new frontbench out of respect to Kim Beazley, who was attending the funeral of his brother. Though there's since been no official announcement, various outlets (such as The Oz and Sky News) have assigned some roles with what sounds like relative certainty.

Here, to redeem myself from the various poor calls (I willingly admit that my readers have done a better job than me), are the latest tips:

Wayne Swan: Expected to hold onto Treasury, though Lindsay Tanner is not being discounted.
Anthony Albanese: Given the prestigious role of Opposition Leader of Business - that is, the co-ordination of approach, strategy and questioning in Parliament, a job previously held by Julia Gillard. Still no word on whether he will retain Environment, though nobody seems to be ruling it out altogether.
Peter Garrett: Speculation continues that he will be given Environment, though Arts and Indigenous Affairs are also being mentioned (well picked, Armagnac!)
Bob McMullan: Confirmed as the Shadow Minister for Federation, a newly created portfolio to spearhead Rudd's pledge to fix the Federal/State relationship. An ambitious idea indeed, given the issue's been paining Australia since Federation itself. But, as I said before, a good and potentially popular one. I imagine it won't be McMullan's only role, though.
Simon Crean: Expected to take his old role of Trade, and (yay!) an industry/regional role.
Julia Gillard: No other name besides hers is being mentioned in relation to IR.
Stephen Smith: There are whisperings that he's headed for Foreign Affairs (chalk one up to Milltown Pete)
Lindsay Tanner: Likely to retain Finance should Swan be given Treasury.
Robert McClelland and Tony Burke: Have expressed interest in keeping their current roles, and given they're doing well at them, I should imagine they'll keep them.

This leaves a number of key roles, such as Health and Education, unfilled. I'll make another bold pronouncement and tip a long-time campaigner on education issues, Craig Emerson for Education. As to Health? That one's still puzzling me. It would be a bold move to give it to one of the new frontbenchers, though not out of the question, I suppose. Again, I welcome your suggestions.

The next pool? The Howard reshuffle. If you're looking for a long-shot, I'd advise Amanda Vanstone being retained in anything other than a junior portfolio.

Bothering Debnam

2006-12-08T09:38:00.000+11:00

Those who have read this blog for a while (or those who have seen my overladen bag, which always has at least three books in it) will know that I'm a hopeless and pathetic Harry Potter fan. As such, it was this video that came to mind when I heard of the NSW Government's planned smear campaign aimed at Peter Debnam. Just like bothering Snape, bothering Debnam just isn't worth the trouble.

Firstly, I don't think the Australian public is ever very impressed by negative advertising. I'm not sure how effective it is, but I know that I consider them pretty unpleasant, no matter the side of politics. Playing the man and not the policies is pretty infantile (but then again, what policies are there to play?)

Secondly, didn't research recently reveal that the public's recognition of Debnam's name and face were slim to nil? It seems ridiculous that the ALP will be spending good money on a campaign which, if it does nothing else, will essentially rectify that fact! It wasn't long ago that government MPs were reportedly requested to refer to him only as `The Member for Vaucluse' to belittle his profile and status as much as possible.

Thirdly, the idea of launching a smear campaign against Debnam seems very dubious, given their attacks on his own attempts to do the same thing. Obviously, Debnam was remiss to the point of idiocy to use an accusation so absurd from a source so patently unreliable to launch his big attack, but what he was attempting to do was the same as what the government now seems to want to do - delve into the past and dig up some dirt.

Fourthly, attack ads by a government is perceived not to be doing brilliantly will possibly annoy more people than win votes. The NSW Government can certainly not appear to be arrogant in the way that some other State governments can. I don't share the belief that it will lose the next election, but the margin by which it wins is crucial, especially if it wants to retain enough of a buffer to win the election after that.

And fifthly (if that's a word) - and I know I'm repeatedly accused of being an apologist - I think there's many areas in which the NSW Government isn't doing too badly at all - mental health, industrial relations, the environment (I recently discovered that NSW was only the third place in the world to introduce carbon emissions trading), and other areas. Surely it would be a better idea to remind the public what the government's doing right, rather than concentrate on what the other side - which, let's forget, isn't in power - are doing wrong? Debnam does a good enough job of showing us that himself.

Human Rights, Human Wrongs

2006-12-07T12:03:00.000+11:00

I've just finished listening to an extremely interesting and moving interview with Lex Lasry QC, who defended Van Nguyen, executed by the government of Singapore just over a year ago. It's issues such as Nguyen's death that remind us that the fight for social justice and human rights is never be a mere lifestyle decision, as some detractors might suggest. The transcript is not up yet, but when it arrives, it's very much worth reading.

By sheer coincidence, this subject was very much on my mind when I switched on the radio. I was remembering the last Federal election campaign, during which I met one Kevin Rudd during a forum on the war in Iraq. I was impressed by Rudd's ability to combine an intellectual approach with genuine concern for social justice. The forum, including its other speakers, Tanya Plibersek and former human shield Donna Mulhearne, were visibly moved by shocking footage, taken through night goggles, of unarmed Iraqis being shot without provocation. Again, we can talk all we like about what's right and what's wrong, but we must always stay engaged - we must do more than just drop a donation to Amnesty International every now and then.

Nguyen's story is the subject of a documentary to be broadcast tonight, for which I'll make a pre-emptive plug.

The Great Shadow Frontbench Sweep

2006-12-06T14:11:00.000+11:00

Tomorrow, Kevin Rudd will unveil his new Shadow Front Bench and, not surprisingly, speculation is rife on the winners and losers. Here's my hastily assembled field guide:

On the Way Up
Lindsay Tanner
Here's my bold prediction: Lindsay Tanner is Labor's next treasury spokesperson. Despite their factional and, I would imagine, occasional philosophical distances, Tanner and Rudd have formed a strong alliance, and, what's more, Tanner is exactly the man for the job. He's got economic credibility and well-earned respect, and it's time he was given the sort of senior ministry that reflects this.

Simon Crean
There's murmurings that Crean will be given Rudd's old portfolio of Foreign Affairs, but I'm not sure that's the right fit. Reportedly, he is interested in an industry portfolio, which would seem to be a better choice. There's no doubt that Crean was not a born leader - however, as Beazley before him, I think he could be a great and reform-minded senior Minister. Gavan O'Connor's Agriculture and Fisheries portfolio will now be searching for a Shadow Minister - it would make a certain amount of sense to combine this into a wider industry-based portfolio, much as occurred with the creation of the Primary Industries and Natural Resources portfolios in NSW.

Tony Burke
Burke has been on the ascendancy for some time - more or less, since he joined Federal Parliament - and this, combined with his part in delivering the leadership to Rudd is likely see him elevated. He's done very well in Immigration, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him given a more senior role. Health, perhaps? Or is that a bridge too far?

Julia Gillard
The fact that Gillard has indicated she will not choose her portfolio can be seen as a veto of the traditional assignment of the Treasury portfolio to the deputy. One intriguing idea I've heard mentioned is that she will take on Industrial Relations. Having the deputy in charge of such a crucial issue would give a strong message, but would she be the right choice?

My tip is that, as a former president of the Australian Union of Students and once an aspiring teacher, she might take the portfolio of her predecessor: Education.

Staying Put

Joel Fitzgibbon
Though the consensus initially suggested that Fitzgibbon will be richly rewarded for his pivotal role in winning the leadership for Rudd, I just can't see him being given a senior role. At most, he may inherit Finance if Tanner moves on, but if Tanner does get Treasury, I think Bob McMullan would be ore likely for that portfolio. Perhaps Resources? As you can tell, I'm not expecting the big leap forward some were predicting.

Tanya Plibersek
There's been some talk of the Beazley-supporting NSW Left being `punished' for their support of the opponent. Personally, I don't think this will be the case, and Rudd won't want to risk the criticism for moving people who are performing well in their roles. I'd count Plibersek amongst the ones who are doing too well for anyone to want to shift them.

On the Way Down

Anthony Albanese
This is unfortunate, as Albanese has been a passionate advocate for environmental issues, but I think the momentum behind Peter Garrett is too large. What may well happen is that a new side portfolio may be split off from the main one - Shadow Minister for Climate Change, for example - and given to either Albanese or Garrett.

Jenny Macklin
As I said before, I've never been particularly impressed by Macklin's performance in Education and, given the various circumstances that surround her, I can't see her taking on a major portfolio. I'm at a loss to say what she might be given instead. I'll pick Indigenous Affairs out of the ether.

Stephen Smith
Smith is another Shadow Minister in a crucial portfolio whose performance has left me cold. Given Rudd's strong early statements on industry, I think it's certain that Smith's industry and IR portfolios will be split. He may retain one, but he may well be shifted downwards, especially given his Rooster status.

Wayne Swan
Will Swan be retained in the Treasury role? I just can't see it. Though Swan has done terrific groundwork in rebuilding Labor's economic credibility, someone with a bit more fire in their belly is likely to take his portfolio. He would be a bad choice to take Rudd's old portfolio, but given an animosity that goes back to their school days, I can't see it happening.

On The Way In
Three vacancies now exist on the front bench, left by the departures of Bob Sercombe, Gavan O'Connor, and Kim Beazley. I would put money on these three filling their place, despite speculation that Chris Bowen may be elevated:

Peter Garrett
Garrett is the only MP Rudd has confirmed as joining the frontbench (which is odd, given there was supposed to vote on it. A move towards the Liberal tradition of the leader hand-choosing the front bench could put some noses out of joint, but that's an issue for another time). As I said earlier, it's reasonably likely that Garrett will be given the job of spearheading climate change and winning the argument over from the Greens. However, I'd also say an Arts ministry is more than likely too.

Bob McMullan
Reports have confirmed my suspicion that McMullan, now the most senior Minister on the front bench, would be interested in making a comeback, having fallen out of favour during the Latham era. I expect he would be given a senior portfolio - again, Treasury, if it's not given to Tanner - or perhaps Foreign Affairs.

Craig Emerson
Emerson's a funny bloke - full of ideas, some of them interesting and some a bit weird. Nevertheless, he's a former frontbencher who, again, fell out with Latham and retreated to the back bench. I can see him as an enthusiastic but controversial Shadow Minister in any one of a range of portfolios. I think he's too erratic to be given anything too hands on ... I'd love to see him oust Stephen Conroy as Shadow Communications Minister, but I can't see King Dalek shifting.

Feel free to make your bets, this is a very cursory list.

The Fork In The Road

2006-12-04T19:38:00.000+11:00

So, the ALP now has a new leader. Well, you all know the margin, and the particulars; and if not, you can read about it elsewhere. Hasn't it all happened quickly? This time last week, there were only murmurings. Today, and the coup is done and dusted.

Rudd's immediate pitch - that Australia is currently at a `fork in the road' - is an evocative one. It implies urgency; an imperative to think hard about change and to question the status quo. His concentration on a comprehensive revision of Federalism is intriguing - it may also demonstrate the same sort of ability to identify under-the-radar populist issues that his recognition of the importance of appearing on `Sunrise' does. His exchange with Kerry O'Brien is illustrative of this. O'Brien dismissed Federalism as a largely academic issue; however, as Rudd pointed out, concern about Federalism is the key to a multitude of wider populist concerns. As someone who still listens to more talkback radio than is healthy, I can certainly attest to this - it's an issue that bleeds into nearly every area of policymaking, from water to health and beyond (though whether the implicit criticisms such an opinion could be interpreted to imply will put him out of step with the Labor-led states, is another matter). I can also see these concerns being consolidated with public nervousness about the way the current Government are abusing Federalism. In fact, though it's too early to say for sure, it could be that consolidating various smaller issues into broader symbolic attacks will be Rudd's leadership strategy. For example, I heartily agreed with Rudd's assertion that the term `family values' is the most abused of our time. Knitting together the various policy deficiencies of the Howard Government, from IR to childcare and so on, into a generalised `attack on the family', could be a powerful pitch for the next election.

I was quite taken aback by today's poll in the Sydney Morning Herald suggesting that the ALP is emphatically in a winning position, no matter the leader. Perhaps it's ten years of dashed dreams, but I tend to take such polls with a grain of salt, as indeed they should be. It's likey that Rudd and Gillard will now enjoy a honeymoon period in the polls as most new leaders do, while the government have already started the ritual flagellation, the accusations of L-plate leadership and so forth. The question now is whether Howard will call an early election to exploit the latter, or wait out the former.

Well, that's that then, isn't it?

That being the case, attention will now turn to the make-up of the Shadow frontbench. Beyond confirming that Peter Garrett will definitely hold a ministry, Rudd is holding his cards close to his chest, confirming only that Bob Sercombe and Gavan O'Connor will step down, and that some `new faces' would appear in their places. There is speculation that some of Beazley's backers on the frontbench will be punished with demotions - somehow, I doubt this will be the case. Rudd is likely to recognise that the last thing the party needs now is dark murmurings and vendettas. This is too a good chance to put together a quality frontbench ahead of the election than to be too worried about petty paybacks.

And, once that's done ... well, it's practically the election again!

I'm feeling a little shellshocked by all this, aren't you?

The Landing Of The Bomber

2006-12-04T19:35:00.000+11:00

Nobody of any political stripe would deny that today was a dreadful one for Kim Beazley. Finally told by his own party that they did not have enough faith in him to lead the party to the next election, and then broadsided by a personal tragedy, those who were waiting for a concession speech as dignified and statesmanlike as the one he gave upon losing the 2001 election instead heard a man, so famous for her verbosity, made nearly speechless by the convergence of events.

I was often troubled when people who were frustrated by Labor's lack of progress or Beazley's inability to land blows on certain issues took it out on Beazley himself, sometimes in quite a nasty and personal manner. Beazley, by all accounts, is not a nasty man. On the contrary, some suggest he is too nice for to lead an Opposition, in the sense that his mindset is not inherently confrontational. It may have been this mindset that led to the policy paralysis in the face of the Tampa crisis - the single issue for which many have never forgiven him - and the mindset itself may be a product of his academic rather than instinctual approach to politics. I've heard many remark that Beazley would make a terrific Minister - as indeed he had in the past - as a team player, shaping policy rather than representing it. Deep down, this is something with which Beazley might secretly agree.

I've searched my literature on leadership, and all my favourite quotes, and yet I still cannot say exactly why Beazley never quite gelled. I don't agree with the oft-quoted suggestion that he `didn't have the ticker'. Particularly in the past year, he has campaigned tirelessly for the party, looking healthier, more vigorous, and more committed, than he has in years, right up to his final Question Time. However, in coining the term, John Howard correctly identified the nagging feeling that always existed - that Beazley was somehow a stand-in, a well-meaning administrator who might keep things ticking along until the true visionary came along, but would do little more. Hence, the neverending search for the Labor Saviour, first in the person of Mark Latham, now Kevin Rudd, with various personalities from Julia Gillard to Peter Garrett and Lindsay Tanner in between.

There is no firm word on whether Beazley will now retire, though he has implied as much, and has already announced that he will not contest a front bench position. I don't think anyone would blame him for bowing out now. He has served long and hard, and with distinction. Apart from leading the ALP for seven years in total, and filling a number of senior Ministerial positions over his twenty five year career, he is the longest serving Labor member in Parliament, and one of the last of the `old guard' of the Hawke-Keating era: those who have served as Ministers; who remember a time when it was the Liberal Party who seemed they would never find the path back through the wilderness.

Changes in leadership are usually thrilling affairs, and so they should be. But they are also days of reflection - a bit of sadness; a bit of looking backwards before we turn our eyes to the future.

Who's Got The Numbers?

2006-12-03T12:55:00.000+11:00

Virtually all media outlets are calling Monday's leadership ballot in favour of Kevin Rudd. Based on my infallible politico-scientific methods, combining those who have declared their position, study of the way votes fell in the last leadership vote, and other factors such as who might have been promised what cabinet position should they make the front bench, I've arrived at the figure of 47 for Rudd, 34 for Beazley and 7 impossible to call, having refused to make any public statement and/or being too difficult to predict. This is roughly in line with the numbers being quoted in the media. If I'm even roughly correct, that means a pretty easy win for Rudd. Neither man - but Beazley in particular - can afford a result as close as that in the last leadership ballot.

The Rudd-Gillard team has certainly been hitting the hustings (yes, you'll find no mention of the term `Dream Team' here), looking rather like the mortal enemies who've just become School Captains. Rudd has been criticised for not clearly enunciating the different policy directions that they might take. I think this is a wise move on Rudd's part - anything clearer and further away from current policy, and he'd be forced to backtrack and accused of insurrection should he lose the ballot.

The most interesting aspect of this leadership battle is that it appears to be a slap in the face to the factions and unions, who are themselves unnaturally divided over the vote (on the other hand, much is being made of the fact that the Ferguson brothers are each plumping for a different candidate, yet they did exactly the same for the Latham vote). Also notable is the changing patterns of support amongst the states. Unlike his predecessor, who registered his support not for Beazley or Latham but for Rudd (who, let's not forget, was a formal candidate in the last leadership ballot), Morris Iemma is backing Beazley, while Peter Beattie, always a vocal supporter of Beazley, has switched his allegiance to Rudd. Unsurprisingly, WA's Alan Carpenter is backing Beazley, while both Victoria's Steve Bracks and Tasmania's Paul Lennon, both Beazley supporters previously, are now refusing to comment. No word on Jon Stanhope, Clare Martin or Mike Rann, though I have a feeling Rann would be supporting Beazley. Unions NSW have also withdrawn their long-standing support for Beazley, and a major factor in the battle could be the way members with strong union background or backing may vote. Satisfaction with Beazley's performance in the area of IR isn't enormous, given that it's supposed to be the key issue for the next election - but Rudd has not exactly been an outspoken commentator on the issue, and his comments at yesterday's various press conferences were ambiguous, particularly on the crucial issue of abolishing AWAs.

All four players in the drama have made their cases in this morning's political TV, Gillard and Rudd on Rudd's regular stomping ground, Sunrise. Rudd's weekly appearances on this show should not be under-estimated (there's even suggestions that the fact that the same audience who know him from Sunrise are the same who would have been appalled by Beazley's Rove McManus/Karl Rove gaffe was a decisive factor in the leadership issue coming to a head). As did Mark Latham, Rudd has always known the value of reaching over the heads of a disinterested or hostile caucus and making direct representations to the public to increase his support.

Meanwhile, Beazley appeared on Channel 10's Meet the Press, and Jenny Macklin on Insiders, the latter attempting to push home the view that Gillard - no big fan of Rudd's - is only agreeing to the challenge in order to best position herself for a leadership coup later on. Now, Macklin has produced a lot of policy behind closed doors, some of it good, some of it - such as changes to voluntary student unionism policy - lousy. But one thing is for certain - she's just not a very good public performer. It would be in everyone's best interests (excepting her own, obviously), if she moved to another role. Though, as Mr Minotaur pointed out this morning, he had no idea who Macklin was but also only knew who Mark Vaile was because he's always in trouble for something. One school of thought says the best way to avoid being a target is to be invisible.

I imagine that, in the back rooms, a fair bit of anxiety is being stirred up by raising the specture of the `failed Mark Latham experiment' as it is invariably termed, particularly given Gillard's strong support for Latham. This has always been one of my worst fears after Latham resigned - that the party would never make an audacious decision again. This is a party that should make audacious decisions - in fact, will not go forward without them.

If I were considering my vote this weekend, who would I vote for? Still a very difficult question, but I think I'd tend towards Rudd. Still, I'd be lying if I confessed to the sort of excitement and catharsis I felt before the last leadership ballot.

Beazley Brings It On

2006-12-01T10:15:00.000+11:00

News has just come through that Kim Beazley has called a leadership ballot for next Monday, following increasing threats of a formal leadership challenge by supporters of Kevin Rudd. A ballot has also been called for the entire front bench, satisfying rumblings that some frontbenchers, particularly those who won't be contesting the next election, should step down in order to lock in the best team.

Though most sources are describing Rudd as being `uncharacteristically quiet', he has always known when to keep his head down. However, not making his regular slot on Sunrise is not only significant, but it may be deliberately significant. It's one thing to send out `No Comment' to the Oz, but another to absent himself from his main source of communication with the ordinary public.

It has been reported that Rudd's supporters, who have been growing in number - some out of genuine zeal, others out of reluctant resignation - were pushing for a formal spill before Christmas. Beazley's move is evidently designed not only to hose down the situation but resolve it on his own terms. You could interpret it as an affirmation that he has the numbers, but this is by no means certain - and let's not forget that his predecessor was elected on a single vote.

I don't know if this is the right move or not. As I said, some of Rudd's new supporters are openly admitting their support is based on a position of default. Is that the sort of sentiment which a leader who is supposed to win the next election should inspire?

Monday's ballot could mark a new affirmation for Beazley's leadership, but it could also repressent a new phase for the ALP.

Biffo at the Walkleys

2006-12-01T00:07:00.000+11:00

Well, who would have thought it? Political commentator Glenn Milne has been escorted from the premises after storming the stage during tonight's Walkley Awards to decry Crikey's Stephen Mayne as `a disgrace'. Now, having Glenn Milne barrelling towards you at full pelt must be a frightening experience, as countless politicians have doubtless discovered, but I admit - at the possible cost of being blackballed by Crikey's Blogwatch section forevermore - that if it was between Crikey personalities, I'd not only chuck the Toxic Dwarf at the increasingly obnoxious Christian Kerr but I'd probably bowl Piers Akerman down the lane at him for good measure.

Anyway, on to the awards. It certainly wasn't a year when any one story or presentation cried out for the Gold Walkley as did Lateline's expose of the Vivian Solon scandal a few years back, but the rewarding of the Four Corners team was well deserved. The cartoon section was always going to be a shoo-in for Alan Moir's work on the Prophet Mohammed cartoon controversy (as the judges noted, it passed the only meaningful criteria for excellence in political cartooning: the Fridge Test). It's great to see The Monthly score its first Walkley, especially courtesy of Chloe Hooper, whose seminal portrait of Young Liberals behaving badly I've linked to this site so many times that there's no need to do so yet again (well, all right).

Congratulations also to Triple J's Steve Cannane, who has been doing quality work for some years now, but whom often seems to be brushed aside, given that he reports for a `mere' youth station. I'd also like to highlight the ongoing success of Olivia Rousset who, let's not forget, got her start on the defunct ABC programme Race Around The World. I note that the ABC has (deservedly) taken the top Walkley for at least the past three years running. Just imagine how many more talents the ABC may have unearthed had they retained this show or a similar one. Given the unprecedented political attacks on the ABC from Concetta Fiervanti-Wells and her nasty brethern (I could chuck the whole editorial staff of the Telegraph at her), those of us who have worked in or had contact with the media should never forget the folly of the attempt to axe the ABC highly regarded cadet programme a few years ago (which, like the axing Behind The News, was later revised). One look at a few of the ABC's commercial rivals - the appalling deterioration of the flagship Sunday show being a case in point - reminds us that at least one broadcaster needs to keep their end up for the sake of the future of quality Australian media coverage.

VoteChoices

2006-11-30T14:26:00.000+11:00

It was great to see a crowd of an estimated 40,000 people gathering for today's Your Rights At Work rally in Sydney. Today's rally marked a decisive new phase in the campaign, with a new slogan, `Your Rights At Work: Worth Voting For'. This is a break from the ACTU's previous strategy, which was basically non-partisan, and a loud statement of intention: IR is now well and truly on the election map.

It's an approach that may be considered controversial by some, but to look at things pragmatically, this was the only approach that could be taken in the current climate. Recently, I mentioned the campaign against WorkChoices to someone who replied `But you lost! You lost the court challenge! That's all over! What else can you do?" I could only reply that we can still advocate for changes to the current system, but ultimately, the only way things could improve was in a change in government. This is clearly something the ACTU recognises, and their argument - that all who support workers' rights have a duty to vote for Labor this time around - is pretty persuasive. Will minor parties set aside their differences, both with each other and the major parties, in pursuit of this goal? It's hard to say.

This week, Bob Carr addressed the Annual General Meeting of the NSW Fabian Society. Whatever you think of Carr, he is an impressive and informed speaker, and in this case, his topic of interest was American politics. One point he made was this: that Ralph Nader was gravely remiss - even culpable - in the defeat of Al Gore in the 2000 election, in that when it became clear that the election would go right down to the wire, he should have mobilised his support base to shift their vote to Gore rather than cast a symbolic vote for him. An American friend once drove this point home to me - she voted for Nader in 2000, and, much to her horror, all of her Republican workmates thanked her for helping get Bush into office.

One of the many advantages of Australia's electoral system is that a vote for a third party is not necessarily a vote that may as well not have been cast. Still, the point is clear: voting in the 2007 election must be tactical, not symbolic. Especially after the shenanigans in the Tasmanian election and virtually every other observation I've made of the Greens in election mode, I'm not confident that they would set aside their ambitions in recognition of this fact.

I would be absolutely thrilled if all progressive parties united on this issue. I would love not to be complaining about the Greens. I largely believe in what they believe in - though we disagree on how these things may be achieved - and have fought alongside them in campaigns on all sorts of issues, but, as often occurs on our side of politics, we end up finding the enemies amongst ourselves rather than uniting to defeat the real enemy - in this case, the Howard Government.

On another topic, Greg Combet was looking very statesmanlike during his address at the SCG this morning. Are the persistent rumours that he is considering running for office as an ALP member true? On one hand I would say no, given his strength of performance and obvious passion for the WorkChoices campaign and other important causes, particularly the James Hardie case (the legislation for which was signed off by the NSW Government this week, after a long, painful battle). Then again, a decision to run could represent the apotheosis of the new phase of the WorkChoices battle - the most powerful advocate of the issue working inside the only party with the actual ability to overturn the legislation.

One thing's for sure - the 2007 election campaign has now begun, and WorkChoices has automatically emerged as one of the key election issues.

Labor Romps Home In Victorian Election, Etc Etc

2006-11-25T21:02:00.000+11:00

Premier Steve Bracks's Labor government has been returned to power in the Victorian election with a resounding majority.

Actually, I don't even know whether they did or not. I just figured posting this now would save some time.

Anthony Green has all the fun over at his ABC Victorian Election site.

Thank you and good night.

Pure As The Driven Green

2006-11-25T18:57:00.000+11:00

The news that the Greens have signed a preference sharing deal with the Liberal Party for the Victorian election is an epoch for the party that has always sold itself as the sole remaining tenants of the moral high ground. While such a deal has the potential to do some electoral damage, the main injury may well be suffered by the Greens themselves. How will their supporters feel about supporting, via preferences, a party which represents everything against which they have always campaigned? I'm well aware of the phenomena of the `Doctor's Wife', and recently had the startling experience of hearing someone describe themselves as a `swinging Liberal/Green voter' - but what of the countless holier-than-thou inner-city dissidents who regard a vote for the Greens not only as a message to the ALP but a finger in the face of the anti-gay, anti-worker, anti-refugee, anti-human rights, and pro-globalisation Liberals? Not surprisingly, other far-left minority parties such as the Socialist Alliance have roundly criticised the deal, pointing to the lunacy of a tactic which could see Liberal MPs win over more progressive Labor counterparts.

Greens leader Bob Brown has lambasted Labor MP and former friend Peter Garrett after Garrett dared to draw attention to the Greens/Liberal deal, describing him as `anti-Green' and indulging in `brutal Labor machine politics'.

Well, let's step back and look at this, shall we?

Here's a good way to show you're pro-Green - run a split ticket with a party that refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol and argues stubbornly in favour of geosequestration and nuclear power rather than renewables and plays political games with the preservation of endangered wildlife. And here's a way to show you're anti-machine - be sure to give your preferences to a party that supports everything you were formed to fight rather than build genuine support and win on your own merits.

I'm actually a little glad that the hypocrisy of the Greens' electoral tactics is out in the open, because it's something the wider public hears very little of. It's demoralising to see base and puerile tactics used against progressive Labor candidates who would otherwise count the Greens as political and philosophical allies. Make no mistake - the public image of the Greens is pretty cuddly, yet their brutal behaviour behind closed doors has led to not a few former members that I know of either quitting in disgust or defecting to the ALP.

Brown further suggested that Garrett's lyrics, written while he was lead singer of Midnight Oil, often reflected Greens philosophies. Well, I'm with you on that one, Bob. It aches like tetanus, and it reeks of politics.

So Long, Farewell ...

2006-11-25T17:49:00.000+11:00

It's been another one of those weeks where I've spent too much time living politics to actually write about it, but I don't think it's too late to pay a brief tribute to the members of the NSW Parliament to whom we said goodbye on Thursday as the houses rose for the last time before the March election.

It's a Parliament that couldn't end too soon for a thoroughly demoralised Opposition, who spent much of their final two weeks for the year staring at their hands and cringing as their leader managed not only to drag the NSW Government out of a potentially crippling scandal but to drag his own party straight into the mud. Did Thursday mark Peter Debnam's last Question Time as leader? I would bet money on it.

So too would Morris Iemma, who brought an `I'm Backing Barry' badge to the final Question Time, perhaps wringing a pained smile from Deputy Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell. Many had their misgivings about Iemma as he became Premier little more than a year ago - and though his beginning was hesitant, he has become a sharp and effective Question Time performer and an increasingly confident leader.

The Opposition frontbench became such an empty place after its Shadow Ministers lost their pre-selections or retired, one by one that Debnam was forced into a final reshuffle before the year ended. Andrew Humpherson, John Ryan, Peta Seaton (who retired, but reportedly not without pressure), and Andrew Tink, who is likely to be succeeded by the controversial former Deputy DPP Greg Smith. Ryan, an MLC best known for his resemblance to Ned Flanders, decried the process which saw himself and other moderates deposed as a `right-wing cancer'. Amen to that. No pun intended.

Meanwhile, former shadow Minister Steve Pringle will, after sensationally tearing up his Liberal Party membership in Parliament, contest his seat of Hawkesbury as an Independent. Leaving from the Nationals are former Shadow Minister Ian Slack-Smith and long serving Nationals MP Ian Armstrong - who, as far as I can remember, is the only Opposition MP to actually serve as a Minister (correction: I have been alerted that George Souris and Chris Hartcher escaped my mind. While the idea of Chris Hartcher as Shadow Attorney General scares me, the notion of Chris Hartcher as Minister for the Environment is positively petrifying).

The Upper House will not be losing the long-running Democrats MLC Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, despite what you may have read on this blog (we all make mistakes), but it will lose its President, Meredith Burgmann, Jan Burnswood, Unity Party MLC Peter Wong, and, in a crushing blow that I'm sure will devastate you all, former One Nation member David Oldfield. May his oblivion lie the way of ever more cringeworthy reality shows. Actually, I don't care which way his oblivion lies, I just can't wait for it to happen.

Finally to the Government. On the backbench, we're saying goodbye to John Bartlett, John Mills, Paul Crittenden, Marianne Saliba and, controversially, Bryce Gaudry, who lost his pre-selection to local TV host Jodi McKay in an unpopular move that could easily prove a Head Office own-goal. Several former Ministers are also moving on, including Pam Allen and Kim Yeadon. Minister for Tourism, Sport & Recreation and Women Sandra Nori departs after 19 years, as does Bob Debus, after a distinguished career in NSW Parliament (and perhaps, before another in Canberra). The week in which he delivered a powerful speech which may have spelt the political demise of Peter Debnam was also the last for Debus, who as a member for 19 years and a Minister for 16 is the government's longest serving Minister.

I think it's appropriate to quote Debus' valedictory speech in regards to all of the above. I admire anyone who enters public life, regardless of their philosophy, because if there's one thing I dislike more than the philosophy of the Opposition, its those of either persuasion who complain about the way things are yet make no attempt to do anything about it. This will sound a most un-progressive statement, but I'm actually a little sad about the changes to parliamentary protocol which mean that Ministers are no longer described as `Honourable', because I'm one of the few people who think politics is a career worthy of this description.

As I look back on the changes that I have seen in 19 years, I have often had cause for concern about how Parliament and politicians are viewed by the public. The political dramas that are played out in the pages of newspapers, on talkback radio and in the nightly television news highlight the fact that to be a politician these days can often be tantamount to a term of abuse. The importance of civility in public life cannot be overestimated. They say that nostalgia is not what it used to be, but I think that things were somewhat different when I first started here. There seemed to be more time and more mutual respect between members and a broad acknowledgment of differing views. This place has always been robust. For instance, the exchanges between Neville Wran and Leon Punch had to be seen to be believed, but it was different. Politics was less of a profession. More people in politics came from another life, and I cannot say that was a bad thing.

People on the outside contemplating a political career might think about these practices and look at the charges levelled at me in the past week or so and wonder if they should make the effort to enter Parliament. And who could blame them? We are all to blame—politicians, political operators and the media. We make the feeding frenzy what it is. It is the price to pay for reducing modern politics to a cross between a blood sport and an open mike night at the Comedy Store. But the events of the past few days have reminded me that the political process still has the power to redeem, to reveal truths and to deliver justice.

Is This The End of Peter Debnam?

2006-11-17T12:37:00.000+11:00

Peter Debnam's appalling behaviour in NSW Question Time yesterday must be unprecedented. For backbenchers to pursue their own grubby tangents and vendettas is one thing, but for a party leader to abuse parliamentary privilege in such a way is jawdropping - not only for its audacity but its ineptitude. This time last week, the NSW Government were in damage control with an issue that all conceded had the potential to bring down the government. The Opposition not only fumbled this opportunity but have now managed to drag itself into the line of fire instead.

Will this be the end of Peter Debnam?

If his accusations prove false - and Channel 9 has already been reported that they relate to a PIC investigation that was dismissed and closed over three years ago - then it should certainly do. In any case, using parliamentary privilege to draw attention to an accusation rather than a statement of fact should cause Debnam's party to seriously question his ability to be anything more than a shrill attack dog more interested in nipping at the heels of the government than producing alternate policies.

Though the party would be better served by another leader, my fear is not, as Morris Iemma suggested, that Barry O'Farrell would take over - had the party not been so riven by infighting, O'Farrell would already be Opposition and, I am reluctant to admit, would probably be doing a very good job - but that this may allow the far right to leverage one of their own puppets into the leadership.

Whatever occurs, Debnam should follow the example of Bill Heffernan, who moved to the back bench once his ridiculous scuttlebutt about Justice Michael Kirby, also made under parliamentary privilege, was proven incorrect. Neither the Liberal Party nor the greater public are well served by someone who cannot understand the responsibilities of his position, or put aside his party-political zeal to realise the seriousness of making an unfounded accusation against any public figure.

Is it Bipartisanship?

2006-11-12T11:38:00.000+11:00

Last night, I had a dream I was being given a lift in a large black Comcar. Various people got in and out of the car until finally, it was just me in the back seat and, in the front seat, two people: John Howard and Kim Beazley.

The funny thing was (if this wasn't funny enough), they were cracking jokes, having deep conversations, and just generally getting along famously. It was like two teams who get together after the big match and shout each other drinks afterwards - or even the actors who play bitter enemies but are sworn friends in real life.

The question is: what did it mean? Was this a dream about the spirit of bipartisanship, perhaps inspired by the current developments in the US? Did it merely mean that I spend too much time following Federal politics?

Oh, and not to omit one crucial point that only just occurred to me. Who was in the drivers' seat? It was Kim Beazley, with Howard in the passenger seat. However, I gained the sense that neither of them were actually driving ...

I welcome your interpretations.

(I think it's quite appropriate that this question is the first to be posted since I finally transferred my blog to Beta, which (I think) has finally repaired the problem with posting comments. Thanks to those who did get in touch, apologies to those to whom I said `Tsk bah bgosh, they're working fine, I tells you!', and let me know if you have any more difficulties. Cheers.)

Costello, Costs and Carbon

2006-11-12T10:35:00.000+11:00

Today's Insiders interview with Peter Costello is a must-read for several reasons.

Firstly, I've rarely seen such a case of ruddocking. As we all know, to`Ruddock' is to smoothly refuse, in any way shape or form, to answer or engage in a question asked. As in `Peter Costello was asked at least three times whether interest rates are currently low in either real or comparitive terms, and he ruddocked for all he was worth until Barrie Cassidy gave up and moved on to the next question (which he also ruddocked)'. Whereas senior Howard Government ministers have always been more than happy about the great job they're doing, Costello didn't want to touch interest rates with a barge pole. Howard has also been caught off message on the same topic recently. Given that the Howard Government has, in the past, maintained a policy of instantly and confidently transforming any argument for or against policy to an economic one, this is quite a development. It would also suggest that Labor's strategy of finally tackling economic issues head on, and highlighting related issues such as affordable housing, is proving effective.

Secondly, Costello provided a pretty firm commitment to follow the lead of NSW and Victoria and begin a Federalised carbon trading scheme, something that the government had dismissed with equal firmness only a matter of days ago. It's a measure of how quickly the issue of climate change has entered mainstream political thought. Ian Macfarlane's comments dismissing Al Gore's `An Inconvenient Truth' as mere sensationalist entertainment were pretty silly then; now, they would be a downright political liability. Did Gore's movie make the change, or was it simply an idea whose time has finally come? Whatever the case, it's also interesting to note that committing to battling climate change almost innately involves setting aside economic reasoning. Dirty coal is undoubtedly cheaper than clean energy, but for the first time in a decade, the economic case can simply not be used to demolish all other cases. It's battle or bust, no matter the cost.

Though Costello's timeline for such an introduction was a hopelessly lax `up to 50 years', in keeping with the `Yeah, yeah so global warming exists but it's not that bad and anyway just shut up about it OK' line that conservative sources who previously rubbished the concept have been plying (most notably Miranda Devine this week in a quite ludicrous article that admitted the reality of climate change but absolved it of any actual impact on the envrionment such as droughts and water shortages), but the commitment is real, and it's something that those who have campaigned on the issue can hold up and demand action on. As such, I don't imagine Howard will be happy about Costello making such a statement, but let's hope Costello holds him to the commitment rather than obliging him to ruddock his way out again.

A Week of Bombshells

2006-11-09T13:37:00.000+11:00

It's rare that the usual hyperbole employed by the media should actually meet the scale of whatever they're describing, but the past few days have yielded quite a few examples where that has been the case.

Like everyone, I was stunned to hear the allegations pending against former Aboriginal Affairs Minister Milton Orkopoulos. Such allegations are all the more shocking when they are made against a person whose job is to represent the community. When I first heard that Morris Iemma was to hold a press conference I - and I'm sure many others - assumed it may be to depose Kerry Hickey, the Minister for Local Government, who has been involved in some controversies of his own recently. Instead, Iemma dropped - yes - a bombshell.

Some have expressed legitimate concerns that Orkopoulos was sacked both from the Ministry and the Labor party on the basis of allegations, not proven facts. Herein lies a very tricky situation. Refusing to sack Orkopoulos - especially if the allegations were later proven true - would have been political suicide, leaving the more morally dubious choice of a sacking as, I imagine, the only realistic option. On the other hand, I should think Orkopoulos would have stepped aside voluntarily while such serious charges were being heard. In any case, it will be difficult to assess the wider impact of the situation, and further discussion should probably be left until a time when the true facts can be ascertained.

Now to a considerably brighter note. Last night I attended an event held by Democrats Abroad and watched, along with a very excited group of expatriate Americans, as George Bush's political dominance was conclusively crushed. Having lived in America at the time when support for Bush was at an all time high; when to say a word against him was to literally be accused of treason, this is a stunning turnaround. Yes, media hyperbole again; but again, I think it's justified. What with the long-overdue resignation of Donald Rumsfeld and his replacement by former CIA director Bob Gates - a known opponent of any military action against Iran - it feels like the world is emerging from a long, painful headache. Bush will not be looking forward to the remainder of his term, presiding over both a House and Senate hostile to his agenda.

Does the US bombshell have the power to topple a President or his party? Absolutely, so long as the Democrats pick a good candidate. And the NSW one? As I said, it's impossible to tell at this point, but the government would certainly be hoping for a quiet Christmas.

An Inconvenient Coincidence

2006-11-04T21:03:00.000+11:00

The Howard Government pre-empts the release of the Switkowski Report on the viability of an Australian nuclear power industry by informing us - let's repeat, three weeks before the report's intended release - that it will find that such an idea is just beaut, mate.

Meanwhile, an estimated 12,000 people, in Sydney alone, march as part of an international day of action on climate change.

Coincidence? Surely the goverment wouldn't exploit growing public concern about a very real problem to not only cover their backflip but push their own agenda?

Never.

The History Wars and the Future Wars

2006-11-04T10:38:00.000+11:00

Looking back on it, it's hard to think of a time in which the use of historical analogy as a mode of political attack has been so used and abused. Labor's financial management will be poor because they were in government during the recession of the 1990s. Menzies was a poor wartime leader. Curtin was a poor wartime leader. Iraq is the new Vietnam - and so on. This is the basis of the so-called `history wars' - an attempt to rewrite history through the lense of ideology.

Reinterpreting history for political reasons isn't new. Most popular perceptions of England's medieval monarchs, for example, are derived from Shakespeare, who was obliged to portray those belonging to the bloodline of the current monarch as noble, and those of other bloodlines as bloodthirsty or idiotic. Both Queen Elizabeth I and Shakespeare realised the power of historical analogy during the Essex Rebellion of 1601, in which a group of conspirators who planned to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I paid Shakespeare's company to perform Richard II, a play in which the monarch is assassinated, to create public support for their intended crime.

I recently read a paper by political scientist Richard Patrick Houghton, who theorised that historical analogy is particularly common at times of crisis and uncertainty, a state every Western government now puts a lot of energy into assurring us we're in. We rely on analogy as a way of comprehending an uncertain world through past patterns and outcomes. The history is seen as concrete; the future is obviously not, and historical analogy is one way in which we attempt to exercise some power and direction over the unknown.

This principle is what makes the `History Wars' so pernicious, and so different to mere historical analogy - the active abuse of history to control the present and future. History is never concrete. All history is subject to interpretation. Instead, there appears to be an unprecedented and concerted attempt to entrench a `definitive' version of history which justifies current policies or even allows another side to `win' in retrospect. This goes beyond such things as accusations of a `black armband' view of history and into the airbrushing out of anyone who ever wore a black armband, so to speak. Modern history is dotted, perhaps for the first time, not with reinterpretations of history, but outright denials. The Holocaust did not occur, and nor did the Stolen Generations - not because facts suggest it, but because the ideology of the interpreter does. We must never see an Australia in which one history is `wrong' and another is `right' - and furthermore, such a method of intepretation does not belong in politics. Alexander Downer's disgraceful demolition of John Curtin earlier this year was an unprecedented attempt not only to incorporate ideological interpretation into the canon of history, but to wield this interpretation as a political tool. I know us pollie-watchers are fond of making comparisons to Orwell's `1984', but I'll do a bit of analogising myself in noting that its plot revolved around a man whose job was to continually alter recorded history to reflect the principles of the current government.

Tony Stephens describes the effects more eloquently than I in his review of the landmark book `The History Wars'. The Sydney Morning Herald also has an archive of articles on the topic which is terrific and thought provoking reading; not the least the article in which John Howard (in 2003) declares the History Wars `over' and his intepretation now accepted reality.

Star Candidates

2006-11-02T21:29:00.000+11:00

Only days after NSW Attorney General Bob Debus's announcement of his departure from State politics, possibly to contest the Federal seat of Macquarie, comes the news that his successor is likely to be Phil Koperberg, the high-profile Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service.

I should imagine that Koperberg commands a lot of respect in the Blue Mountains, given that it's an area which has seen its fair share of bushfires. Coincidentally, Debus named as one of his key achievements the modernisation of the Rural Fire Service through the Rural Fires Act 1997, an act which largely shaped Koperberg's position as overseer of bushfire emergency management.

It's interesting to compare the positions of the two men, both of whom might be described as `star' candidates - not celebrities as such, but justly respected people with a high profile and a demonstrated track record.

While the nomination of both men ) could be seen as part of a growing trend of encouraging high-profile people into politics, such as Pru Goward, Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull - I think there's a little more to it. I should emphasise that though Koperberg only recently joined the ALP, he is, as Debus is, certainly a genuine local in their chosen electorates, and it has been reported that a rank-and-file preselection will take place for the Blue Mountains seat, though Koperberg is thought to have the numbers.

Tony Blair once claimed that Australia's Federal system hampers the chances of the ALP in that too many talented politicians play out their careers in the State rather than Federal arena. At the time I thought it was all a bit silly, but thinking over it, and comparing Koperberg and Debus as candidates, I think Blair's assessment is not entirely correct, but has a grain of truth. Surprisingly few State politicians have made the transition from state to Federal politics - former NSW Transport Minister Bruce Baird and Labor's Shadow Immigration Minister Tony Burke are two that spring to mind.

Yet, to think about it, there is some sense in encouraging more politicians to make the shift. It could be argued that Federal cabinets and Shadow cabinets could highly benefit from MPs who have already learnt the trade, so to speak, and proven themselves effective in another jurisdiction. Looking at it in terms of career progression, it would seem quite logical for a local member, already knowing the concerns of their constituents, to move to representing whatever concerns may be addressed at a Federal level that were out of their hands at a State level - much the same already occurs in the case of the numerous members of local government who move to State politics. It may even make a certain amount of sense to introduce universal electoral boundaries for both levels of government (an idea recently floated by NSW Democrats MLC Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, as part of an otherwise harebrained Private Members Bill) - although it's hard to say whether this would reduce or increase the confusion between the two levels of government that so many people already experience. Nevertheless, formalising such an idea would reduce the current appetite for `parachute' candidates, which I think most would agree would be a good thing, and may be a better way of forming consistent, high-quality cabinets.

The disadvantage, of course, would be the possibility that State governments would be drained of talent. This is certainly a consideration; yet another way of looking at it is that such an approach would provide the much-mooted `renewal' that parties are always telling us we need. Federal politics certainly wouldn't be a career for everyone, and, of course, local members do not change often. Yet surely it's sensible strategy to provide a candidate for a crucial seat such as Macquarie who is both an excellent candidate and a local. This may be a good way for Labor to win such crucial seats and properly represent local people at the same time in the future.

Developer Donations: On The Way Out

2006-11-02T12:49:00.000+11:00

My goodness - this could be the start of something big: a ban on political donations by developers.

The idea of banning or at least restricting donations from developers was floating around earlier this year, but was seen as such an ambitious idea (and, by its opponents, as such a crackpot leftie scheme) that a formal motion was never even attempted at State Conference. Now, it seems, this is an idea whose time has come.

Banning donations from developers would be something I would love to see. Firstly, I hate developers. I hate them. I hate the way they reframe our built heritage as `exhausted housing stock'. And especially, I hate the way they influence policy. I recently had the misfortune to study the methods they used to knock down Michael Egan's attempts to improve housing affordability, and the rank opportunism just made me ill.

Secondly, I hate the notion, constantly reiterated by the Greens (sometimes to the point of borderline insanity) that the ALP is `the developer's friend'. It was under the ALP that such treasures as The Rocks were saved, by icons of heritage activism as Tom Uren, during as art critic Robert Hughes once put it, `a time when no old building was in principle safe from destruction by the business interests that kept him [Liberal Premier Bob Askin] in office - and if you tore down enough of them, and put a respectable handful of the results into Liberal Party funds, you got a knighthood as well'. The fact that the idea has gained some traction is a great shame for trailblazers such as Uren, and NSW MLC Meredith Burgmann, who fought alongside Juanita Nielsen to save historic areas of Kings Cross (as Nielsen found out, fighting developers can be a dangerous game).

Banning developer donations would be an especially smart move in seats where the ALP and the Greens run first/second, many of which are regarded as critical to win the next State election. Though it has been argued that outlawing developer donations would be setting a precedence of discrimination, there are few lobbies wealthier and more insistent than this one. As this article here suggests, the state of our built environment has a greater effect on our wellbeing than we may suspect. Why shouldn't a government grab back the agenda via consumer activism in the same way individuals have held large companies like Nike and McDonalds to account by consumer boycotts and activism? Bring it on, I say.

The ABC and the Glass House: Shooting the Clown

2006-11-02T01:20:00.000+11:00

I was quite shellshocked when I read today of ABC's abrupt, unexplained decision to axe its comedy/current affairs show The Glass House. It was a nasty sensation. Here it is, the new ABC. It's really going to happen.

Now, let's get one thing straight. I do enjoy watching The Glass House. I don't think it's brilliant TV, but it is always been one thing: frank and fearless. The show's humour has always cut close to the bone, it's often been shamelessly political, but there's one thing it has never been: shamelessly (or even shamefully) partisan. If John Howard's been a dill this week, John Howard cops it. If Kim Beazley's said something daffy, it's him who gets sent up. Certainly, host Wil Anderson is obviously no fan of Howard's, but again, to construe the show as anything more than satire is pure lunacy. Dare I suggest that criticising the long tradition of taking the piss out of our public figures is itself `un-Australian'?

It has also been suggested that the show's bias was perceived to be in the fact that its co-host, Corinne Grant, had hosted some events for the ACTU's Your Rights At Work campaign. Well, bugger me. This really does set a precedent. By my reckoning, we'll also be hearing the last of Silverchair after they dared to write `PG [Peter Garrett] for PM' onstage at the Aria Awards. Likewise, Patricia `Little Patti' Amphlett must not be seen to sing a note via ABC airwaves, as she sang the `It's Time' theme from Gough Whitlam's election campaign. And the spurious relationship between Big Ted and Little Ted on `Play School'? Well, we already know that Piers Akerman's on to that particular piece of propaganda.

One thing's for sure. The Chaser will never, ever be seen again.

Please bear with me for a diversion into polemic. Quite seriously, it's often the comedy in society that tells us much more about the true state of political affairs than the journalism. The notion of the fool being the only one who could criticise the king has always held true. A recent SBS documentary demonstrated, with great insight, the way stand-up comedy and humour were used by citizens living under totalitarian regimes; how renegade comedians could, quite literally, contribute to such events as the tearing down of the Berlin War. I remember, while living in New York in the months following September 11th - that the only people telling the truth about what some people felt was the cartoonists, people like Tom Tomorrow.

Is the website set up by the noxious Liberal Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, which allows punters to report shocking incidents of left-wing bias on the ABC at the touch of a button a quasi-Dorothy Dixer? It seems suspicious that the website was set up at exactly the same time as the announcement of the ABC's recent editorial changes (I add that, when I attempted to log on to the ABC's website to make a complaint about the show's axing, it was `unavailable due to emergency maintenance'. The cynic in me calls shenanigans but, unlike the shrill Right, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt). Even the fact that John Howard has been forced to publicly deny playing any part in the decision is incredibly ominous. Since when have we even had to consider the question worth asking?

This would be an appropriate time to farewell the ABC's Media Watch for the year and, who knows? Maybe forever ...

Peter Debnam's Axis of Evil

2006-10-29T11:37:00.000+11:00

Following the deposal of Police Minister Carl Scully, the Opposition has announced a strategy designed to depose a further three ministers - Joe Tripodi, Frank Sartor and Michael Costa.

And, I can reveal (perhaps exclusively), that telephone push-polling has been taking place in sensitive State seats, asking residents whether they would vote for a government who endorsed the above three Ministers.

You've got to love push-polling.

To look at it objectively, it's not a bad strategy. It is possible that Joe Tripodi may be felled by his latest imbroglio - but this would have nothing to do with the Opposition. Nevertheless, they'd hardly miss the opportunity of crowing over earning a `second scalp'. As to the others - it would be extremely unlikely. I admit to initially being extremely sceptical about the appointment of Costa as Treasurer, but I have to admit that he appears genuinely across the issues and to be doing a decent job. Meanwhile, Sartor has just been jostled back into his seat of Rockdale to avoid preselection. I'm certainly not implying that the above three Ministers are the most popular fellows in the government (when Coalition MP Andrew Fraser took a swing at Tripodi in the parliamentary chamber, it's said that a few on his own side couldn't help but quietly cheer him on - including former friend Carl Scully), but it's terribly ambitious to even suggest you might claim the head of the Treasurer.

Given the push polling, I would interpret the policy as exactly that - an attempt to highlight particular Ministers rather than make a serious attempt to bring them down.

Holding the Media Accountable

2006-10-27T10:54:00.000+10:00

As the fallout from the Hazzard report on the Cronulla Riots continues, I note that the talkback caller I quoted and agreed with last week proved to be more or less correct. This caller suggested the report was being held back out of fear of media reprisals more than anything else. As today's Sydney Morning Herald reports:

Mr Hazzard's briefing note states Mr Scully was concerned "that the media would respond adversely to any perceived criticism of them in the report".

But Mr Hazzard said he had urged Mr Scully and Mr Moroney not to worry about this and let him take the heat for the part of the report dealing with comments before the riots by the 2GB hosts Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and Jason Morrison.

This was pretty canny advice on Hazzard's part. Shock jocks love to bash a pollie, but they can hardly find them responsible for findings about them that were made in an independent report. Nevertheless, it does show the extreme anxiety on the part of the Government and police about reprisals from a mere handful of powerful individuals.

I'd be interested to know the comments to which the reports refer, because, having suffered through a lot of Jones, Hadley and Morrison in a past life, I know that this certainly wouldn't be the first time they've made incendiary comments, but it may be the first time they've been picked up on it.

Apart from anything, it's surprisingly difficult to make a complaint about radio and television content. It's pretty easy to complain about the content of an advertisement, through the Advertising Standards Bureau, but content is another matter.

At the very least, the Australian Communications and Media Association (ACMA) has finally got a proper website, after the whole department was more or less shut for over a year after the departure of the Dr David `Dear Alan' Flint (during which the details of the second Cash for Comments affair sat gathering dust in a drawer somewhere) - a case whose results alone show us that, quite honestly, there's really no such thing as accountability in the Australian media.

Basically, the ACMA acts as an arbitrator on disputes between listeners or viewers and broadcasters, rather than a regulator. You must first complain to the station (I'm sure 2GB would throw the book at Jonesy if he came up with a clanger or two about Muslims) and only refer the issue to them if you are dissatisfied with the station's response. Issues of journalistic ethics are, quite absurdly, referred to the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance, whose Code of Ethics, though of course recommended for all journalists, is entirely voluntary unless you are a member.

ACMA also suggests that complaints be made as soon after the broadcast as possible - not because this is a sensible thing to do, but `because the broadcaster may no longer have a tape of it otherwise'. This is patently absurd. Media monitoring companies retain archives of virtually everything broadcast on mainstream Australian radio, twenty four hours a day, going back years. The ACMA must surely know this.

Say you finally do get a complaint heard by ACMA. For an unknown reason, you are required to not only provide your name and address to the broadcaster, but agree to its publication on ACMA's website. I cannot think of any other regulatory body who requires this sort of invasion of privacy. Certainly, it is fair to separate out vexatious or frivolous complaints, or to identify conflicts of interest, but this is a job for the body itself, not the broadcaster. I would certainly think twice before complaining if I suspected my name and address would be publicly released, and I imagine plenty of other people would, too.

I am certainly not arguing for increased censorship - only accountability. The media can deeply effect how people act, how they think, and the opinions they hold. How is it that an official police report can find members of the media culpable for a major civil disturbance, yet the mechanisms for identifying their culpability and punishing them are so pathetically deficient? Naturally, free speech should be our guiding principle - but that certainly hasn't helped Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly escape his atrocious comments. The same rules should apply to everyone. All broadcasters must take responsibility for the things they say. Current regulation allows them to evade this responsibility.

I daresay that, should the broadcaster have come from the ABC, they would have had the book thrown at them. Ironically, the whole thing would have ended up on Media Watch, perhaps the last arbiter media accountability left.

Carl Scully Quits

2006-10-25T21:23:00.000+10:00

No sooner had I stepped out of tonight's Fabian Society forum and into a delightfully windy evening, than a friend turned to me to say that she had just found out that Carl Scully had resigned. At this point, I didn't know whether it was as Police Minister or from politics (at the moment it appears only to be the former).

What a turn of events, I thought, still rather shocked as I walked home, desperate for my laptop (my kingdom for a BlackBerry!) So many implications, so many potential repercussions. For years, he cultivated the backbench in order to gain credence as a potential leader, only to be knifed by his former friends in the poisonous Right. He's still regarded as one of the most effective performers on the floor at Parliament. Nevertheless, he will certainly not hold another ministry, and you couldn't blame him for retiring at the next election, though he holds his seat with a very comfortable 25% margin.

Transport Minister John Watkins will assume Scully's former portfolio, while the rapidly rising David Campbell - only made a Minister in the 2003 cabinet reshuffle - has taken up his prestigious position as Leader of the House. Eric Roozendaal also gets a leg up as Assistant Minister for Transport (I once said they'd create a position out of thin air if it were to hoist Roozendaal further up the slippery pole, and I've been proven right). Watkins has held the police ministry before, and it will be interesting to see whether he dismantles some of the more extreme policy positions Scully advocated for in his time in the portfolio, something which, it is said, made him fairly popular with the police themselves.

Were Scully's error worthy of resignation? Certainly, he acted foolishly and eventually dug himself ever deeper as obfuscation became mistruth but, as I said before, I really don't get the sense that the Cronulla Riot report was being withheld for political reasons. I may be in the minority there, but I truly believe that the events leading up to this were overplayed by an overheated media and a sweaty-browed Opposition. I can't help thinking that other Ministers have done worse with less reprimand.

Nevertheless, Scully is gone - either by mutual agreement or the decree of Morris Iemma, both risky things politically.

Why was this risk taken? Well, there's one obvious point - Laura Norder is always the queen of the ball at election time. No government can afford to appear to be indifferent to it. Perhaps Scully's deposal will be seen as an affirmation of Ms Norder. The crisis may have been used to delicately slide aside a Minister who had been falling out of favour, politically speaking, for some time and pledge a new era of law enforcement, much the same as Iemma himself proclaimed the start of a new government rather than the continuation of an old one when he began his term as Premier.

However, it is inevitable that the public will see Scully's resignation from another, and far more potentially damaging, point of view: as the first real hit laid on the Iemma Government by an Opposition so weak it would be a travesty if it came to govern. Perception is all in politics, and if a public perception grows that the Opposition are mighty enough to depose a senior Minister - something that occurs increasingly rarely in Australian parliaments - it could be a serious problem for the Government. Evidently, they have not assessed it as large enough a risk to convince Scully to stay on, but it sets a dangerous precedent. The best way to be in a winning position is to look like you are. I still maintain that it would be nearly impossible for the Opposition to win, but I certainly don't want them coming a close second.

The Future of Maxine McKew

2006-10-24T19:04:00.001+10:00

Today's announcement that veteran ABC reporter Maxine McKew will not be renewing her contract next year came as quite a surprise. There's certainly been no obvious sign that she has become disinterested in her work, other than a reduction in her activities. If her decision was made based on the recent changes at the ABC - and I hasten to add that she has made absolutely no public suggestion that this was the case - it would be a terrible shame.

However, McKew has made all mentions of her future pretty hazy, though she obviously has plenty of productive years ahead of her in some field or another. Without further ado, let me be the first to suggest that McKew may have a very particular new career in mind.

Mark Latham was the first to put on record the fact that McKew had been approached by the ALP to stand for a Federal seat, but a deal could not be reached. McKew is of course married to former ALP National Organiser Bob Hogg, so has sometimes been seen in a non-professional capacity at ALP events. The next election will be held in about a years' time, making it the ideal period to scope out new candidates.

I'll certainly miss McKew's calm, commonsense reportage, but should my prediction be true, I think she'd be a brilliant, thoughtful and whip smart MP. If nothing else, it could certainly make for some interesting interviews at her former workplace ...

Stott-Despoja to Quit

2006-10-22T15:02:00.000+10:00

Democrats senator Natasha Stott-Despoja has announced she will not recontest the next election in order to spend more time with her family.

Stott-Despoja became one of Australia's most high profile politicians after entering Parliament at the young age of 26 - notoriously, shod in Doc Martens. She became the benchmark to which other young women entering parliament, such as Tanya Plibersek and Kate Ellis were subsequently compared. She was deputy leader of the party for several years, and briefly the leader, following Meg Lees' resignation, but was herself forced to resign after losing the confidence of the party, the start of a long period of shambolic leadership which continues to this day. It's fair to say that elevating Stott-Despoja to leader based on her high profile has universally been regarded as not only a mistake, but perhaps a fatal one. Nevertheless, she always seemed like an interested and passionate legislator to me, so her resignation is a shame. It was great to see someone demonstrate that a parliamentary career is an option for a young, socially aware woman.

All of that aside, this surely is the end for the Democrats, especially in their spiritual home of South Australia. It's unlikely that they will win back all four Federal Senate seats they currently hold; in fact, depending on the dynamics of other third-force parties, they may not win any. Senator Andrew Bartlett would be a particularly unfortunate loss to the Parliament. Their prospects don't look much better in the only two states in which they still hold seats, with both sitting members, the long-serving NSW MLC Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and the outspoken SA MLC Sandra Kanck, announcing their plans to retire before the next election.

This is the sad lot of a party formed to `keep the bastards honest' but who, fatally, didn't manage to hold Meg Lees to that credo.

Vote 1 Ron Kind

2006-10-21T23:49:00.000+10:00

As this year whooshes to a close, NSW residents are facing a rare conjunction in the new year - both a State and Federal election in one year.

Spare a thought for our American cousins (never forget that statistically, for every bible-thumping, Fox News-watching, flag-hoisting, Iraq-bombing Good Ol' Boy, there's slightly more than one other person who didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000), for two main reasons:

1) They cop two elections in every electoral cycle (technically, three) - one for the President, and another, every even-numbered year, for the rest of government.

2) They must endure TV advertising campaigns that make the Liberal Party's screed against Labor's economic policies look like a simple schoolyard stoush. Such as This. And This. And, not to forget - This.

It'd be quite funny if ... well, actually, it's just quite funny.

The Exit Strategy Begins

2006-10-20T10:00:00.000+10:00

I've never seen Alexander Downer look as steamed up as he did during Question Time this week as the Opposition relentlessly pursued him over the ever-worsening situation in Iraq. All the usual excuses were used - freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrant, cutting and running would let the terrorists win, and so forth - but it looks like the excuses may finally be running out. Yesterday, George W. Bush did not deny comparisons between the situation in Iraq and the notorious Tet Offensive.

The feeling is groiwng that a `new approach' is required in Iraq. Whether this is prompted by the upcoming US mid-term elections or the fact that 73 American soldiers have already died in Iraq this month alone is hard to say, but the main thing is that a break in the stalemate seems imminent. Any Australian reaction will inevitably follow the American, and there is evidence that this has already begun, and figures such as Downer are beginning to look increasingly like General Westmoreland, the US army general who told reporters covering the bombing of the US Embassy in Saigon - while in fact standing in the rubble of the embassy - that there was `no evidence' that the enemy had managed to breach the building. In another example of the power of journalism, Lyndon Johnson is reputed to have finally decided to withdraw troops following a negative editorial by Walter Cronkite.

It's hard to say whether there will be a definitive moment that inspires the Coalition of the Willing to change tack entirely, or even a piece of symbolism that crystalises public dissent, as did the famous photo of the execution of prisoner Nguyen Van Lem during the Vietnam War. Sadly, public dissent has never seemed a factor in the decision to go to war with Iraq, as any of the estimated eight million people who attended peace rallies across the world in 2003 will remember. John Howard spoke a rare true word when he admitted his decision to send Australian troops was the least poll-driven move he had ever made. It is only when political will changes that the situation will change.

In any case, it is very worthwhile to read Cronkite's statements in the context of the current situation.

The Other Riots

2006-10-20T09:19:00.000+10:00

It's been quite a week in State Parliament. On Tuesday, we saw the extraordinary - I imagine, unprecedented - scenes of disendorsed Liberal MP Steve Pringle actually ripping up his party ticket in the Parliamentary chamber and, much as Patricia Forsythe before him, making serious allegations about the complete collapse of internal party democracy and pointing the finger squarely at one nasty piece of work named David Clarke. Hilariously, John Howard has dismissed the rorts as `a colloquial branch stack' (whatever that means, and however it makes it better than a flat out branch stack), while a pretty shattered Peter Debnam described Pringle's move as `designed to embarrass me and embarrass the Liberal Party'. Well, hell yeah! So it should! It has taken only a year for such allegations to become explosive to routine, and for them to move from the 7.30 Report to the parliamentary chamber. The more the NSW Liberal Party attempt to sweep this under the floor, the more unelectable they'll become, and that's saying something.

Meanwhile, NSW Police Minister Carl Scully is under fire for not releasing a police report on the Cronulla Riots. While I can't help but see this as a bit of a storm in a teacup - several quite legitimate reasons have been named for the holdup, such as the protection of witnesses - things don't look brilliant for Scully, with Morris Iemma refusing to rule out sacking him.

One caller to ABC 702 this morning brought up an interesting theory. He suggested the report had been suppressed because it is so critical of the media - specifically talkback radio - something no government can afford as an election approaches.

I think this is a pretty interesting theory, and it does demonstrate the way strong media is, as I've said before, integral to strong democracy. The whole ugly affair is a perfect demonstration of the impact of a weak (that is, unethical) media. Firstly, the report found that the reports of a Middle Eastern youth `assaulting' a surf lifesaver, outrage over which sparked the riots, was universally misreported, and was nothing more than a small and apparently non-racially balanced fracas. Secondly, it found that several talkback radio hosts directly stoked the fire and precipated the riots (I'm unaware whether they named Alan Jones and Ray Hadley, but I just did).

The media were extraordinarily unsympathetic to Morris Iemma early in his term, but the tide seems to have changed in recent months. I imagine the government has no desire to give the Alan Joneses of the media reasons to get angry about them.

Speaking of Alan Jones, the day is almost upon us: exclusive extracts from Chris Masters' `Jonestown' will be published in tomorrows Sydney Morning Herald, and plenty of people aren't looking forward to it, much less Jones himself. In announcing the extracts several weeks ago, David Marr made the brave and typically Marrish step of naming Jones as `a gay man'. Now, it's very silly that this is a move that should be branded `brave', but it goes to show exactly how much psychological power Jones exercises. Will `Jonestown' break that power? Will we hear Alan Jones coming out to his 2GB listenership on Monday morning? Probably not, but wouldn't it be amazing ...

Gutting the ABC

2006-10-16T22:42:00.000+10:00

If changes to the ABC are approved by arch ABC enemy Gerard Henderson, you know they're a worry.

New ABC Director General Mark Scott has announced wide ranging policy changes, including the establishment of a new internal position of a `director of editorial policies'. That sounds dangerously like `director of keeping the lid on controversies that may make the Government look silly'. Such controversies include the Vivian Solon affair, almost entirely prosecuted by the ABC's Lateline, and the revelations of underhanded dealings between Alan Jones and Telstra by Media Watch - a show which, incidentally, was singled out by Scott as worthy of a `revamp'. Perhaps the sort of `revamp' Tony Abbott threatened to impose upon the aforementioned Lateline during the last Federal Election after Tony Jones' interview with him about whether he had attempted to influence Catholic Archbishop George Pell to oppose Labor's education policy.

The fact that journalists are being put in such an ignominious position is not a demonstration of an anti government bias - it's a demonstration that the ABC is now the only Australian network that doesn't shy away from testing the sitting government rather than passing off fat-busting, neighbours-arguing, cure-for-back-pain guff as current affairs. Governments - both Liberal and Labor - have always feared the ABC for this reason. It's for this reason that the ABC is one of the dwindling list of news sources I actually trust.

The government's own enquiries have failed to uncover the sort of bias the government would like to find in order to prove their eminently silly assertion that the ABC is a Marxist lobby group in disguise (extending to Piers Akerman embarrassing himself with his quite hilarious - and, as was subsequently proven, entirely inaccurate - claims that even the kiddies are being indoctrinated via Play School). Constant and permanent monitoring of the ABC for bias is an idea that has been raised before, and, knowing a little bit about the media monitoring industry, I know that this would cost an absolute fortune.

Media and democracy are so tightly enmeshed today that weakening the integrity of one is weakening the integrity of the other. Both of these qualities are under serious attack.

SBS and Advertising - Sneaky Bastards Selling

2006-10-14T21:03:00.000+10:00

Swinging back over to the media side of things for a bit, how sneakily did SBS introduce in-broadcast advertising breaks? This move, though announced with little fanfare a few months ago, was introduced last Monday. It received absolutely no mainstream media coverage that I can uncover, even despite representing a fundamental shift - some would say a deliberate misinterpretation - of the broadcaster's charter, which deems that advertisement be permitted only in `natural breaks' in the programme.

As former SBS staffer Emma Dawson suggests at New Matilda the move is potentially deleterious to SBS's status as main media provider to non-English speakers. Several news broadcasts catering for nationalities with small representations in Australia have already been cut, despite the notion of catering to small constituencies being the raison d'etre not only of the station since its inception, but of public broadcasting in general. It could even be argued that if SBS is receiving low ratings, it's fulfilling its charter. Concerns have grown in the past few years about SBS's continuing drift from its charter, with film critics Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton the highest profile defectors from the network. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the concept of multiculturalism has undergone significant political repositioning since SBS began in 1980.

The particularly silly thing is that research commisioned by SBS itself has revealed that the move is overwhelmingly unpopular. Free-to-air TV is already facing a crisis of relevance now that the sort of shows that once formed their bread and butter are now available (ad free) on DVD soon after - or even before - broadcast. If I wanted to sit through endless advertisements, I'd have subscribed to cable. Likewise, I wonder where the `natural breaks' will be found within SBS's well-regarded roster of world movies.

Errol Simper of The Australian suggests viewers vote with their remotes, but as one of the numerous whingers who let Channel 7 know of my displeasure at their introduction of the now-ubiquitous corner water mark station identifier, I can tell you that this doesn't work. They simply outsmarted me by making their entire prime-time lineup completely unwatchable.

Naturally, the next question will be how long the ABC will hold out before joining the bandwagon.

A Pause In Transmission

2006-10-12T19:18:00.000+10:00

I have no excuse for the fact that I haven't been posting regularly than that I haven't felt inclined, even despite the passage of the final coffin nail - new media ownership laws - only today (thanks yet again to Backdown Barnaby). Perhaps it's the fact that I'm head down in the last stretch of my Masters, or perhaps it's that sometimes things seem so hopeless that it's useless to simply note that they're occurring. `Pompeii, midday. Couple of ashes, funny smell, whatever. Pompeii, Two o'clock - just saw some guy on fire. Meh.' And so forth.

In any case, I apologise and invite you to check out the quality links over there on the right hand side of this page in the meantime.

Attack of the Ideologues

2006-10-06T19:08:00.000+10:00

I have to admit that my jaw dropped when I heard of Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop's plans to take over the setting of state school curricula. That's before I heard reports that the original version of a speech she delivered yesterday claimed state-based education had been taken over by `left wing ideologues' whose policies come `straight from Chairman Mao'.

I mean, please.

As so often, what the Right get away with bald faced would be condemned from every corner had such extremism come from the mouths of the Left. Can you honestly imagine a Labor Education Minister proclaiming that Aussie children would henceforth be singing from the choirbook of Sydney and Beatrice Webb? Hardly. The arrogance is quite astounding.

What's even phonier is the debate over Australian education. Both Bishop and John Howard have claimed that national standardisation is an imperative because Australian education standards are so low. This is, quite simply, rubbish. All major indicators show Australia as one of the top countries in the world for literacy and numeracy. The OECD's most recent PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) report lists Australia as amongst the top five in the world for literacy, numeracy and science skills. Australia comes second only to Finland in literacy levels. This has been achieved despite the fact that the amount of money spent on public education has been falling steadily since 1995, while the amount of public money spent on private education is comparatively high on an international scale.

I won't even start on the History Wars, covered at length elsewhere. History is notoriously mutable; it is pulled in the direction of whoever interprets it. But whitewashing events that undoubtedly happened - for example, the Stolen Generations (yes, I've met members of them), even the fact that the establishment of European Australia involved the near-annhilation of the culture and people that preceded it - I'm sorry, but that's the work of ... what's the word? Ah yes. Ideologues.

Ruddock: Sleep Deprivation `Not Torture'

2006-10-01T10:52:00.000+10:00

Philip Ruddock, interviewed on this weekend's Insiders about the new trial plans for Guantanamo Bay detainees, claims that sleep deprivation is not torture, but a legitimate coercive technique.

Well, is it?

Experts on torture tend to disagree. The Geneva Convention itself is hazy on the topic, though it does prohibit `any form of torture or cruelty' to prisoners of war' - something the US has neatly sidestepped by declaring Guantanamo Bay detainees `enemy combatants'. Human Rights Watch have identified the difficulty in defining a `cruel and inhuman' practice as a barrier - and perhaps a deliberate one - to enforcement. Recent legislation passed in the US Senate does nothing to assist this problem.

But let's put all of this aside. Sleep deprivation is considered reasonable by the Ruddocks and Rumsfelds of this world on the basis that it may help extract evidence that will foil major terrorist attacks and save lives. The effects of sleep deprivation can be profound - hallucination, psychosis, hearing voices, and unawareness of time and place.

Sounds like the perfect way to elicit an iron-clad, perfectly accurate, legitimate confession from someone, doesn't it?

Sleep deprivation is not only inhumane, it's a stupid way of gaining evidence. If world leaders don't have sufficient humanity to work out what's torture and what isn't, perhaps the Convention needs to be redrafted to take recent international developments into account.

Sheiking the Multiculturalism Debate

2006-09-29T11:05:00.000+10:00

Yesterday, while flicking through a copy of the Daily Terror, I saw something that made me feel rather sad (yes, sadder than reading Piers Akerman's column).

Amid the record of Grand Finals Fever was a picture of the Muslim cleric Sheik al-Hilaly, perhaps best known for helping to rescue Australian hostage in Iraq, Douglas Wood. The sheik was depicted in full robes, with a Sydney Swans scarf, catching a football. The headline?

`UP THERE HILALY'

(I'll just leave a moment for that to sink in. It's almost up there with the New York Post's headline on the day America started bombing Iraq: KABULSEYE. Or, indeed, the title of this post).

This picture struck me as representative of everything I dislike about the current debate over `integration'. I don't doubt that the Sheik is a mad Swans fan, as he has every right to be. It's just that the picture was grossly emblematic of everything a Daily Telegraph reader wants to see in a Muslim. I find it sad that a leader of a major religion has to do this sort of thing to be regarded as credible and `Australian'.

It strikes me that many of my happiest memories of being Australian involve multicultural experiences. I remember attending a festival of South American culture not long ago, and being delighted at seeing a woman in a sari dancing alongside another in a hijab. Australia has, since European occupation, been a multicultural society by default. This is something I celebrate. I don't want such people to subvert their history and culture into some vague, Anglo-centric notion of `Australianism'. To me, multiculturalism is Australianism.

It's amazing how many people are quite pleased to partake of the fruits of multiculturalism - to grab a kebab or a Thai meal - while demanding an end to the very system of society that has delivered such fruits. I was quite astounded to hear multiculturalism described as a `failed experiment' upon the death of Whitlam minister Al Grasby.

There is no better way of fostering peace between cultures than celebration, or at the very least, acceptance. The current argument for integration is based on the notion that such peacemaking has failed (and the even more dubious notion that forcing young second or third generation immigrants to `choose' between one culture or another won't make them confused about their identity, angry, and resentful). Multiculuralism only fails when not everyone agrees to participate. When we blame one culture or another for not participating, we neglect the fact that the same rule should stand for Anglo-Australians as much as it does any other race or culture.

First Lady vs First Lady

2006-09-28T09:19:00.000+10:00

Yesterday, Margaret Whitlam, wife of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, said what I've been wanting to say for about ten years now.

What's up with Janette Howard ???

Now, we don't have a formalised role for the wives of leaders, as they do in America (a tradition I've always found pretty strange). However, comparing Janette to the previous holder of the `office', Annita Keating, leaves her coming up very short. Mrs Keating visibly used her public profile to advance causes. Controversially, I think everyone in the spotlight has an obligation to use it for the good of everyone, not just themselves. Yes, news stories rattled off half a dozen charities for which the PM's wife is a patron (not to push the point, but there are some organisations for whom the current Prime Minister's wife becomes the patron as a matter of default. Thus, we have the interesting situation in NSW where the husband of NSW Governor Marie Bashir is the patron of the Country Womens' Association). But has Mrs Howard used her time in `power' to advance causes which - potentially - the most visible and respected woman in Australia could truly make a difference in? Personally, I think not.

In the early 90s I was actually misled enough to think the lessons of feminism had finally been learned. In 2006, there seems more pressure on young women to act and look a certain way - and certainly not speak their minds - than there has been in forty years - in fact, Gough Whitlam's victory was crucial in breaking this miasma, and I was very pleased when he named increasing the number of women who could attend university as the achievement in office of which he was most proud. We don't need high profile women suggesting that the right thing is to walk five steps behind the man. If only there were more feisty ladies like Margaret Whitlam - especially ones who refuse to back down for saying something they firmly believed. I think Margaret herself puts it best in a 1972 diary entry, quoted in yesterday's media: “What am I to do? Stay in a cage — wide open to view, of course — and say nothing? That’s not on, but if I can do some good I’ll certainly try.”

(Of course, if you believe the rumours, Janette's too busy to go outside because she's too busy pulling the strings of the puppet ... but that's just a rumour, of course. However, upon entering Parliament House in Canberra, the only official portrait of the Prime Minister in which the wife not only features, but plays a featured (even dominant) role, is - you guessed it ... )