Bob finally bit the bullet - 2007 becomes even more interesting

So the NSW State Premier Bob Carr has retired huh? Few leaders have done it and he has to be given credit for longevity. But that is all I am willing to give him.

The first time I could vote was in the 1999 State election. I crumpled up my lower house ballot paper and considered to do the same for the table cloth upper house ballot paper. In the end I voted Green. At the time, I was so annoyed at all of the mainstream politicians and was not sure how to vote. I certainly was not a Greens member at the time due to lack of knowledge of the party in NSW.

So I am glad to say I never once voted for Bob Carr and the state ALP.

The 2007 state election will be very interesting. I have my doubts that Carr's replacement will be abled to rebuild the ALP's reputation in NSW. On the other hand, people either don't know who the opposition leader is - which btw is John Brogden for those of you who don't know ;-) - and those who do seem indifferent.

Three upper house seats at the next election for the Greens doesn't sound so much like a pipe-dream anymore.

Moves to replace the Democrats?

The fact is the Australian Democrats are dying - slowly admittedly thanks to half Senate elections. The next election is the final straw for the Dems. They have lost all positive reputation and their finances are stretched so thin that they will most likely will unable to campaign effectively. It is my feeling, as with most people, that the Dems will be a thing of the past.

My feelings for the Dems are mixed - at best they are warm and at worst sometimes openly hostile. If I was old enough to vote in the 1998 election, I would have probably voted for the Dem's Aiden Ridgeway in NSW. Ridgeway was, and still is I suppose, an excellent Indigenous leader (although a disappointment on a number of occassions). Also I did not want the GST to be implemented and, at the time, the Dems leadership were holding strong on their commitment to prevent the implementation of the GST.

I am glad now that I was not old enough to vote for the Dems in 98. As young as I was, I could not see the underlying contradiction of a centrist party like the Dems.

At their height, the Democrats Senators were a motley crew who held separate beliefs on a range of issues - including the underlying core of what the Democrats were about.

Two people exemplify this situation for the Dems: Natasha Stott Despoja and Meg Lees. Sott Despoja held a different vision for the Democrats: one that the Greens have neatly caught for themselves - that is, left wing progressive party. Meg Lees on the other hand and many Democrats beforeher, at least from my point of view, held the view that the Democrats are in parliament to 'keep the bastards honest', hold the balance of power and take the nasty edge off legislation of either party.

The GST debacle, and the subsequent internal leadership battles, flushed out this contradiction. The Democrats cannot hold strong policy stances and play legislative broker in the Senate. Otherwise it will be a lose-lose situation for the Dems - and so it has. Admittedly, this contradiction was only a catalyst for worse political blunders.

On some political chat rooms I have seen posts saying that now the Dems are on their last breaths, there is now room for a centrist "we'll fight for democracy" political party. This is backed up by a recent post at Webdiary from Allison Newman, a former member of the Democrats State Exuctive. (It seems even some of its own membership have given up on the Dems).

In the Webdiary article Newman shows the potential for a new political party called "Westminster". She says:

The following is an idea I have had in the back of my mind as I watched the
Howard Government act with ever increasing disdain for the Westminster
system of Ministerial responsibility for the actions of their departments.
In addition to this, I have become dismayed by the poor behaviour exhibited
by politicians in parliamentary debate, and the lack of adherence to the
Howard’s much vaunted Code of Ministerial Conduct – a good idea that
deserves better application.

Wesminster seems to be another proposal for a centrist party to replace the Democrats - just with some minor changes that sets down exactly what Westminster Senators should do. In other words, it is a proposal to relabel the Australian Democrats and prevent any Stott Despojas from broadening the electoral base.

It will never work in my opinion. First, they will not get elected. A minor party has a chance to get one seat in each state. The gravity in the current electoral climate is towards polarisation. That final seat in each state will fall, at least in the next decade, to either of the major parties, the Greens or a right wing party like Family First.

If a centrist party like Westminster get into parliament and share the balance of power, it is likely that they will run into similar problems to what the Dems are experienceing now. Why? because a centrist party, who might have hard workers who trawl legislation and negotiate finer detail, will offend many people for not making a principled stand against a certain policy.

Many Dem voters over the years voted for them because they opposed a certain policy but couldn't bring themselves to vote for the opposition. Many if not most did not vote Dem because they believe in a party whose sole job is to keep politicians honest by negotiating on legislation. The Dems have failed to recognise this time and time again and this is why they are almost dead.

Abortion

There are a few issues that really get my blood boiling when someone has a different view from mine. Indigenous issues, the public provision of essential services and religion in politics are some of these issues. Perhaps the issue that boils the blood to the highest temperature could possibly be abortion. Beng male, one may ask why it would boil my blood so intensely? I don't know for sure, but it does.

I have contributed to the pro-choice campaign through my capacity as spokesperson for Hawkesbury Greens. For example, last year when the Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, was tauting his pro-life views, I wrote the following letter to the Hawkesbury azette editor:

It is frustrating but also not surprising that a number of controversial issues are at the top of the political agenda for the Howard government, issues like the sale of Telstra, cross media-ownership laws and abortion rights for women. With a majority in the Senate, the Howard Government is so arrogant that it feels it can pass radical legislation that were not important enough to be debated during the election campaign.

But even when the public wishes to engage in a debate over some of these radical policies we find that our elected representatives are gagged. Recently, our Member for Macquarie, Kerry Bartlett, in his role as Chief Government Whip, ordered coalition members not to speak to media over their views on abortion rights of women.

I find it appalling and insulting that Kerry Bartlett feels he needs to, or has the right to, gag Coalition MP's from talking to the media and the voting public about abortion (or any other issue). It is important for a healthy democracy that the voting public know where our elected representatives stand on important issues. It seems Bartlett is more interested in protecting the interests of the Coalition than encouraging informed debate.

I, for one, would be interested to know where our elected representatives stand on the issue of abortion rights and whether they do have an agenda to change the law to remove rights from women. Bartlett, where do you stand on abortion rights for women?

A short reply Bartlett arrived the next week without answering my question. I believe Bartlett is part of the Lyons Forum and would like to flush his views out publicly.

The Abortion debate is far too important for the Lyons Forum members in the Liberal party. I knew it would crop up again. Sure enough it did this year but again it faded away. It will come back eventually when the Howard Government has the gumption.

At Online Opinion there is this pro-life peice by Kathy Woolf who is the spokesperson for the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations. She argues that the research presented by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute 'challenges the persistent misrepresentations by pro-abortion groups that the Australian community is complacent about Australia’s high abortion rate and reluctant to look for more positive alternatives.'

Well read the research yourself and see if you come to the same conclusion. I don't. The evidence strongly favours protecting womens right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Australians may not like it much, no one would like it, but Australia believes it is not other peoples decision. Not one bit of evidence suggests a majority of Australians want to restrict access to womens rights to abortion.

Nauru Mandatory Detention

Over the last couple of months Australian Greens Senator for NSW Kerry Nettle has been requesting a visa to enter Nauru and visit Australia's offshore detention facility - also known as part of the 'Pacific Solution'.

After lengthy delays and rescheduling of flights, the Consulate General of Nauru has denied Kerry a visa. Very flimsy arguments were given. Read about it here. It is a desgraceful situation.

Site Changes and Crikey Tidbits

Made some major and minor changes to the site and previous posts. The site is Joel's Jibe not Joel's Gibe. I was confused between with the American and English spelling of the word. Also the image in the previous post was incorrect, np excuse but it is now fixed.

Crikey is a good source for political information - summaries and insider info - and there have been a couple of good stories posted in the last few days:

The first is on the absurd Australia Card idea - a case in point of an 'honest' John back flip.

Another on the Palmer report and how it is a good example of how the Howard Government has undermined public administration in Australia. It is also important to remember that the Palmer report is very sneaky in that the focus for reform is on the administration of the policy, not the policy itself that is the problem. Wrong. The policy of inhumane mandatory detention is the problem.

Finally, a Crikey comment on 'Carr's wasteful water spending'. Indeed.

Divisive issues hurting Greens poll

In a previous post I had mentioned my fear that the industrial relations issue will favour the ALP and the Unions at the expense of the Greens. Well this view is most likely confirmed with the latest opinion poll data - particularly from Morgan who says:

"Despite continued criticism of the Government’s proposed Industrial Relations reforms, primary support for the L-NP rose slightly (0.5%). Special Morgan Poll Qualitative Research shows economic stability is a driving force behind this. It is interesting to note that none of the L-NP supporters mentioned concerns with the proposed Industrial Relations reforms.

"Primary support for the ALP also rose (1%). This increase in support is a reflection of public reaction towards the L-NP’s proposed Industrial Relations changes.

"This latest Morgan Poll shows primary support polarising towards the major parties at the expense of the Greens and other minor parties."

Check out the summary of the Greens opinion poll data at Oz Politics - reproduced in the diagram below.

In the diagram, you can see an upturn in the Greens polls from May (when immigration was at the forefront of news) then a significant dip in the Morgan and Newspoll data for June and July (when the unions were splashed over the papers). As you can see from the rest of the data, this downturn could be considered minor fluctuations as issues come and go in the media.

However, the IR issue is not going to be an issue that will fade away. The ALP will be desperate to attach itself to thsi rollercoaster union campaign until the election.

Is it just IR though? What other issues will be in the media frequently? One that springs to mind after reading this article at online opinion on voluntary student unionism. This will be another divisive issue that will favour the ALP over the Greens - in Green heartland of young uni students (like myself). Then of course there is Telstra. It will be interesting to see how the ALP reacts - but I have a feeling it will another clear divisive issue in favour of the ALP.

Good news for the ALP but the Greens must try and be as loud and clear as possible to survive in ALP's potential revival.

I emphasise its only a potential revival - the ALP have the habit of stuffing up opportunities. For example, there are murmurs from the ALP over leadership and the religion in politics issue (a pet issue of mine) - read Wayne Swan (shadow Treasurer and lamo wannabe PM) at the Age stating he is 'perfectly relaxed about the mixing of religion and politics.'

Interesting and challenging times we Greens live in.

Tidbits and more

The Gazette came out today and my reaction is that it seemed more like a brochure for Kerry Bartlett. Bartlett's media advisor must be back from holiday. Will have more to say on his and the Government's IR campaign later.

Some good reading on the net:

• APO has an opinion piece on the false perception of pentacostal numbers, power and influence. Written by John Warhurst he describes Family First as 'fighting above their weight'.
• Peter McMahon at Online Opinion praises Lindsay Tanner (ALP MP for Melbourne) while attacking the culture of the ALP (along thesame lines of Latham and Faulkner)
• Just to show I am not completely biased, here is an article attacking the Union campaign. No wait, I am partisan. It is a horrible piece that peddles the Government's line that 'economic growth was the result of IR reforms of Labor and Coalition, thus we must take the next step for future growth'. What a load of tripe. Must understand the opposition though.

Tidbits

Some interesting articles in the SMH today:

• Article on higher enrollment rates in private pre-schools and its implications for the education system
• Opinion piece from Andrew Leigh on welfare policies
• My what! article for today is this report concerning the government's decision to give the former head of the Department of Immigration, Bill Farmer, a 'plum overseas job' as an ambassador to Jakarta, Indonesia. Outrageous!
  
• Finally from SMH, an article regarding Carr's plans for a desalination plant to solve our water crisis. Greens NSW MLC Sylvia Hale is quoted.

Continuing the water debate is this opinion piece at Australian Policy Online by Professor John Quiggan.

Funds for river, not recycling?

The above photo of me was taken this time last year during the unofficial federal election campaign. Yes, that is actually the Hawkesbury River under that carpet of weed. Unbelievably disgusting. How did we get rid of it? We never did get rid of it completely after hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on a harvester and toxic chemicals. Greens Councillor Williams and I said they were bandaid measures that did not attack the core problems.

What were the problems of the Hawkesbury River back then? Too many to list here but the major problems are: lack of fresh water flow as a result of drought and excessive water demand from humans; treated sewage pumped into the river; and agricultural (and other) runoff.

Some factors have changed, but not for the better: the State ALP Government has swiped funding to testing river quality AND cut the fresh water flow from the dams by 50%; and local developement has gone full speed ahead adding greater water demand and more residential runoff.

In this weeks Hawkesbury Gazette (click here) it was announced that the Hawkesbury River will get a massive injection of funds, to the tune of $14.1 million dollars. This is quite a sum of money and duly needed. In this articles it stated that the money will, 'treat the causes of our river's problems, not just the symptoms'. I hope so.

However, little was said how the money will be used to attack what causes. If the money was to attack the causes, it would me a dramatic change in the way we engage with the environment. For example, the first step would be the instillation of a sophisticated and extensive system of water recyclying and reuse. This is a big (but achievable) task. I doubt the $14.1m will be used for such a project. This is confirmed when the Gazette editor stated:

At the gathering, Riverstone MP John Aquilina expressed reservations about recycling, concerned too much would limit the amount of water returned to the river, but surely if Sydneysiders require less fresh water then there would be more of it flowing down the river?

Huh? The editor is quite right and Aquilina obviously has no idea what he is saying. The river has no chance when ignorance like this prevails in government.

Tidbits

Todays interesting articles:

Online opinion, possibly my favourite political website, does a monthly feature. This months feature is on public transport. Visit this site regularly to see updated lists of opinion articles.

Chek Ling has a very interesting article on racism and how the Corby case (and the media and public reaction to it) reflects 'lingering "white Australia" sentiment'.

Eve vincent highlights the case against uranium mining and nuclear energy.

Ross Gittins, who is always very good value even if I don't always agree with him (like this article), argues the unions could find some unexpected opportunities from Howard's IR reforms.

And my what! article for today is this news story printed in the SMH about how the Democrats might do a deal with the Howard Government over the IR Reforms. The Democrats compromise: keep the AIRC, and the rest will be passed. Might devote a seperate post to the Dems soon.

IR Campaign in the Hawkesbury Gazette

The Hawkesbury Gazette has shown once again that it is not afraid to print criticisms of the paper. My letter to the editor was printed in this week’s Hawkesbury Gazette and can be read here. Two thumbs up to the Gazette particularly the editor, Justine Geake.

Industrial Relations dominated the Gazette with two articles on last Friday’s Unions NSW event (read here). There were also four letters to the editor on the issue; one of them was my reply. One letter was by ALP Hawkesbury Councillor Barry Calvert (read here) who focuses on the disastrous IR reforms in New Zealand. Mark Ptolemy, who is now titled ALP Macquarie spokesperson, wrote a letter defending the unions. Cameron Marsh (party affiliation unknown to me) wrote the final letter on IR.

It was very good work from all concerned. Perhaps some momentum can be gained from this campaign for the progressives in the Hawkesbury.

Preaching to the unconvertible

One of the most disturbing trends in politics over the past three years is the change in attitude of federal politicians to the christian right. Much has been said of the 'rise of the christian right', but what is glossed over is the fact that the christian right has always existed in Australia but it has always moved in mysterious ways. Some would argue for example that what we now consider christian right values were mainstream views of fifty and more years ago. More recently, say over the past decade or more, the christian right has been cornered by the likes of the Christian Democrats led by the vile Fren Nile.

Last year saw the rise of a new, 'modernised' version of the same old ultra-conservative Assemblies of God-based political party: Family First. Doesn't the name just make you warm and fuzzy inside? To some unsuspecting voters it certainly did at the 2004 federal election. Managing to win a Victorian Senate seat off back-door preference deals with the ALP and tiny 1.2% of the primary vote, we are going have to listen to preaching for years to come.

Last night on Lateline it was reported that Peter Costello addressed Hillsong (the largest Assemblies of God congregation) for his second time. Costello was interviewed on the controversial relationship he has with Hillsong (Costello's pathetic answers to simple questions can be read here).

But what was surprising was seeing the NSW Premier Bob Carr, whom I heard was atheist, addressing the same Hillsong congregation. The SMH (whom I have taken the photo from) has an article on it and a small snippet from Lateline can be read here:

Economic prosperity, vital though it is, does not solve all our problem. There is, as well, the life of the spirit and the mind, family and community, enduring values, compassion for those doing it tough.

He's right and I am sure some there agreed (but its all about priorities!) but I kept thinking Carr must be getting desperate to stoop to Costello's desperate attention-seeking tactics. Why try preach to the unconvertible?

A turning point?

AC Nielson and Newspoll brought out their latest election opinion polls today. AC Nielson (who conducts polls mainly for Fairfax such the SMH) give a two party prefered of 54 to 46 in favour of the ALP, which is an almost certain victory if an election was held tomorrow. Newspoll give 50 to 50, which would be a hung parliament. Certainly divergent views in the opinion poll data. Andrew Leigh makes some comments on the unreliability of opinion poll data at his blog.

When it comes to opinion poll data the trick is to ignore the data but look at general trends. For example, it is NOT 99.9% likely the ALP would have won a landslide victory but it is hard to deny that the ALP has received the breath of life it needed from the Unions' IR campaign. Indeed, this is backed up by the Herald Poll that says 60% of people polled opposed the IR reform proposals.

The trouble for the ALP now is to capitalise on this data. It will be hard to maintain the momentum until 2007. What the ALP need to do is look at what the NSW Liberal party are trying to do to NSW Premier Bob Carr and public transport (etc): make the IR reform like a bad smell that won't go away. Could this be the turning point for the ALP?

Few make comment of the Greens data in these opinion polls. At the fantastic OzPolitics website there is some data from the last few months on the Greens primary vote (the image is reproduced above). The latest AC Nielson data for the Greens has not been added, which puts us at 10%. An excellent result for the Greens.

The IR campaign could be dangerous for the Greens, not because the Greens differ in view from the ALP, but because a large proportion of Greens (almost 75% according to the ANU electoral survey) are ALP who could be wooed back into the ALP fold. The data confirms my guesses that this was not going to occur: the Greens have stayed steady over the past 6 months with data suggesting Green primaries are anywhere between 7% and 10%.

It could perhaps be even suggested that there has been a slight surge in Green support since all three of the polls have seen a rise of one or more percent since late May. Quite likely since Green-friendly issues have dominated politics (such as mandatory detention and the Chen Yonglin defection/Chinese human rights issues).

We are only as strong as we are united

One more comment on the IR campaign. The workers’ meeting last Friday was an excellent beginning to the campaign for the Unions. In NSW it was held in over 200 venues across the state with the central meeting at Town Hall in Sydney. I attended the meeting in Richmond where approximately 500 turned out. It was an impressive and inspiring presentation and the feeling around the room was electric. Unions NSW must be applauded.

I spoke briefly (and poorly admittedly) asking where Kerry Bartlett was and we truly needed to put pressure on him through petitions and letter writing. Unbeknownst to me, Kerry, I heard, was in the Blue Mountains and may have attended the meeting up there.

Unions NSW look to have a good strategy to tackle this issue. They do not want this to be an aggressive, divisive campaign. That means no general strikes (but targeted, tactical strikes), family friendly actions, a focus on educating the community and avoiding attaching this campaign to any political party.

This last point – refusing to politicise the campaign – is tricky and doesn’t sit well with some people. For example, at the meeting last Friday, Hawkesbury Greens Councillor Leigh Williams asked to put Greens IR paraphernalia on a table but the organiser Michael Want refused us on the grounds that it was a non-political event. Leigh and I felt this was fair and we did not question their decision.

However, a number of things have irked me since. First, the ALP candidate for Macquarie Mark Ptolemy featured prominently in one segment of the Union broadcast. Second, Kim Beazley was seen leading the demonstration in Victoria (who are not worried about politicising their campaign) - see image (from SMH). The ALP are trying their hardest to use this campaign to breath some life into the federal ALP. Thus, unfortunately for Unions NSW, the community will inevitably link the Union campaign with the ALP. Even more unfortunately for the Greens we will likely, as a result, be pushed into the media periphery (again).

The only thing Greens can do is to use our Green triangle (brand recognition) to good use.

We can’t be selfish, the thinking in the Greens never is. We can only be as strong as we are united. And the Greens certainly stand united with the unions and the ALP.

Industrial Relations Reform

In my capacity as a spokesperson for the Hawkesbury Greens I sent a media release to the Hawkesbury Gazette outlining briefly the Greens stance against the Howard Governments radical IR agenda. To the Gazette’s credit they published my article in full (although buried in the paper past the letters section). Additionally, the editor decided to use her editorial space to argue that we must ‘look at both sides’ of the debate and in so doing referenced my media release. By looking at both sides of the argument the editor then used her entire article to argue in favour of removing the unfair dismissal laws for small businesses. Her article can be read here.

I take considerable offence to some of the comments she has made. First she implies that the mainstream media has been only printing articles that oppose Howard’s IR agenda and by using her editorial space to argue in favour of the reforms she is some how ironing out the imbalances. Perhaps the journo's opinion writers are finding it hard to justify the reforms? Nevertheless there is always a piece in favour of the IR reforms such as here, .

Indeed, this was not the only thing I had trouble with. The editor’s (lack of) understanding of the proposed changes to the unfair dismissal laws irked me so much to force me into writing (yet another) letter to the editor. The letter in full:

Editor,

I thank you for using your editorial comment to engage in the Industrial Relations debate. However, I will have to politely disagree with your comment and analysis.

It is important to note that the unfair dismissal laws are not the only aspects of the Howard Government’s radical IR agenda. The Howard Government also intends to abolish the “no disadvantage test” for AWA’s, which means agreements could eliminate guarantees to things like redundancy pay, penalty rates, overtime, and annual leave loading. The Howard Government also aims to remove the independent Australian Industrial Relations Commission who governs wage rises.

But more specifically to the comments on unfair dismissals:

The article stated, ‘there are some selfish and heartless bosses’. What was failed to be acknowledged is that if businesses (with less than 100 employees) become exempt from unfair dismissal laws then market forces will encourage all of these bosses to be ‘selfish and heartless’. For example, why would an employer declare a worker redundant and pay them a redundancy pay when they will be allowed to just sack them without giving reason or a redundancy pay?

The article also referred to onerous procedure. When asking small business employers what red tape they would consider to be the most onerous I would speculate that it would be the quarterly BAS statements for the Howard Government’s burdensome GST, and not unfair dismissal laws.

The article stated, ‘there should be a definite set of guidelines that employers have to adhere to when sacking someone’ Indeed, but what is being suggested in the article is a tinkering of the edges to make it less onerous for employers. The reform proposals do not tinker the edges, in fact the proposals are a radical change to the system and society. This is because the proposal exempts most Australian businesses from the rules we agree employers must adhere to.

The Prime Minister has stated that business prosperity and growth in real wages has been significant under his government. Doesn’t this suggest that the current IR system has been successful? If it’s not broken, why abolish it?

It is these arguments together and more that makes the Greens and many others say there is little or no positive justification for these extremist reforms. Thus, with the timing of the introduction of this legislation (when Howard gets unfettered control of both houses of parliament) I can only surmise that the government has an arrogant ‘just because the we can’ attitude.

Leading the fight against this reckless Howard agenda is Unions NSW who must be applauded for their inspiring presentation last Friday. I look forward to their next event in the campaign on August 7.

I probably have missed something in her article but perhaps someone else will fill in my gaps. Lets see if my letter gets published and aging to the Gazette’s credit they have not shied away from my more controversial letters in the past).