Joel's Jibe

Rudd's Reply

2007-05-10T20:03:00.000+10:00

Just watched Rudd reply to the budget. The message he is trying to get out is pretty clear: "it's the economy stupid".

Again a modest approach to climate change, hardly better than the lip service given by the Government.

More soon.

Budget Part 2 - Education

2007-05-10T15:04:00.000+10:00

I feel that this budget could be pivotal in the election campaign and I am therefore taking the liberty to scrutinise its essential features. Yesterday I argued that from my personal macroeconomic view, the budget was inappropriate given the stage in the economic life cycle.

Today I want to focus on the education "reforms" because Costello proclaimed it himself that this was an "education budget". Money has been thrown about all over the place.

For tertiary education, the thrust is to increase enrollments with:

- removing full fee caps
- a $5bn endowment fund that will generate $304m for investment in university infrastructure
- extending Youth allowance and Austudy for students enrolling in masters courses
- an increase in the Commonwealth scholarships.

For primary and secondary education:

- a $700 voucher system for private tuition for those students who do not meet numeracy and literacy standards
- a bonus for teachers who complete a numeracy and literacy refresher course in the summer
- private schools will get an extra $1.7bn while public school will receive only an extra $300m.

Where do I begin? I'll start with those things that will likely affect me and my work. The Government is continuing to kick teachers in the gut with the implied blame for poor results of students. The tuition reform is also just another step to towards the privatisation of the secondary education system.

Most teacher's do not need refresher courses, and it will do very little to improve the results of students. Why? The problem in schools has nothing to do with teacher skills nor with the students. The problem lies with a system of education that provides an environment of diminished capacity. The neglect of the public system by successive state and federal governments has meant that the public system is now a safety net with major rips in the cords.

The solution is to halve class sizes. Halve class sizes and everyone wins. The student wins because there is more time to have one-to-one classroom learning relationships with their teacher. The teacher wins because they would no longer have to spend half their time on classroom behaviour management and can therefore get back to proper teaching. The parents will win because social, physical and intellectual development of their children will improve. The economy will win because there will be a larger base of skilled workers thereby increasing its capacity.

The tertiary education system deserves a boost in spending. Universities have been stagnant as it has had to deal with the commercialisation of the tertiary education sector forced on to them by the Howard government.

Perhaps even more appalling is that the federal government has dramatically increased their funding of private schools. It is completely abhorrent to me that private schools receive this much money while public schools are suffering.

The motive for this education spending has become quite clear with the resumption of parliament: it enabled Costello and Howard to say, "the education revolution has happened and we delivered it not Rudd." It is purely a political move to nullify one of labor's policy strengths. Lets not forget that it was Costello and Howard that slashed and burned education as part of its zeal to destroy public debt in 1997.

The highlight of Latham's leadership was when he was able to force the Howard Government into reducing parliamentary pensions. Latham said, "if we can do this while in opposition, imagine what we could do in Government." Latham looked in control, Howard looked weak. Rudd and Swan should be doing the exact same thing here. Howard has stolen labor's thrust and labor should take ownership of it. They have failed to do so. I look forward to Rudd's reply.

Budget Analysis Part 1

2007-05-09T20:08:00.000+10:00

Another election budget comes around and another cunning political move is made at the expense of much needed reform. More portfolio specific information is to come but here are my macroeconomic policy views on this disaster:

Macroeconomic policy

Coming from an economics background, and someone who strongly believes that the most effective mechanism Government has to manage the economy is fiscal policy, the budget has to be seen first from its strategic macroeconomic value. At this stage in the economic cycle (ie peak boom), Keynesians would argue that fiscal policy would need to be very tight. In other words, the budget would need to be deflationary with large surpluses. At first glance Costello has delivered a deflationary budget with a budget surplus of $10bn, about 1% of GDP.*

However, the beauty of fiscal policy is that it is very flexible in that it allows targeted spending and even targeted taxation (rather than the sledgehammer of interest rates). This means that particular aspects of the spending pattern of Governments can have differing impacts.

The government is raking in a huge amount of tax, more than was ever expected. For example, in the last 6 months the treasury had to upwardly adjust revenue by more than $60bn. Why? The minerals boom has meant that corporate tax has exploded the Governments coffers.

So the extra money is being raked in but where does the money go? This budget is throwing money away to anyone who breathes; a purely political tactic. So here's the economic mismanagement: the budget is putting more money in the pockets of those people who are more likely to spend it and not save it. Moreover, the tax changes are also putting more money into those pockets of people who are more likely to spend it and not save it. The extra cash to spend will lead to inflationary pressures, further putting pressure on an interest rate hike to contain inflation.

So when we take into account the inflationary pressures I just described together with the deflationary pressures of a budget surplus, I would argue that the budget is either balenced or moderately inflationary. Either way it is an inappropriate fiscal stance given the stage of the economic cycle we are in.

*I would bet that Keating, a true Keynesian, would say that we need higher surpluses for this stage of the economic cycle.

Recent polling data

2007-05-07T19:50:00.000+10:00

Ozpolitics once again provides an excellent summary of the latest polling data. Of most interest to me is the trend for the Greens. This can be seen in the diagram below.

What you will find is that since Rudd's coronation in December as the ALP leader the Greens have taken a hit. Morgan polling has been quite indicative with a high of 12% back before Rudd came to power and is now showing the Greens hitting 7%.

Prior to Rudd's ascent the Greens were hitting its highest polling data for each of the polling agencies (Morgan, AC Nielson and Newspoll). This is on the back of a month of climate change debate in the public sphere and Beazley's (and Albanese's) seemingly lack of conviction on the issue. On the other hand, Rudd has able to garner the media's attention and has taken the opportunity to steal the Greens agenda.

With labor on the ascendancy it was always going to be difficult for the Greens. However, one can sense that Rudd's honeymoon is coming to an end. Rudd's gloss is disappearing. The Greens will withstand this shock as Rudd lurches to the centre.

Post-election carve-up

2007-04-30T19:37:00.000+10:00

Hi all,

Well the results of the State election are in (a while ago now). A summary:

The ALP won convincingly overall. The Liberals regained a seat or two they lost to independents in past bi-elections. The Nationals picked up a seat or two.

The upper house result for the Greens was great. We scored almost 9% with a positive swing to us. the upper house campaign should be delighted with the re-election of lee Rhiannon and the introduction of a new Greens MLC Dr. John Kaye. Well done John!!!! I can think of no one more qualified to represent the people of NSW and the Greens. I look forward to his style of politics.

The seats in the Hawkesbury were a mixed bag. The seat of hawkesbury scored less than 6% and Londonderry scored less than 7%. i would like to thank all of the committed Hawkesbury greens members who helped on election day and on the lead up to the election.

The election was a fantastic experience. I hope to participate in future elections for the Greens in some capacity. The upcoming the federal Election poses many challenges for the Greens with the resurgence of the ALP. I hope to participate in the campaigning, particularly on the Senate campaign.

Election Eve

2007-03-23T08:26:00.000+11:00

Hi all,

It is election eve. The last couple of weeks have been so amazingly hectic. The best highlight has been the meet the candidate forum at the Richmond Club. It was an intense experience and a rowdy affair; democracy in action.

Typically, and predictably, the drugs spin by the rotten murdoch press has come out. I really don't think it hurts us that much.

Well a tough day tomorrow. I am looking forward to it, particularly the party afterwards. Who knows I may have a new job come Monday!

Campaign update

2007-03-07T17:15:00.000+11:00

Wow its been a busy week for the campaign. I have:

Officially nominated (which although it doesn't sound hard, it is a scary thought to get it wrong).
Numerous media responsibilities.
Organise our leaflets/postcard distribution.
Organise advertisements for the papers.
Consider preference decisions for our how-to-votes.
Organise media for the forthcoming week in the hawkesbury and Nepean papers.

It's been hectic but fun, even more hectic when I am trying to hold on to a new job!! I feel this campaigning is what I am born for, to get a message across that I believe in. I love it. The next few weeks are going to be great with lot's of media and, what I am really looking forward to, meet the candidates.

Development West of the River

2007-02-28T16:18:00.000+11:00

On Sunday I was invited to a concerned residents meeting regarding a proposal to subdivide some blocks of land near Kurrajong. You can read about it here in the Hawkesbury Gazette.

With me at this meeting was two Labor representatives and Greens Councillor Leigh WIlliams. What occured was that those people who were in favour of the development proposal turned up and took control of the meeting. Although I did not agree with their points of view, I was glad to have heard them; in a democracy it is important to at least here tho oppositions' point of view.

However, it is clear to me that the Hawkesbury community must draw a line in the sand regarding development in the area. John Aquilina mentioned at this meeting that this "line in the sand" is quite clearly the Hawkesbury river. Although I agree that inappropriate development west of the river must be curbed, we must also think very carefully about development in the Hawkesbury as a whole.

Indeed, as our population grows we must find ways to expand our residential stock. However, this does not mean we can allow inappropriate development to run a muck with little regard for the future of the Hawkesbury, it's people and it's environment. I will not stand idle as this wonderful community gets annexed by urban sprawl.

This is therefore a local and state issue. Planning is key, and planning needs vision. Hawkesbury City Council is set to draw up a new LEP. This is our time to decide what that vision for our community will be. In thinking about that vision ask yourself these questions:

do you want the Hawkesbury to be subsumed into Sydney's urban sprawl?
do you want the Hawkesbury to lose it's enormous social capital by losing that inherent community feeling?
Should the Hawkesbury give in to economic development at the expense of the environment, or do we want remain as "Sydney's backyard"?

These are not difficult questions that as a community we must come to grips with.

Letter to Editors: Bells Line Super Highway

2007-02-23T17:30:00.000+11:00

Editor,

The Greens vehemently oppose the super highway proposal by the Liberal Party. It is a ludicrous suggestion that will not only devastate the Kurrajong community but also devastate large tracks of vegetation through the Blue Mountains. This is unacceptable.

I find it rich that the major parties are so eager to jump on the environmental bandwagon when it comes to water and even climate change, only once they see a vote in it. Yet time and time again we see the major parties undermine their credibility with ridiculous proposals like the Bells Line super highway.

Throughout this debate, as with other transport debates in the Hawkesbury, the mindset continues to be focused on roads while public transport is once again neglected. I ask the major party candidates, what are you going to do about public transport for Western Sydney so we don’t have to rely on ridiculous proposals like a super highway?

The major parties have a long way to go to prove they have the community and the environment’s best interests at heart.

Joel MacRae
Greens candidate for Londonderry
http://joelsjibe.blogspot.com

Protest Hype

2007-02-23T16:38:00.000+11:00

All over the news, even with breaking stories throughout the night, the media have gone nuts over the protests in Sydney last night and today. I have a number of comments to say about this whole fiasco.

First, there was not that many people at the protests. This is a shame as Cheney's visit is an opportunity for the community to express their displeasure over the Iraq disaster.

Second, there was not that many people at the protests. The handling by the police seemed to be over kill. It is indeed our democratic right to protest peacefully. Having the police demonstrate their show of force does not help the situation.

Third, there was not that many people at the protests. The media have hyped this up into something it is not. A couple of hundred people at a peaceful demonstration with an idiot or two who want to get on the TV does not make it a disaster or a lead story.

The problem is that conservative forces in this country (and I believe both major parties are included in this) have successfully created a culture of derision towards protests and protesters. In the future we will look back and think or our kids will say, "why didn't we do more to stop all the bad things we are doing in the world." My conscious will be clean, will yours?

Earth Hour

2007-02-20T16:59:00.000+11:00

Today Malcolm Turnball announced that stricter energy standards would be introduced to save on greenhouse gas emissions. Although this sounds like a good idea, and it is, but it still doesn't address wastage of energy by corporations who leave their lights on in office towers around central business districts. It is is simply atrocious the amount of wastage that goes on and yet the Government is more concerned with targeting restrictions on consumer than on businesses. This shows the priorities of the government.

Instead, the Government should be encouraging and promoting Earth Hour. It is an initiative that demonstrates our capacity to save energy and help the environment by simply turning our lights off for 1 hour. This initiative is going to promote that everyone turn off their lights at 7.30pm on 31 March 2007. Visit the website for more information.

Major Party Debate on Stateline

2007-02-17T14:35:00.000+11:00

Statelines debate with the leaders of the two major parties was aired last night. My initial thoughts after watching the event was that:
a) there should be more of these on a regular basis, irrespective of whether an election is on or not.
b) having just the two parties represented made it a farce. There needs to be more effort to include the minor parties and independents. Quentins excuse that, "it's all about executive power" just doesn't cut it in my book because it completely underestimates the power of minor parties and independents in this system.

What is also interesting is Morris Iemma's comments proceeding the debate. He felt disappointed with his performance and felt he didn't have enough time to express his views. Well Morris, no excuses now, you need to have more debates before the election.

As for their performance on television (not their policies), Debnam looked nervous in his opening speech but improved as the blood flowed. Morris seemed over rehearsed to the point it looked like a performance and not natural, while still carrying his odd maneurisms (eg holding his head at a strange angle). Morris also seemed to be trying to imitate Howard on some occasions too, "this elections is about who you can trust ..." for example.

As for their policy statement, well all I can say is "shame". It is a real shame that a Green does not have an opportunity to express their views in a forum such as that debate because it would have been made glaringly obvious how ill-equipped the major parties are in fighting our water crisis and climate change disaster. The fact that the bulk of the talk on climate change focused on "clean coal technology" and not renewable energy made it a complete farce.

When will a Green be invited to debate the major parties?

The sell-out fails again

2007-02-16T17:08:00.000+11:00

Well, it came even sooner than I expected. Garrett's sell out is now glaringly obvious to even the most uninterested observer. However, I didn't expect it on this issue (I thought uranium mining was to be the sticking issue).

I miss the old Garrett that wasn't afraid to stand up for controversial issues like opposition to US "imperialism".

Once again it is left to the Greens to state the glaringly obvious:

Australians are now even more deeply enmeshed in United States military endeavours, whether we agree with them or not. It is a classic John Howard capitulation to US military interests.

And the ALP are no better when Joel Fitzgibbon, shadow Defense Minister, and now Garrett simply toe the line.

I call on the Labor Party to make its position clear on the proliferation of US military facilities in Australia. Will Kevin Rudd simply fall in behind John Howard as previous Labor leaders have done?

Well I guess they have.

Media: Greens Water Policy

2007-02-16T17:03:00.000+11:00

Greens release 2007 election urban water policy: working with the community
in a dry climate

Greens candidate Joel MacRae standing for Londonderry says that the Greens water strategy is a far better alternative than the expensive, energy guzzling de-salination plant.

"The major parties have failed to read the community mood. There has been a welcome shift in support for water recycling, but we must not lose sight of the enormous capacity of the public to save water and use it more efficiently," Joel MacRae said.

"The major parties are scared that NSW residents will punish them at the ballot box if they don't promise big ticket engineering solutions, like desalination.

"The Greens plan for NSW centres on rainwater tanks, local grey water treatment, stormwater harvesting, wastewater recycling, improved efficiency and stronger restrictions.

"By abandoning plans to pre-emptively construct a desalination plant, the Greens' strategy potentially saves $1.9 billion, at least half of which can be invested in these measures.

"Times have changed, and the government needs to work on a permanent shift in how we manage water.

"Our policy will see NSW through this and subsequent water crises and avoid the need to spend money on expensive white elephants like desalination and aquifer pumping," Joel MacRae said.

"The Coalition’s plan to boost Sydney's water supply with recycled sewerage is definitely an improvement on a desalination plant.

"However, the solution to future water crises lies with a combination of water restrictions, water tanks, on site grey water treatment and reuse, and demand management.

“Opposition leader Peter Debnam's drought plan for Sydney has failed to adopt the most environmentally friendly and least expensive option to deal with the current water crisis.

"The Iemma government and the opposition have completely underestimated the enormous water savings potential locked up in the community's willingness to change habits and use less water.” Joel MacRae said.

NSW State Election Debate

2007-02-14T17:45:00.000+11:00

I have just heard that Morris Iemma and Peter Debnam will be participating in NSW's first (?) televised State election debate. This will be at 7:30pm Friday the 16th of February on ABC's Stateline programme.

Wow if only Lee Rhiannon was involved...

Must see event.

"Correlation is not causation"

2007-02-14T17:22:00.000+11:00

For anyone interested, Ross Gittens has a good piece for those who are slightly interested in economics and, in particular, the unemployment rate (good too for economics teachers...). It is argued by Gittens that the efforts by the Government, namely the Treasurer, to lay the cause of the past years' improvement on the implementation of Work Choices (Howard's rotten IR laws) are somewhat false. What is more likely is that the resources boom is still running full steam ahead and can account for the employment growth, which importantly has nothing to do with Work Choices.

Sometimes I think Economics should be compulsory subject at school, at least then most people would see through some of the comments made by our Government representatives.

PM Howard v President Obama: A battle Howard can't and won't win

2007-02-12T17:11:00.000+11:00

The ridiculous comments from Howard on the weekend with regard to Iraq and Obama's stance should and have been lambasted by Australian and US politicians (for a good summary with links see here). The issue is not whether Howard can say it or not, of course he is allowed pass comment on international affairs. What is at issue is the fundamental flaw in Howard's stance on Iraq and his close ties with the Bush Administration. He won't win this fight, world opinion is against Bush and his Iraq policy. History will prove President Obama correct.

A couple more brief observations on these issues: a) Howard once again is willing to use the tactic of fear to bully his way through the issue; b) giving Obama the attention of Howard's criticisms has probably further cemented his position on the US Democratic presidential ticket, which is a very good thing.

Dam rises but does hope sink?

2007-02-12T17:00:00.000+11:00

The rain has come and thankfully it is finally falling in our catchment areas. Read about it here.

However, will this rain dampen the current pressure placed on governments, particularly in NSW with the upcoming election, to find better solutions to our water crisis? It won't I hope and some anecdotal evidence may confirm it. A number of times in the past year, or at least on the few occasions it has rained, instead of the usual comment, "wow its good it's actually raining!" from acquaintances, the comment has now become, "wow look at all that water we are wasting that could be recycled."

Concern with how we use our natural resources has entered the public consciousness and won't be removed until it is dealt with appropriately. I fear for the major parties if they tried to sweep this under the carpet.

Campaign up and running

2007-02-08T15:26:00.000+11:00

The Hawkesbury candidate, Jocelyn Howden, and myself publicly announced our running in the state election for the NSW Greens this week with an article in the Hawkesbury Gazette. This well written article by Gail Knox gave us a good run in both this weeks Hawkesbury Gazette and last weeks Hawkesbury Courier.

The official Londonderry website is now up and running.

Howard the skeptic?

2007-02-07T17:04:00.000+11:00

Yesterday in parliament the Prime Minister stated that "the jury was still out" over the link between climate change and human produced gas emissions (source). He later corrected himself saying he thought that the question was referring to the link between climate change and drought. There was no mention of drought whatsoever in Rudd's question.

This reveals one of two things. Either Howard is losing it (in concentration, skill and capacity to handle tough questions) or he truly is a climate change skeptic. Although I believe that Howard is not the same as he was perhaps 5 or 6 years ago, I do not believe he is disintegrating that much. With his lateline interview on Monday (no link), it seemed that Howard was very uncomfortable when dealing with the environmental issues.

I believe he is overwhelmed by the attention the public now has for these environmental issues and is handling them poorly. This is partly because his attention to these issues are insincere and is being forced to come up with policy he doesn't want to run or deal with.

Any Liberal Government cannot be trusted to maintain our societies future prosperity if they are not serious about climate change.

Greens Preferences in the NSW State Election

2007-02-04T19:30:00.000+11:00

A poll came out today suggesting that the ALP will win in the upcoming NSW state election. However, the poll also showed a drop in the ALP's primary vote. This means that the ALP are even more so reliant on the Greens (and independents) to maintain the position in Government. Indeed, the title of the SMH article is, "Preferences key to ALP election win".

As far as I am concerned the ALP has a lot to do to win Greens preferences around the state.

Now before someone starts saying that its a foregone conclusion that the ALP will get the Greens preferences, I would like to remind you that the NSW State election has an optional preferential system of voting. This means that electors voting in the Legislative Assembly must place a 1 in the box for the most preferred candidate and then it is optional whether you place any more numbers.* Thus, any voter can decide not to distribute their vote past their first preference. For example, a voter who may be disgusted with both Labor and Liberals may decide to place a 1 next to the Greens on the Legislative Assembly ballot and thats it. Read more from the SEO.

The Hawkesbury Greens local group has the power to decide the Greens preference strategy in the Londonderry and Hawkesbury electorates. It is likely that the Greens preference strategy will be the deciding factor in both electorates.

The Hawkesbury Greens has yet to make its decision on preferences for either Londonderry or Hawkesbury. So this is a clear message to those candidates in these electorates: the Hawkesbury Greens will be keeping an eye on the performance of all of the candidates and party policies. In particular, we will pay particular attention to you and your party's stances on climate change, water and public services.

* I would like to emphasise that what was explained only applied to the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council is different. To read how Legislative Council voting works read here.

Donations: Democracy's Addiction

2007-02-02T16:26:00.000+11:00

Australian Democracy is addicted to that one enormous crack in the sytem: political donations. Yesterday the Australian Electoral Commission revealed its annual account of political donations of the previous financial year. Each year the public is appalled at the level of donations received by the major political parties, which leads many people asking the question how can they get away with it?

Is this a subversion of democracy? Are wealthy individuals or corporations able to get undue influence? These are the questions many people are asking.

According to the AEC Almost $75m went to political parties this past year (this is down substantially, i am guessing because there few big elections?). So who are donating? Look at these stats:

The top twelve donar developers gave over $1m to the Liberals and Labor. (source)
Westfield Capital Corp. Ltd alone gave $330,000 to the Labor and Liberal Parties. (source)
"Labor received more than $3.6 million from party-controlled entities such as Labor Holdings Pty Ltd, John Curtin House Ltd and the Progressive Business Association." (source)
"The Liberal Party raked in $1.4 million from organisations like the Cormack Foundation and The 500 Club, while almost $320,000 flowed to the Nationals from a variety of trusts and foundations." (source)

Absolutely disgusting!!! Do you want to know what is even worse? The company Tristar are in a degrading battle with its employees over entitlements (read more about it here) and yet the ALP, who are using the Tristar battle as an example against Howard's IR laws, received over $100,000 in donations from Tristar. NSW Greens Upperhouse Representative Lee Rhiannon has called on the ALP to put that money into a trust fund for the embattled workers.

The NSW greens have a very strict policy when it comes to donation. You can read it here but the main thrust is:

prohibiting political donations from corporations;
adequate, fair and transparent public funding of all elections;
prompt and transparent disclosure of all donations on a public website maintained by the electoral office;
capping political donations at $10,000 per individual per year; and
introducing legislation to prevent retiring members of parliament entering employment for two years with any private organisation that could obtain an unfair advantage.

Indeed, this issue has been a campaign focal point for the Greens. For example, the NSW greens through Lee Rhiannon's office has developed the website democracy4sale.org that is a nice easy portal to quickly find who donated what to which party (the above image came from there too). It is a must bookmark website.

This addiction to donations has to end, but it won't end while the addicted Liberals and Labor parties are in complete control of government. They must hit rock bottom before they will get any better. Voting Green in the next election will help ensure that they are made accountable for their actions.

What will it take to get action on Climate Change

2007-01-31T16:43:00.000+11:00

A friend has pointed this newsletter out to me which is an enormous source of information on environmental issues - particularly climate change.

In the latest issue, it states that yet another report on climate change reveals our dire future. Consider the following:

[The report] further projects the following outcomes:

Temperatures may rise by 3.5 degrees if industrial emissions output continues at the current rate

Rates of sea level rising may increase rapidly, owing to the sudden loss of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica

Alpine zones will be drastically affected, inducing a steep drop in snowfall

World hunger and human displacement will continue at an unprecedented rate as sea levels rise, an additional 200 to 600 million people will be suffering from malnutrition.

By 2080, between 1.1 billion and 3.2 billion people will be suffering from water scarcity problems.

The newsletter mentions the specific references to Australia:

The report also contains a chapter on Australia, detailing the expected occurrence of coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef on a large scale by 2030. Additionally, the draft IPCC report estimates the cost to agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin at $780 million to $1.17 billion as salinity continues to wreak havoc on the agricultural industry.

Yes I know, yet another report. Many of us are aware of impending disaster, even if we didn't know the detail.

What has been the response? Well take this laughable response from NSW Premier Iemma: lets call a summit! Another summit is just another excuse for the State and Federal Governments to create a media stunt to show they are trying to do something. We don't need summits we need political strength to make immediate policy decisions, announce them and implement them.

Political cowards on water

2007-01-30T18:16:00.000+11:00

On the day the the Queensland Premier announced his backflip on recycled water, I was listening to Richard Glover on 702 ABC yesterday afternoon and he made a very valid point about the issue. Glover wanted to make the point, in response to those who are squeemish over treated recycled water, that the water supply doesn't just fall on to the damn but the vast bulk of the water is run-off from catchment areas.

Thats right, the water falls on to near-by land areas where animals go to the toilet. That water then trickles through mud and muck to a stream full of more muck and fish-poo and then trickles into our dams. That water is then treated and tested and then sent into our water supply. This happens already! Shock horror! One could say that, partially, our water supply is treated animal effluent!

However, I am starting to believe that the mainstream are starting to come to terms with the fact that we need to move to recycled water for all of our water needs. Yet who are the main opponents to recycled water? No its not John Howard (surprisingly) but both the Labor NSW State Government and the Liberal opposition lead by Peter Debnam who are ruling out recycled water for drinking purposes. Not only this but Debnam is advocating another useless and environmentally destructive dam for the Hunter region.

Let me assure you that the Greens are the only major party in this upcoming NSW state election that has a comprehensive strategy for using safe recycled water to secure our water supply. The NSW Greens Ian Cohen has a media release statement on it here.

This election is building up to be an election based on all of the party's environmental credentials. It is now clear, as it has been for a long time now, that the Labor and Liberal Party do not have the political will to secure the states future needs. This latest failure of political will on water is one more reason why we must vote Green this election.

Schools back!

2007-01-29T19:28:00.000+11:00

Well school is back today and I started my first day on the job. Sure it was only a staff development day but still an important day for me. I start teaching classes tomorrow. I am a social science teacher mainly teaching Business Studies and Geography in a public school (western suburbs).

Not only is school back, but education more broadly was back on the agenda today for a number papers.

Schools

This article reported that:

MORE than 70 per cent of principals say their school is in need of a serious maintenance overhaul.

Well I am sure that this is not reporting anything we didn't already know. Anyone with some contact with our highschools know that they are being slowly degraded. Taking it from first hand experience I can definitely say that our schools, or at least our public ones, have been starved of the necessary resources for years. That is not to say no money at all has gone into it, what is clear is that a lot more needs to be quickly funnelled into the state system. it should come to no surprise given the State Government's unnecessary fervor to reduce the state deficit (at the expense of our public services like schools).

Universities

Another issue also hit the bulletins regarding foreign students at universities. The thrust of the piece is:

MORE than a third of overseas students are completing their degrees at Australian universities with English so poor that they should not have been admitted to tertiary study in the first place.

The first thought that ran into my mind was to ask was this another xenophobic piece to kick foreigners in the guts. However, after thinking about the issue a little more I realised that it was an important issue that needed to be dealt with. The underlying issue in this story is not about foreigners stealing degrees from Australians but rather that Universities are being placed into a position where they are now dependent on the income generated from foraign students.

This is not a race issue, this is a funding of universities issue. The Howard Government has endeavoured to turn these fine public instutions into commercial ones where they need to turn generate substantial revenue to survive. Without these pressures their would be no need to rely on foreign students or even bend the rules (lower standards) to keep foreign students at the university.

Our education system in this country has been torn to shreds by economic rationalists who are turning education into a product; whether it is private education in the secondary system or the commercialisation of our tertiary system.

Abbott: the modern day radical prophet

2007-01-27T09:49:00.000+11:00

One of the more interesting but somewhat unnecessary and distracting battles that will occur in the lead up to the federal election is the battle of the christian vote. Kevin Rudd has maintained for a long time that he is a strong christian and even a 'christian socialist'. He seems to have taken it upon himself to try and wrestle the christian vote away from the conservatives.

Well let the battle begin with this upcoming response from Tony Abbott reported by the Weekend Australian. In an upcoming speech Tony Abbott says the following:

Reluctantly perhaps, a Christian could conclude that sending extra troops to Iraq, for instance, might make more sense than leaving the sectarians to their own murderous devices.

Correct me if I am wrong Tony but I don't ever seem to remember in any part of the bible it said that Jesus supported Jewish troops against Romans. I always thought that Jesus was a passivist in the most extreme.

Oh and another quote from Abbott:

From a Christian perspective, indeed, from a commonsense one, the test of fairness should not be whether workplace conditions are set by unions, industrial commissions or contract, but whether they produce more jobs, higher pay and fewer strikes.

Well I always thought it was a stretch that Rudd link christian values to industrial relations. However, Abbott's quote here is utter nonsense let alone commonsense or even christian. My impression of Jesus' teachings is that it is primarily about concern for the welfare of all humans, to be treated with dignity irrespective of their wealth or job.

Abbott seems to be considering himself a prophet of some kind if he is trying to rework the teachings of Jesus and God in this modern age. If so, Abbott must be considered a radical one because he has gone against the teachings of even his own church (the Catholic church criticised the IR laws).

Do us all a favour Rudd and Abbott, leave religion out of politics. It is a distraction from us all independently making informed decisions about your stances on issues.

The flood of water plans

2007-01-26T09:41:00.000+11:00

Well well well. The Howard Government seem to have gone green this week with a number of important announcements that relate to water and climate change.

First was the cabinet reshuffle with some notable losers and winners. Amanda Vanstone has been dumped from immigration and Malcolm Turnbull has been promoted to Environment and Water. There is an interesting piece in the Australian on Turnbull and how it is an obvious counter to Peter Garrett's promotion.

Second, the Australian of the year is Tim Flannery, a climate change activist and environmental scientist. The Australian of the year is ultimately chosen by Howard himself. An interesting choice given that Flannery has been critical of the Government and will no doubt continue to be critical. On the other hand, Flannery is a supporter of nuclear energy.

Third, and this is the big one, the Howard Government has announced a $10bn plan fo water with the bulk to be focused on the Murray Daling Basin. I will not go into too much detail here except to provide some links to some of the information:

Howard's column in the SMH today outlining his vision.
Rudd's response
Some analysis of how far reaching and 'radical' the plan is

I have the Greens response but have yet to find the Greens response published anywhere. Here is the underlying theme:

"I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is finally taking the issue of the nation's water security seriously, promising resources at an appropriate scale to address the problem, reluctantly recognising the impacts of climate change and acknowledging that a long-term approach is eeded," said Senator Rachel Siewert today.

"It is a pity that it has taken an election year and a battering in the polls to force his hand, and a shame this could not have happened much sooner."

"Unfortunately he has made the success of the plan contingent on States capitulating their control of water resources, making delays inevitable and success uncertain," said Senator Siewert.

"The Prime Minister failed to address a key point in announcing his water management plan today when he failed to specify a target for returning environmental water flows to the Murray."

It seems to me that Howard has done something that he can easily go to the polls and say he is doing something about water. It's a real shame that its purely politically motivated. We need a Government who is will to be elected to govern for the right reasons, not simply to govern to be elected.

Law & Order Auctions

2007-01-25T07:50:00.000+11:00

With every state election comes the inevitable Law & Order Auction. No, I am not referring to the TV show, I am referring to the policy announcements made by the major parties overpolice numbers and how they are going to be tough on crime. Bob Carr had a memorable TV ad campaign playing on peoples fears about crime and then the Liberals copied the format of the ad to poke wholes in the Labor Government's law and order record.

They keep doing it, they've started to in this campaign (see SMH here) so it must be successful to some extent but I don't understand why. It is important and needs to be discussed but whenever I talk to someone about the state issues they are concerned about, law and order is never mentioned. It seems to be only raised by politicians during election campaigns! Seems to be a very easy dog whistle for the major parties.

Is crime so wide spread? In some areas it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. You can check to see if your area has a high crime rate at the is Lawlink site. Does your are rank poorly?

A quick look at the Hawkesbury LGA for a couple of statistics shows that crime in this area is very low. For example, for Robberies:

In 2005 the recorded rate of Robbery in HAWKESBURY Local Government Area was ranked 85 out of the 143 Local Government Areas that have populations greater than 3000. 37 Local Government Areas had no recorded incidents of Robbery in 2005 and as such were ranked equal last.

And for sexual offenses:

In 2005 the recorded rate of Sexual Offences in HAWKESBURY Local Government Area was ranked 80 out of the 143 Local Government Areas that have populations greater than 3000. 3 Local Government Areas had no recorded incidents of Sexual Offences in 2005 and as such were ranked equal last.

In other words, the higher the number the better it is in comparison to other areas. The Hawkesbury fairs pretty well with most of the offenses ranking well above 80.

There are a number of things I would like to say about this issue. First, simply considering only to raise police numbers will not solve the issue in the long run. Second, the Hawkesbury fairs pretty well in terms of crime rates when compared to other areas in the state. This doesn't mean things can't be improved but simply raising police numbers is not the only answer. Third, and this is something the Greens want to push, we would love to have an auction on teacher or nurse numbers, instead of just police.

Will he stay or will he go?

2007-01-23T10:18:00.000+11:00

A new poll came out today with Labor streaks ahead of the Howard Government (two party preferred was 55-45 to Labor). This is a substantial, election losing trend that the Government is experiencing. Is this simply Rudd's honeymoon? Personally, and hopefully, I don't think so. I think everyone has accepted Rudd as leader and it is now business as usual. The Howard Government is starting to look tired and old. Shades of 1995...

This trend has sparked the author of mumble to suggest that Howard will leave before the next election. Again, personally and hopefully, I can't see him doing it. He has to be made accountable for his actions. I wonder what the people at this site feel about the prospect of Howard cutting and running.

So what do you think? Will Howard stay or will he go?

Londonderry Website

2007-01-23T09:52:00.000+11:00

My "offical" homepage for my candidacy can be found here. As of writing this blog post there is nothing there. I have submitted my profile and photo etc to be placed on the site and it will be posted up there shortly. Feel free to bookmark!

Key NSW Election Theme 3: Water

2007-01-22T09:19:00.001+11:00

From talking to many people from my local area, the issue that seems to be on the minds of all of them, above any other issue it seems, is the current water crisis. Well I don't blame them for being concerned when you consider the following graph and statistics from iliveinsydney.com.

Graph 1 - Dam capacity since 2002

Graph 2: Dam capacity for January 2007

Sydneys current water storage is less than 36% capacity (as seen in above graph).
At the overall rate of water loss in the past week in the dams, our supply will last 474 days, less than 2 years and run out on 2008-5-6 .

And this is all after a reasonably wet Christmas! If the above information doesn't scare you to bits than I do not know what will. I have heard a rumour (would be nice if someone could confirm) that if water storage falls below 20% then evacuation procedures need to be set in place for the city.

Salt Water has turned this Government Crazy

Something needs to be done. So what is our Labor Government doing to prevent this imminent disaster less than two years away? Very little it seems. To solve the water crisis the NSW State Government proposed a desalination plant that would suck water out of the ocean, take away the salt to make it drinkable. It has been rejected as stupid idea by the public and is a vote loser for the NSW Labor Government. Further, the NSW Labor Government’s plans to squander $1.4 million dollars of taxpayers money on advertising its energy guzzling desalination plant. What an appalling indictment of its incompetence on water issues!

This issue is obviously linked to climate change where weather patterns are changing. Indeed, NSW is moving more towards a desert weather climate it seems. Not only that but a 500 million litre desalination plant would emit greenhouse gasses as much as 1.25 million tonnes, or the same as 250,000 new cars on Sydney’s roads each year. The Labor Premier's response has been that the power used by the plant would come from Green energy. I am sorry Morris but Green energy should be being used to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, not to merely offset a greenhouse belching desalination plant.

The obvious and sensible Greens alternative: Recycling

Desalination has been rejected by the public because they know that a more sensible solution is viable given political will: recycling. the Greens have been championing recycling and re-use for Sydney.Figures given to the Government in 2004 showed water saving initiatives would save 58 billion litres of water a year by 2029 – more than a desalination plant creates.

The $2 billion cost of a desalination plant could be used to fund rebates for households to install greywater (from showers, laundry etc.) recycling units, saving a family of 4 more than 204,000 litres of water per year and hundreds of dollars in bills. Thats right, recycling would save family money, unlike a desalination plant that would cost family's more.

Finally, more resources for fixing leaks in Sydney’s water pipes would save 22 billion litres of water going to waste each year.

The Hawkesbury River An issue close to the heart of people in the Londonderry and Hawkesbury electorates is the state of our water supply coming from the Hawkesbury River. The Hawkesbury is the source of a large chunk of the districts water supply and yet the river is in my opinion slowly dying. The only thing that is keeping it alive is the fact that treated effluent is pumped into the river, thereby maintaining some sort of flow. For those who didn't just make that link, the Hawkesbury drinks water that is primarily treated sewage.

I have no problems with drinking recycled water as long as it is properly tested on a very regular basis. In addition, it is absolutely necessary that the Government do what it can to maintain the river and restore environmental flows. I both accounts the Government has failed. Consider the picture below from a few years ago:

Yes, that is not a football field, that is the Hawkesbury River covered in dangerous weeds. Because the river doesn't get enough normal environmental flows and gets a lot of nutrients from agricultural runoff, the river suffers from weed infestations. All the Government can do is pay for a harvester to chew up the weeds. Talk about a a band-aid solution! Perhaps Sydney Water could use some of its $250 million profit to find real solutions to this problem. This is where recycling of water from home tanks can be used to help fix the river. Less water would be taken out of the river thereby increasing natural flows.

Key NSW Election Theme 2: Public Services and Infrastructure

2007-01-21T10:09:00.000+11:00

NSW public services and infrastructure are suffering. I challenge anyone to argue against that statement. To help prove my point, i want you to think about the last time you went to a public hospital in NSW, perhaps even for an emergency. How long were you stuck in the waiting room before a nurse even saw you? How long did it take for a doctor to then see you? The time it takes has blown out dramatically under this government. And its not just hospitals. Our schools are degrading, and our transport system has been designed with profits in mind and not to supply needed services.

Let me indulge in to the public transport issue for a moment for I believe public transport is a key issue in the seat of Londonderry. Pollution promoting and money grabbing motorways, tollways and tunnels are being built at the expense of funding decent public transport (did anyone say cross-city tunnel?). Consider the following, NSW Government has:

Failed to invest in thenew heavy rail projects to the Hawkesbury and Penrith.
Closed rural branch lines, reduced passenger services and reducing greenhouse gas haulage.
Stalled the expansion of new urban light rail projects and delayed essential works on Sydney's heavy rail network.
Reduced the frequency of bus services, indeed the Hawkesbury has little or no public bus network at all.
Slowed the trains! And just so to make it look like they come on time.
Cut bike and pedestrian funding by nearly two-thirds in the last financial year and abolished the position of General Manager Bicycles and Pedestrian Branch of the RTA.

The fault can be squarely laid at the feet of the Carr and Iemma Governments. NSW Treasurer Michael Costa and his predecessor Michael Egan made themselves heroes of the financial sector by eliminating the NSW budget deficit. They were able to "achieve" this by starving the public sector of needed funds required to meet the needs of the state while also privatising essential services. Indeed, the shortfall in funding of the public sector is at least $1 billion dollars a year.

What is the Greens alternative?

For public services and infrastructure more generally, the Greens will ensure that quality public services will be provided and sufficiently funded to meet the needs of the community. The Greens support borrowing to finance publicly-owned infrastructure that adds value to this state. In addition, to help fund the current shortfall the Greens would redirect wasteful and damaging spending such as public funding of the wealthiest private schools, tax rorts for large corporations and extravagant government advertising.

Public transport has to be the key to NSW's transport future. The Greens propose that we encourage (read it, it says encourage not force) public transport, cycling and walking over private transport. A key point is to address the transport equity issues by extending public transport options for Western Sydney. Public transport is also key to fighting climate change. Greenhouse emissions from cars can be curbed by promoting public transport.

Sydney and US Presidential Primaries Heat Up

2007-01-21T09:40:00.000+11:00

I woke up (a sleep-in I'll admit. It's Sunday!) at 9am this morning to a whopping 37 degrees. I must say that I can't ever remember waking up to heat that high so early. Welcome to climate change...

The other big news is that Hillary Clinton (above left) has finally announced that she will be running for the US Presidantial election in 2008. The presidential primaries (the preselection process for the Democrats and Republicans) is going to be a star studded affair with some very big names throwing their hat in the ring including The New York Mayor during 9/11 Rudy Giuliani (pictured below) for the Republicans and high profile African American Barrack Obama (pictured above right) for the Democrats. Read who else here.The attractiveness of a Clinton/Obama ticket must surely win. However, their preselection process is long and drawn out with many twists. It is surely one story to watch out for.

Key NSW Election Theme 1: Climate Change

2007-01-20T10:23:00.000+11:00

The NSW State election is now 2 months away. It is time that I start focusing some attention both as an interested observer of politics but also as a Greens candidate for Londonderry. So I will start today looking at the key issue that has to dominate this election (and the federal election later this year) - climate change. The following will be the run down on this issue.

Climate change is refering to the variations in the globes climate over time. Overwhelming evidence shows that the globes climate is changing at a rapid pace and has been doing so since the industrial revolution. Further evidence has shown that human action is the result of this change largely from the production and emission of Carbon Dioxide. How? CO2 helps to create a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere that traps heat in. See the image below.

What impact will this have on the earth and humans?

Essentially climate change will heat up the atmosphere. Indeed, we are already locked in for an increase in average temperatures by approximately 2 degrees celsius. Without action I have heard predicitions of avergae temperatures rising by more that 6 degrees. This would have a devastating impact on the environment with risks to our food and water supplies, rising oceans and chaotic weather patterns. The Stern Review meakly predicted that the cost economically could be as high as 20% of global economy.

What do we have to do?

We have to cut down dramatically the levels of CO2 emissions before the climate changes in such a way that it will cause devastation for the entire world.

Do the Greens have a comprehensive strategy?

Yes the Greens do have a comprehensive strategy to fight climate change from an Australian and NSW point of view. To see our full policy visit our website. Or in summary:

First thing that NSW and Australia must do is set ambitious but achievable targets:

Aim for 80% reduction of total emissions by 2050
Set renewable energy targets: 20% by 2012 and 50% by 2015.
Set mandatory energy efficiency standards to curb waste: reduce energy consumption by 10% by 2011 and 15% by 2015.

To achieve these aims, governments at every level must lead the way by example and through its enormous legislative and budgetary power. The government must secure a low carbon supply of energy by regulating emissions and imposing efficiency standards on industry, commerce and residential building and appliances.

The government must also phase out the coal industry by not building any new coal energy stations and guide the market towards a jobs rich renewable energy industry that includes wind, solar, geothermal and biomass enrgy production.

The state government, which regulates the energy industry in NSW, should also encourage the decentralisation of energy supply. in ther words, encourge residents to install solar panels on rooftops as a major source of energy for the family home.

The government, both state and federal, must put a price on pollution. There are two schemes available, which I have talked about in an earlier post, a carbon tax and a second best solution of a well designed carbon trading scheme.

Are there any alternative proposals?

I have het to see a comprehensive strategy from any Liberal opposition or from the federal government. If the Liberal Party want to win the NSW election that have to convince the community that they have a comprehensive strategy in mind for this most important issue. At the moment I have not seen anything and would love readers to provide some information if possible.

As for the ALP, the State Government in NSW has yet to provide a compreensive strategy that is consistent with their federal counterparts. The NSW government has been one of the biggest supporters of coal (and therefore pollution) in the country. On the other hand, the federal opposition (ALP) have provided some renewable and emissions targets that are substandard to the Greens. The ALP will have to show the Greens that they have climate change on their agenda if they want our preferences.

I don't want to be an armchair general but...

2007-01-17T07:51:00.000+11:00

... wow sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq sounds like the stupidest idea ever that will not win them anything and only endanger the lives of more soldiers. It is quite clear that the US army have not learnt the lessons from Vietnam: that a sophisticated opposition using guerilla warfare in an environment they are expert in is almost impossible to pacify.

Bush has hung himself politically. The Republicans were dealt a siginificant blow losing both houses of parliament in the mid-term elections and the message was crystal clear: get out of Iraq. It is a recklass and dangerous President who is willing to go against the wishes of its constituents and put more soldiers lives at risk.

I am reminded of a theory I learnt in a first year international politics course. A theorist named GIlpin theorised the causes of 'maladaptability' of hegemonic states such as the British in the 19th century and the US in the 2oth century. 'Maladaptabilities' are factors that undermine a state's international or hegemonic dominance. For example, one was that the cost of maintaining its military hegemony through its foreign policy (being the world cop) would exceed domestic revenues. In such a case the military would inevitably be curbed at the expense of international power. It supposedly happened to the British.

I feel that this is happening to the US right now. The Bush Administration has overextended the US in being the world police to the point that it is no longer economically viable for the state. Indeed, the US' debt is becoming astronomical and unsustainable. Either economic downturn or a change in government to the Democrats who recognises these economic issues is the inevitable outcome.

But how many lives will be lost until that happens?

Individual Carbon Credit Schemes

2007-01-04T11:23:00.000+11:00

Some people in the Greens are doing some research on the appropriate response to Climate Change. The Government has proposed a dodgy 'Global Trading Scheme', of which the Greens reject as unworkable.

Essentially, two proposals are been suggested around the world. The first is a carbon tax on polluters. The second is an individual carbon credit scheme. For more information on these proposals see here.

To summarise:

1. Carbon Tax:

The carbon tax essentially places a cost on polluters in industry thereby raising the price of those goods to consumers. The effect would be that consumers would start looking for cheaper alternatives from non-polluting products. It is also assumed that the money raised from the Carbon Tax would be used to offset the inequities of the tax or further encourage non-polluting industries.

2. Individual Carbon Credit Schemes:

This is scheme is both impressive in its scope and sophistication. An independent board is set up to determine what the safest level of pollution is for the country. This total is then split between individuals and industry. For individuals, each adult is given an equal share (per capita) of credit they can pollute (from the purchasing of energy, petrol, air travel etc). Not everyone will use the exact amount of credits that they pollute. Those who have leftover (surplus) credits can sell their credits on the market to those who use more credits than they are allocated (deficit). This systm is similar to the fly-buys system we have up and running at the moment.

Industry have to buy their credits in an auction style system from the government. This therefore become like a tax on those who feel the need to pollute.

Obviously there is a lot more detail to both these systems. There are two reasons why I like the second option. Unlike the carbon tax, the Credit Scheme sets the limit on what a country pollutes, giving us certainty to deal with climate change. Second, the credit scheme more effectively uses the market on the demand (consumer) side of the issue. People can actually make money from not polluting, now thats incentive.

2007: Climate Change Crucible

2007-01-01T19:57:00.000+11:00

Happy New Years!

I hope every one had a great year. Looking back on 2006 I see it personally as a tough year where I got my teaching qualifications as my greatest achievement of the year.

Looking ahead, at least personally, 2007 will be a very difficult year where I will be starting teaching while contributing to (most likely) two elections.

Politically, 2007 will be known as the year we as a community decide to take climate change seriously. We must vote in governments who are sincere about their concern for the consequences of climate change rather than governments who have their own selfish agenda.

VEC Fallout

2006-12-23T11:44:00.000+11:00

The Pollbludger has done a fantastic job covering the Victorian state election and I am looking forward to his coverage of the NSW state election. What has been even more interesting has been the comments thread where the psephology community has gone ga ga over the VEC stuff up of the upper house result. Anyone interested in election statistics should read the comments pages on Pollbludger. However, if you are interested in just a brief rundown on the Vic election then you should read this from the democratic audit. It does not look favourably on the VEC.

In the end, after what seemed like a poor outcome, the Greens had an ok outcome. We won 3 upper house seats, had a small swing towards us in the overall vote, and narrowly missed out on 2 lower house seats and a fourth upper house seat. A good outcome overall.

However, the biggest loser out of the Vic election was the Christian right. Family First (FF) did not win a thing and only got 4% of the vote. Two reactions to this. First, the electorate has woken up to FF for what they are: a bunch of evangelical radicals that don't deserve parliamentary representation. Second, what was probably predicted, FF suffered from what the Greens suffered after a shock win (yes Steve Fielding was a shock in the Senate), the other political parties refuse to preference you. The challenge for FF, like it was for the Greens, is to increase ones vote to secure further positions, The Greens have done it, but I don't think FF will since the Liberals are recruiting from the Christian right. Good riddance.

Technical Issues

2006-12-22T10:11:00.000+11:00

There seems to be some tech issues with the site. Trying to fix them.

If I can't get it running before monday I will say merry XMas to all now.

See you on the flip side.

FInally some coverage on 'private equity'

2006-12-20T10:34:00.000+11:00

We have been hearing in the media of late about how 'private equity' firms have been aggressively acquiring businesses in Australia (Qantas being the latest victim). It's been mentioned a few times of late by friends and family. Basically, they have asked 'what's with these private equity firms, and who are they?' These are good questions but no one in the media seem to be taking a bite at this story. However, Ross Gittens has piece on private equity in the SMH today.

And so it continues...

2006-12-19T15:56:00.000+11:00

With the elevation of Garrett to the shadow environmental portfolio I was willing to admit I was wrong and congratulate Labor for allowing the (former) environmental activist to have some power to do some good. Yet it doesn't seem like things have changed.

On Rudd's meet and greet tour of Australia Rudd took Garrett with him to all states except the latest stop, Tasmania. Stupid move on Rudd's part because it is too conspicuous and the papers have been all over it. It has made Rudd and Garrett look like the cowards that they are. But it also continues to embolden my claim that Garrett is nothing but a cardboard cut-out to be wheeled out when the Labor want to look like it has some environmental credibility.

Rudd has also come out saying that Latham's pro-forest policy in the last election campaign would be overturned and would rather stick with the current policy that allows old growth forests to be destroyed for profit. Where was Garrett? He is the shadow environment minister, isn't he? Well he had no comment today. Coward.

At the same time, Bob Brown has won a landmark court case in Tasmania that will serve to help protect Tasmania's forests.

Greens win 3rd seat and control of the Vic LC

2006-12-14T13:06:00.000+11:00

Reports have come out today that the Victorian Greens have won a third seat in the Victorian State Upper House. Congratulations to all the Victorian Greens who toiled for a wonderful victory. Initially, it was thought that the Democratic Labor Party had taken 2 seats, but have instead won only one. So the make up of the Victorian Upper House is as such:

Labor - 19
Liberals - 15
Greens - 3
Nationals - 2
DLP - 1

The Labor Party will need to negotiate with the Greens and DLP if they are wanting to pass any legislation. This is a time for the Greens to assert their new found power with wisdom and maturity. An exciting time for Victoria.

Racism alive and well

2006-12-11T16:22:00.000+11:00

There are few issues that get my blood boiling, one of them is racism. Just over a year ago I wrote a blog piece here about the Macquarie University lecturer who went on ACA spouting his racist views. Little did I know that the Cronulla riots were just around the corner. In fact its almost a year to the day since the cronulla riots.

At the time of the riots I underestimated what a huge ordeal it was until I saw the news that night. A black day for Australia but a day of truth also where it was finally revealed to the world the racist underbelly of Australian culture. The fallout of the Cronulla riots was a sight to behold. It quickly became a hunt for the Muslim extremist who retaliated rather than the hunt for justice. Then came one of the most ridiculous election promises I have ever heard:

In the January 14 Sydney Morning Herald, Debnam accused the ALP of being “indebted” to certain ethnic groups and “Middle Eastern gangs”, and said that this was the reason the police had not arrested those involved in the revenge attacks. Three days later, Debnam was quoted in the Herald demanding that the NSW Labor government “lock up 200 Middle Eastern thugs” whom he alleged were involved. By January 18, Debnam had upped his hit-list to 1000.

Unfortunately, it hasn't ended there. The Prime Minister and his cronies have pandered to the racists in the electorate with regular outbursts against muslims.

A year on from the Cronulla riots and a political opportunist rears her head to take advantage of the racist underbelly. Pauline Hanson has threatened to run against the sitting Liberal member for Cook, Bruce Baird (who ironically worked with Petro Georgiou to help tone down the draconian and racist refugee policies of their party). If she runs, she will lose dreadfully, the racists are too spread out and not only concentrated in Cook. Nevertheless, this does not bode well for the tone of next years federal election. I sincerely I hope a repeat of either 1998 or 2001 will not happen in 2007. Australia has been embarrassed by this woeful woman more than enough.

Musical Chairs

2006-12-10T18:41:00.000+11:00

Rudd has his new shadow frontbench, which were all predictable. After reading this article, this is what I have gathered:

Kevin Rudd - Opposition Leader (former Foreign Affairs)
Julia Gillard - Deputy Leader, Industrial Relations (former Health)
Wayne Swan - Treasury (former Treasury)
Stephen Smith - Education & Training (former Industrial Relations)
Nicola Roxon - Health (former Attorney General)
Joel Fitzgibbon - Defence (former Assistant Treasurer)
Robert Mcclelland - Foreign Affairs (former Defence)
Kelvin Thompson - Attorney General
Lindsay Tanner - Finance (former Finance)
Simon Crean - Trade
Kim Carr - Industry
Craig Emerson - Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors
Peter Garrett - Environment
Jenny Macklin - Family and Community Services (former Deputy Leader and Education & Training)
Robert Mcmullan - State/Federal Relations
Martin Ferguson - Transport (former Resources)
Stephen Conroy - Communications (former Communications)
Tony Burke - Immigration (former Immigration)
Tanya Plibersek - Human Services
Chris Evans - Resources and National Development

I have included links to their parliamentary websites so that you can find contact details easily. If you have any questions, you should ask them. For example, I would like to ask Garrett what his views are on ALP's proposal to change its three mines policy and even the selling of uranium overseas (like the ALP supports).

A final note, gee what a dreary lot they are (or at least most of them). I was hoping half of these losers would be gone. Oh well, the dead hand of factionalism remains.

Mum and Dad Politics

2006-12-08T15:22:00.000+11:00

Congratulations to Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard for taking the Labor leadership. I guess it needed to have happened but this late in the term?

Will they be able to topple Howard? Perhaps. I feel they have started the week off very well, portraying themselves as the mum and dad figure of politics. It is shades of Mel and Kochie from Seven's Sunrise programme. On some level it makes me gag but maybe it will work.

I was hoping to turn my attention to the Liberal Party but I won't be able to help myself but scrutinise Rudder's every move.

One last thing I will say is that Gillard has positioned herself best to become Prime Minister. With Rudd, he is taking a huge gamble on the next election. He may self-destruct like Latham (although I doubt it) if he loses the election meaning Gillard will take the leadership in a following election where Labor should win. Alternatively, Rudd wins an election where Gillard will take over Rudd at some point.

Post-holiday slump

2006-12-08T15:02:00.000+11:00

I am back after a very relaxing week at Hawks Nest. The weather was not so great but its not all about the beach when you are with your partner and friends. Not always fun coming back to reality.

Now back to that greasy pole ...

The funniest story of the year

2006-12-01T07:47:00.000+11:00

Linked to SMH.

See you guys after my holiday.

Selling out, cardboard cut-outs

2006-11-30T13:10:00.000+11:00

Well it looks like I have a bit of time on my hands today so i thought I might make a post or two extra.

I was reading the SMH and couldn't help but have a giggle at this article. It reports how Bob Brown and the Greens have (deservedly) attacked Peter Garrett for the issues I raised in an earlier post. To quote a Greens source in the article:

Will Peter Garrett be to the Australian Conservation Foundation what Philip Ruddock is to Amnesty International?

Good question. Oh and the article points out one of the key issues that I raised in an earlier post: why is Garrett spending more time attacking the environment movement than on the Libs? I can answer that: Peter has sold out and is being used as a cardboard cut-out to be rolled out whenever the Greens are threatening Labor.

Is Peter Garrett so arrogant to believe that he and only he can reform the Labor party, gain power, become leader, create positive environment policies and save the planet? He must believe this himself if he is willing to burn bridges with those who work with him and have the same environmental and social goals.

I look forward to the time when Garrett is caught in the ultimate bind, first when Labor abandons its three mine policy, and then when Labor will accept nuclear power in this country as i suspect they will in the future.

Your Rights at Work

2006-11-30T07:42:00.000+11:00

My last post before I go on holiday to Hawks Nest for a week with my partner and friends. I hope to post with a couple of pictures. But before then I wanted to post one more time and I could not let the day go by without mentioning the unions campaign rally today around the country.

The Your Rights at Work campaign started a long time ago and I feel had an enormous impact electorally for Labor. However, the intense campaign that happened in 2005 has died down somewhat, inevitably i guess, but I think (or hope) today's rally around the county is the start of an intense campaign leading up to the next election.

This is important because lets remind ourselves of what Howard's legislation has done to our working rights:
- You could be sacked with no right to challenge it
- Your right to redundancy pay could be removed
- Minimum rights outlined in awards will be reduced
- Your boss can demand you sign an individual contract
(Australian Workplace Agreement.)
- You may be ‘locked out’ indefinitely if you don’t
- Your only option if sacked may be expensive court
proceedings
- It may become illegal to tell anyone what is in your AWA
- It will become harder to gain fair minimum wage outcomes
- Your right to meet with union representatives will be
further limited
- It will be even harder to take industrial action to protect your
wages and conditions

Worth fighting against? Two things you can do. First, join your union. I am applying to the teachers federation as we speak. Second, participate in the Your Rights at Work campaign.

Tidbits

2006-11-29T08:04:00.000+11:00

Sigh. Another leadership challenge in the brewing for the Labor Party. Although I do approve of getting rid of the fool they have and to be replaced by Rudd and Gillard, I don't know if I like the timing. Beazley should never have been put back in.

On another note, Quiggan points out that the Iraq war has produced over 1 million refugees but the US has not relaxed its immigration laws and has only allowed 202 Iraqi refugees into the US. I would like to know the statistics for Australia. I will endeavour to find out.

Yet another aside, today's SMH has a good piece from Gittins (as always) lambasting the Government on not attacking poverty. Whats even more interesting is that the Brotherhood of StLawrence, one of the organisations Gittens takes a swipe at, has a story in the same edition states that giving 15-20 year olds the dole 'sends all the wrong signals'.

Nuclear politics

2006-11-27T16:09:00.000+11:00

A fantastic post from Oz Politics on the Greens and Howard's politics on the nuclear debate. It certainly smells of Howard style of tactics doesn't it? My feeling is that the Green vote will only incrementally increase over the next decade. After that, I think it will depend on the weather.

I might have to do a thorough post on this nuclear topic one day.

Victorian Results

2006-11-26T16:31:00.000+11:00

Congratulations to the Victorian Greens who have campaigned well and have come up trumps with 9.7% of the vote, 2 seats in the Legislative Assembly, and only just missing out in three other LA seats and one lower house seats. Some may be disappointed that we didnt get those seats but i am not. The Greens winning the balance of power is the equivalent of a major party winning government. It takes a long time and will be determined by many events out of our control.

However, of course there are commentators in the media who will do what they can to show that the Greens did poorly. For example, Koutsoukis in the Age had this pile of dung:

"But there was one big loser in the federal arena last night and that was Greens leader Senator Bob Brown, whose overblown rhetoric about the Greens stealing a clutch of seats came to little. The Greens' vote went backwards yesterday - a major embarrassment for Brown, who put his heart and soul into the Greens campaign.

The real question now is just how influential will the Greens be in next year's federal election?

They were a flop in 2004, they were a flop yesterday and all indications are that the Greens will flop again at the 2006 federal election."

I don't know where these idiot journalists get there credentials from because they can't help but be so biased. These journalists seem to think that if a minor party doesnt win government it must be a disaster for the party. In 2004 almost 1 million people voted for the Greens, which is more than the Nationals and a positive swing of 2%. How is that a flop Koutsoukis? Ignore those in the media who serve their political masters.

It is pretty clear that Brown says these things to get media attention. How effective this is I will leave to others to decide. Additionally, polling for the Greens vote is sketchy at best. It is the polling data that builds up the perception of Greens power and not just Brown.

I will be calling it a disaster for the greens when we are in aposition similar to the Democrats. As long as we are still winning seats and just missing out on others, the Greens will always be a force to contend with.

Victorian State Election

2006-11-24T17:20:00.000+11:00

Saturday is the Victorian State Election and the Greens have a wonderful opportunity to snap up some seats, some for the first time. As always, the ABC through Antony Green has a good summary of the election.

In the State's upper house, the system has changed and the boundaries have been redistributed. At first thought, the Vic greens must have been thinking that they could get three seats. However, it seems that the Liberals have refused to put the Greens ahead of Labor. This makes the Greens job that little bit harder. This beautifully explained by the Pollbludger.

The more interesting part of the election is the seat of Melbourne where the sitting labor Health Minister Bronwyn Pike is now likely to lose her seat to the Greens DiNatale (pictured). The Greens barely lost in that seat last time but i am willing to bet that the Greens will win this time.

Yet 'controversy' has stalked the Greens in that seat because it seems that the Greens are going to do a split ticket for their how-to-vote cards. Labor has twisted this around into a 'Greens preference Liberals' story. I hate to resort to name calling but Labor is lame if thats all they can resort to.

The Melbourne election brings up a couple of issues. First, The split ticket issue is always an interesting debate in the Greens. It is always brought up in campaign meeting when preferences are being decided. I have yet to be convinced by it. Although i am also of the opinion that how-to-vote cards should be banned and that a copy be stuck up in each polling booth. Its all about saving paper or recycled paper as it is in the case of Greens how-to-votes.

Second, peter Garrett came out to Melbourne to help campaign for Labor and confirm Labor's position that they believe the Greens are preferencing the Liberals. Well Garrett continues to be used in my opinion. He is rolled out whenever necessary to show Labor's tokenistic environmental credentials. Labor is lame. I feel sorry for him in a way because i doubted that he envisioned himself being used to be constantly fighting the Greens and not the Liberals. Garrett you have become a cardboard cut out.

Good luck to all my fellow Greens in Victoria.

Global warming

2006-11-23T08:16:00.000+11:00

Hi everyone. Been occupied with other parts of my life (teaching) and decided to take a break until now.

So where do i begin? With election polling of course and where the Greens are positioned for forthcoming state and federal elections for 2007.

The above post is from oz politics who always goves nice summaries of polling data. For more information on polling data go to any of the links to my right. What can we decipher from all of these squiggly lines? We can confidently say that as of late last year Labor has been in a commanding position in the polls, buoyed by excellent campaigning by the union movement against Howard's unfair workplace relations legislation. However, the latest polling data for November suggests Labor is slipping away its lead. I believe this trend will continue unless labor can pull a rabbit out of a hat. There is only one reason for this trend: Beazley. Latham called him one of the worst leaders in history. Come next election Beazley will be considered THE worst leader in Austrlian political history.

On a brighter side of things, Labor's poor performance in the latest polling data seems to have not gone to the Liberals but gone to the Greens. Newspoll tends to be the pessimistic polling data and it is even showing a sudden upsurge in Green support. Indeed, I heard that in one polling question the Greens are the most trusted to manage climate change (i heard the stats were like 24% Green, 23% Lib and 19% Lab. if anyone can confirm this, that would be great). Why such a sudden upsurge? Well obviously because climate change has been THE issue of the past month.

Poor Labor. Their factionalism has produced Anthony Albanese as Shadow Environment Minister. To be honest, he's not a bad bloke: he speaks well and he has reasonably good left politics. However, he is politically unpallatable to the electorate and looks like nerd who wants to be a bully boy. Good luck Labor!

Not so much tidbits but skimming the issues

2005-11-10T11:08:00.000+11:00

I'll start with the polls (a nice summary can be found here at OzPolitics). There has been, on average) a steady but only gradual rise in the Green vote since about mid-August - we are hovering between 8 and 10%. Labor is ahead two party preferred - god knows how with Beazley still performing woefully, wait I do know, its because of Green and minor party preferences. Labor will be smashed in the next poll when it will include the Terrorist raids issue. Labor was doing okay with workplace relations reform but have been outmaneouvred by the wiley old fox on terrorism.

The Hawkesbury Gazette hosted an IR forum last Sunday with Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie MP), ALP Senator Steve Hutchins, Jon Robertson from Unions NSW and some useless representative from the employers association. A rough crowd for Kerry and he performed as best as he could have, always the consummate politician - I have to give credit where credit is due although he is wrong. Steve Hutchins was a dag and drab. The two stand outs for opposite reasons was Jon and the employer rep. Jon is a smooth operator and was quite charismatic - a future Macquarie MP perhaps?. The employer rep was offensive and condescending and received perhaps more interjections from non-Labor people than Kerry did. These forums should be organised more often.

Now to terrorism. The terrorism raids are scary and a sign of things to come. Some say this has vindicated Howards actions but I don't believe so. I am still suspicious - although I am not as stupid as Lyn Allison - of the timing and the amount of political capital the Howard Government and the State Premiers are trying to make out of this. Howard may have one the battle, however he and the authorities will go too far and the will be punished in the long run.

Santo Santoro, a Liberal redneck from Queensland, doesn't like the way the ABC reports politics. He also has a poll on his website asking whether you think the ABC is biased towards the left. Oh wait, I just checked the site again and the poll has disappeared - what a surprise.

What the hell are the ALP doing? Nothing, that's what.

2005-10-25T11:52:00.001+10:00

I'm back. Slow month or so. Should be a more regular poster again.

Wow alot has happened in the past month or so. Some unbelievably important pieces of legislation have passed, and being drafted at the moment - Telstra sale, Trade practices amendment, anti-terror laws, and the industrial relations sledgehammer. They are coming thick and fast. I hope to go through each of these in coming days and weeks.

With these very controversial and radical policies this should be the time where the ALP make significant gains, but as you can see from these graphs the ALP have at best stagnated in the polls. The question is why?

The first possible obvious answer is that the wider community actually agree with the radical policies of the Howard Government. I find this highly unlikely as the Australian people have in the post-war period been a conservative lot in the truest meaning of the word.

The second and more likely answer is that the ALP are defunct as an opposition - particularly under Beazley. I have read the Latham diaries and agree with his criticisms of the ALP machine and its current leaders - they lack inspiration, vision and direction. These deficiencies are becoming more glaringly obvious everytime a Beazley, Swan, Smith or Tanner front the media.

Catch this lateline debate last friday with Tanner and Brandis on the proposed anti-terror laws. Tanner should be like a pittbull in his attack on the Government. He was pathetic, defending the ALP's non-stance on this Nazi-like legislation.

You know your party is going badly when your most famous (or is it infamous) leader is criticising the party for not making a stance. Read Whitlam's comments here.

The anti-terror laws are the best example of how badly the ALP are reading politics at the moment. Take this terror Herald poll. It says 60% do not support the shoot-to-kill aspect of the draft legislation. Why? because the state ALP leaders have kicked up a stink - and rightly so! But that's not all that's wrong with the legislation. Read this Media Watch piece - the sedition law changes are scaring the hell out of me. The ALP should be kicking up a stink on this too. Their strategy - change the shoot to kill part to make it look like they did something.

Pathetic.

Tidbits

2005-09-07T22:06:00.000+10:00

Well what an amazing week or two in Australian politics. I don't want to go into too much detail concerning Brogden's demise apart from to say that he had to go but no one wanted the guy to hurt himself. The good thing to come from this is that the hardcore right are being flushed out into the open - read the latest from the SMH. The moderates in NSW have had some control of the party - that is dying -but the other problem is that at a federal level the haedcore right have the top job including the PM.

Other interesting things in the news of late:

A fantastic article from the always worthwhile Ross Gittins in the SMH. This one concerns the over emphasis given to the GDP statistic - the measure of economic growth.
Well Nelson has slightly firmed as the next PM and is desperate to get any media attention. This example shows his desperation. It concerns the inclusion of surfing in the Sport Leisure and Recreation in Byron - geeeeez what an outrage!
My what! article for today is this one again from Nelson who denies that HECS create an overwhelming debt - says Nelson who probably never paid for one bit of his very long education career.
Another great article from Gavin Mooney at Online Opinion who is 'sickened' by the calls to reduce taxes (and once again for the rich). It follows another article he did earlier in the year that I would consider one of my favourite opinion pieces this year - a must read.

I have also returned to the letter to the editor writing fold. It was in the Hawkesbury Gazette last week - it concerned Telstra.

The Rise of Racism (again)

2005-08-24T15:07:00.000+10:00

I had hoped that Pauline Hansons crash and burn would be the end of overt racism in Australia - at least for long time. With September 11 I predicted a sudden upsurge in racism in politics, the media, the market and the community at large. Indeed there was to some extent. However, it wasn't until the London bombings that overt racism in Australia has become a crisis.

Take for example the case of former Macquarie lecturer Andrew Fraser (read this article for some background) who wants Australia to revert back to a "White Australia" immigration policy because Africans are supposedly prone to violence.

Do i need to refer to the hype over radical islamic fundamentalists?

Then there is this piece by Nationals Senator John Stone opinion piece titled "The Case for Assimilation". He says:

Since London's July 7 bombings, the Federal Government has been under pressure
to address Australia's rapidly growing Muslim problem. But it clearly still
wants to avoid the real issues: the need to abandon outright our official
multiculturalism policies and the need to sharply reduce, to the point of
virtually halting, further inflow of people whose culture (Islam) is such that
there can be no realistic hope of them ever integrating into Australian society.

Yes, that's right, he said the "Muslim problem", it may as well have been the "Muslim question". What is probably most disturbing has been the reaction to such racism. For example, of the community's reaction is the comments to Senator Stone's article. To illustrate, here is one post:

We have a serious problem of religious, philisopical and racial intolerance
displayed by a sizable proportion of the Islamic community and to the bleeding
heart left, those filthy anglo racists are all to blame.I used to teach in our
West.Recently a retired Head of a mostly Muslim primary school told me how she
had a security guard escort her to and from her car just before she retired.My
sister bumps into an Muslim Lady and apologises,"Yes you'll be really sorry when
we take over your country," came the retort.My son and his friends get assaulted
for wearing the Aussie flag on Australia Day.It ends with a stand off between
the police and 40 thugs.No one is arrested because they are all under the age of
18.I have been run off the road by these people merging in traffic behind me and
giving me the finger as they pass.Pushed off the footpath as they walk four
abreast down George St Sydney.A very sizable portion of the the Muslim
population are both intolerant and violent.Now would the likes of
rossco,kalweb,rainer and strayan tell me how this makes me and John Stone the
racists.As I've said,get your heads out of your fundamentals and smell the
reality.

What a narrow minded, selfish and ignorant piece of trash. It becomes racism mate when you take individual instances like these silly ones and say it about an entire culture. What a total ... This is a scary post considering he is a teacher.

Another example after Andrew Fraser's interview on Channel Nine's A Current Affair, the show did one of those silly viewer polls asking whether they agreed with Fraser's comments and views. A whopping 85% agreed with him.

I have always understood that many Australians are racist. It trully disgusts me but it trully scars me when racists start to become more confident to go public with there views and try to change policy.

Tidbits

2005-08-11T20:21:00.000+10:00

Hey all. Been a bit slow lately with posts - uni is starting to be a drag with assessments due in a week or so. Nevertheless, there are a few articles out there that are interesting enough for me to point out:

Crikey publishes an email from Antony Green who anlyses the seat of Marrickville. His impression is that Labor will likely win over the Greens. He thinks the 2004 Fed result for Grayndler suggests the Green vote peaked in 2003. I disagree - there is definitely a mood for change in the area.
Charles Richardson at Crikey notes the terrible human cost of the Coal mining industry and China. He doesn't go so far to say Nuclear is a prefered option but does say, " If anti-nuclear campaigners want to be taken seriously, they need to face up to the implications of continued reliance on coal." Richardson obviously has no understanding of anti-nuclear campaign. The anti-nuclear campaign is also ant-coal and that there should be a focus on renewable energy.
An excellent article by Margo Kingston over at her blog Webdiary. It focuses on the first day of the Senate and how Lab and Libs voted for a very arrogant Paul Calvert for Senate President. Unfortunately, Kerry Nettle did not get the votes.
Some more ALP critics at APO.
This opinion piece by Joo-Cheong Tham at APO focuses on an issue that flew under the radar: the Liberal Party using taxpayer funds to advertise its IR policy.
This link to APO is page where you can download a paper by Larissa Behrendt that outlines the Government's agenda to privatise Indigenous native title.

I think I will have to devote a post to Indigenous issues in the near future. I probably consider it my most favoured political issue and there are some very disturbing issues on the horizon - yes even worse than the abolition of ATSIC.

Greens gear up for Marrickville

2005-08-03T15:48:00.000+10:00

Iemma is a Barry Unsworth choice. Labor would have done much better with Scully. Please don't think that I support Scully - he is rotten to the core. Politically however I think Scully presents himself as a leader more than the lamo Iemma.

So Carr has gone, Refshauge has gone and now Knowles has gone. And here I am thinking that the next two years without elections would mean boredom. We will have three bi-election in NSW.

Most interestingly from a Greens perspective is the seat Refshauge is leaving behind. It is the seat of Marrickville where the Greens polled 28% in the 2003 state election, 21% in the seat of Grayndler at the 2004 Federal election, and elected five Greens Marrickville Councillors in 2004 (and breaking Labor's mayoral fiefdom in Marrickville).

The word is that Karmel Tebbutt will move from the upper house to contest the seat. The refore the Greens will want to preselect a woman.

The Greens might just snatch this seat from the ALP. If so it will be the first lower house seat at a state level. It is possible only if the Greens get a positive swing by snatching the protest vote from disgruntled ALP voters AND the Liberals preference the Greens above the ALP.

The New Senate Team

2005-08-03T15:19:00.000+10:00

Next week parliament is sitting after its winter break and we will have a new Senate that has many changes from the last one. Most notably of course is that the Howard Government has a majority but it is already starting to look shaky with the likes of the Nationals Barnaby Joyce running around telling anyone who will listen (and that is a lot of people at the moment) that he will cross the floor on a number of issues unless the Government meets his demands. The Government does have a fallback option in the form of Family First's Steve Fielding. The next three or four months will be interesting indeed.

On a more positive note, the Greens will have two new Senators (we should have had at least one other from Victoria, thanks to the ALP preferencing Family First), which has meant the creation of a Greens Party Room. Read Bob Brown's media release here. The two new Senators are Christine Milne from Tasmania and Rachelk Siewert from Western Australia. I have just recently had the opportunity to meet both new Senators in an office meeting. I have also seen Cristine Milne in action at the God Under Howard Forum held in Sydney a few weeks ago.

I knew very little of Rachel but my impressions of her was one of passion and that of being well organised. Rachel has been given the Industrial Relations portfolio responsibility - a mighty task for a new Senator.

Christine Milne gives off a very different impression. Christine is tough and very intimidating. I pitty the poor Senator who will atagonise her. At the God Under Howard forum she let loose on Family First and Howard. Christine Milne in full flight is an awe-inspiring sight. She will be a our 'headkicker' in the Senate.

The Senate will be very entertaining.

Get up!

2005-08-01T14:59:00.000+10:00

Webdiary has pointed to an interesting new web-based organisation aimed at making more people politically active. The website is called Get Up! It is based on an American version that was designed prior to the US Presidential election.

However, there are some things about such an organisation that frustrate me. On their about page they say:

The other political parties aren't providing a strong opposition, and the media
is dominated by a handful of right-wing voices.

I disagree with the first part of this sentence. Indeed, I agree that the ALP are not providing a strong opposition. However, the Greens are definitely providing significant opposition given their limited capacity - if only the Greens had greater capacity! If more people understood the Greens and their policies, were active in the Greens then more people would vote for the Greens and then there would be a proper opposition.

Therefore, I feel the problem is that there is no need for such an organisation as Get Up! when there is a political party that agrees and supports with their campaign and more. I am already very active in overthrowing the Howard regime and returning democracy, justice, fairness, and tolerance and therefore feel no need to join such an organisation.

One has to ask why are they willing to join this organisation and not the Greens? Is this group just another wannabe or repackaged Australian Democrats?

I recommend that the first thing people should do is research political parties and their policies and choose the one that best matches your beliefs and priorities. Ultimately, it is a political party that will make significant change in this country - why not be directly involved on some level?

Again, like the Westminster concept (see two posts down), this organisation has no policies other than to 'restore democracy'. On this one issue it sounds nice but what does it actually mean?

I understand that people are not willing to be tainted by party affiliation, I certainly struggled with that for a while. However, as soon as I actually read up on the Greens and their policies, there was no choice, I had to join. The things that are happening in the world today are too important for me not to do nothing about and I am not selfish enough to be more concerned over what people will think of me if they see me as a party member of the Greens.

Bob finally bit the bullet - 2007 becomes even more interesting

2005-07-27T16:06:00.000+10:00

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?

2005-07-27T15:06:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-24T18:55:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-20T21:32:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-20T21:20:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-16T15:21:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-13T22:23:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-11T10:10:00.000+10:00

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?

2005-07-08T23:41:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-06T21:51:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-06T16:59:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-05T22:57:00.000+10:00

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?

2005-07-05T19:26:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-04T21:02:00.000+10:00

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

2005-07-03T21:44:00.000+10:00

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).

Welcome

2005-06-19T18:53:00.000+10:00

My name is Joel MacRae, I am 24 and live in Richmond in the western suburbs of Sydney, Australia.