Monthly Archives: October 2012
Neglect, Soft Diplomacy and Great Possibilities
Finally, after years of discussion about the importance of economic and stronger diplomatic ties with India it appears that all the talk has transformed into action. Prime Minister Julia Gillard, on a trip to India today announced that Australia would seek to give the relationship with India the same level of attention and significance as ties with Japan, Korea and Indonesia. Relations have been held back recently, including over a reluctance on Australia’s part, until recently, to sell uranium to India and also as a response to a number of violent attacks on Indian students.
There is no doubt that India, the second largest country by population and world’s largest democracy can be the source of abundant opportunity, economically and culturally. But the benefits of a greater engagement with India are not one way, greater trade and engagement will be mutually beneficial if harnessed to their full potential.
At present the relationship is worth close to $20 billion to Australia and in beginning bilateral free trade talks with the south-Asian country, the Trade Minister, Craig Emerson signalled intentions to double that figure to $40 billion. The intentions there are great and working towards that outcome is an important process that needs to be facilitated.
As part of the trip so far, a headline-stealer above and beyond anyone of the economic issues so far, was announced by Julia Gillard. The Australian Government would be conferring membership of the Order of Australia on Sachin Tendulkar.
It is unclear what benefit this act of ‘soft diplomacy’ will have as we pursue more mutual interests with the subcontinental nation. If anything, the benefit will be the temporary winning of brownie points as we seek to increase our cultural and trade ties with India. To that end, it is useless if not back up with firm and substantial commitments to further the bilateral arrangements between Australia and India.
The journey to India is all about catching up on lost time in the relationship between our two countries. For too long it has been pushed too much to the side, even not pursued at times, especially in the wake of acts of violence on Indian students which were quickly characterised in the media here and in the subcontinent as acts of racial violence.
Far from just focusing on the temporary and largely superficial effects of giving Sachin Tendulkar an honour usually reserved for Australians and the dubious and troublesome trade in uranium, an equal focus on trade in a broader range of commodities and on the services side of our economy is entirely necessary.
India too has much to offer, not the least of which is a well-educated and competitively-priced technology sector.
It has been claimed that the pursuit of greater bonds with India is to act as a counterbalance in the region to the rise of China which, while entirely peaceful, has drawn varying levels of concern from different countries.
Frankly, that is absolute nonsense. Trade with India will in no way have any effect, positive or negative, on the relationship with China. Yes, both India and China have different forms of government, but that just does not play as a factor in necessary trading relationships.
There will also be no time, even in the most distant future where India would eclipse China in economy size.
If we are to further ties with India, then what was described today as a “standing invitation” for the Indian Prime Minister to travel to India will need to become a formal invitation asking Mr Singh to visit Australia. It has been far too long, nearly 26 years in fact, since the last visit of an Indian leader to our shores.
There is much work to be done in the relationship with India and the task is made harder because of the indifference and at times outright lack of interest in growing the limited economic and friendship ties between our two nations. The misaligned tyres from hitting potholes encountered along the way have also been neglected for too long and what could have been an easy repair job were their immediate attention, now requires a look at the axles.
Personal Over Political Even in Policy
We might have been forgiven, after the extraordinary scenes last week in the parliament, having built up over months, would have begun to fizzle out to a spot-fire here and there. However, it seems that the government, our politicians, are firmly wedded to continuing to give the blaze, presumed under control, more oxygen. It would appear that, even in the case of some policy, the Gillard Government is set to prosecute it from a personal angle rather than a political angle about the sense or otherwise of Coalition policy.
Members of the Opposition yesterday, including Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, his deputy and Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop and Shadow Immigration Minister Scott Morrison made a flying visit to Indonesia yesterday. Tony Abbott as Opposition Leader was granted a rare privilege by the Indonesian Government, access to the ear of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Early in the day Mr Abbott made a speech where he said, for the relationship between Australia and Indonesia to continue to prosper, we and Indonesia, to continue to foster a culture of mutual respect would need to raise potential policy changes with each other.
Then, during his meeting with President Yudhoyono, the Opposition Leader, discussing the relationship between our two countries, including the issue of asylum seekers, Tony Abbott failed to talk about the proposed policy of turning back asylum seeker boats headed from Indonesia. Scott Morrison since stated that he had brought up the policy in his meeting with Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa.
In and of itself, the leader of the Liberal Party not raising the issue is not a terribly horrific misstep. Neglecting to mention turning back the boats will appear clumsy and hypocritical in light of his words early yesterday both domestically and in Indonesia. The events of yesterday, no matter how trivial, were well and truly open to being spun by the ALP into an attack strategy.
It is important to mention that the Indonesian Government are well and truly aware of Liberal Party policy regarding asylum seekers. Our friends to the north have seen the plans in action before under the Howard Government. The Indonesians too, have actually heard about Abbott’s plan to resurrect the draconian measures that were part of the ‘Pacific Solution’.
It is no surprise and has been known for some time, that the Indonesians are not keen at all on receiving back asylum seeker vessels that have departed from their shores on the way to Australia. Indeed, they hate it. They will not be open to an Abbott Government pointing asylum seeker vessels back toward Indonesia.
To not mention the specifics of Abbott’s planned return to the Pacific Solution was clearly an attempt to avoid an embarrassing situation, of again being publicly rebuked by Indonesia. In light of his words yesterday though, a little embarrassment has though been suffered. However, that will probably pale in comparison with the real embarrassment that could have been inflicted over being shot down again on policy grounds.
What was very interesting about most of the verbal attacks mounted by the government was what, more correctly who, was attacked. Instead of most of the verbal barbs being directed at the Liberal Party or the inhumane policy, most of the venom was directed at Abbott himself with the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister accusing Mr Abbott of various things, including being “cowardly”, a “mouse” in Indonesia.
Very little focus in the put-downs was directed at the policy itself. It was raised by Chris Bowen that the Indonesians do not like the idea of boats being directed back to Indonesia and will never participate in it, but those words came as a secondary thought.
The government too, could have attacked the policy directly, not from the standpoint of the Indonesians not being willing to allow it to happen, but from the angle that it is just too horrifying, too unbelievable to even contemplate a government wanting to actually behave in a manner like that. Labor should have destroyed the proposal that way like they used to.
Could it be that the Gillard Government, after having already shifted dramatically to the right on asylum seekers and refugees did not want to appear too soft on asylum policy by not attacking it directly? That’s a possibility.
In any case, attacking the personal over the political is set to continue.
Crowing About Making Life Harder
It feels like a while since any substantial discussion has occurred involving policy and the business of government more broadly. Lately we’ve been stuck on constructing and deconstructing personalities and political parties. We’ve also been debating what should or should not be said as part of the usually robust, but recently vitriolic public discourse. Today is the day we must again begin focusing on policy and the business of government, looking above and beyond the easy analysis of people and personalities.
During all the hubbub a milestone went by almost undetected, with only a brief passing mention in the political media as the sexism and misogyny debate accelerated.
The Gillard Government, often wrongly accused of not getting on with the business of government, announced to the media that they had managed to have passed through the parliament over 400 bills. That much legislation passed over 2 years is certainly not, by any stretch of the imagination, not getting on with the business of government.
There was probably much back-slapping and the brief mention smacked of pride. Why wouldn’t the government be proud of that achievement? That much work making it through the parliament, a minority government occupying the benches, would not have been an easy task, made both easier and harder at different junctures since the August 2010 federal election.
But is all this work necessarily a good thing? Will all this work lead to less government and bureaucratic interference in the lives of individuals and businesses? Will it make life in Australia a smoother process? Finally, what is better, new rules and regulations and processes to follow or new or beefed up penalties for existing or newer forms of wrongdoing ?
The answer to the first question is an emphatic ‘no’. Having passed 400 bills is not something to crow about. Yes, there will be legislation now in force among the new laws which will be beneficial. But that does not mean the overall number of bills passed is a good thing, it is not. But of course, for a government struggling to be able to take credit for work they have actually done, well, you cannot really blame them.
The problem with passing over 400 bills through the parliament is that it inevitably means there will be more government, not less and that the level of bureaucratic interference in the lives of individuals and businesses will of course be higher. There will be more rules to follow, more forms to fill out in your personal life and in the life of businesses and that is never a good thing for time or money.
So life in Australia as a matter of course, with over 400 new bills passed will not be smoother in a broad sense. Again, there will be, in that immense stack of paper, some legislation that might serve to make life easier in some narrow sense. However, with the sheer amount of bills that have been made into law being so high, those act’s of parliament making life easier, will be drowned out but extra rules and regulations in other areas of life.
What should governments focus on when engaging in the business of lawmaking? Should they have a predisposition toward business and people going through more regulatory approval, having more forms to fill out? Should the focus instead be on increasing penalties for wrongdoing rather than more oversight aiming to stem bad behaviour? Or is it the case that administrations need to focus on repealing laws?
The answer is a combination of the above. What should be first and foremost when thinking of amending or even introducing legislation is a focus on the penalty side of the good and wrongdoing equation. This means that those behaving appropriately are rewarded with less time needed for bureaucratic nonsense and more to do the business, personal or otherwise that they need to do. At the same time it punishes those few that do the wrong thing.
There should be little or no focus at all on increasing rules and regulations. Extra rules, read for breaches of law, should only be introduced to deal with wrongdoing that evolves or emerges, whether that’s for new technology or new practices which develop.
More red-tape is, in just about every case, an absolute no-no. Bureaucracy must be avoided at just about any cost. Businesses and people, both time-poor, just do not need extra time and pressure to apply for or get approval for aspects of their businesses and lives. There will of course be times where it is necessary.
Ideally, there should be a predilection toward actually cutting approval processes, forms and other time-consuming activities where practical and that means actually repealing some legislation or parts thereof. Stupid offences too, and there are certainly plenty of those, should also be on the legislative chopping block.
So really, the ALP might be happy with their work and so too the cross-benchers closely linked with the government, but the question is, should we the people and should the businesses of this country be jumping for joy too?
EU Nobel Prize More of Giggle Than a Full-Bodied Laugh
Have you heard that bit about the European Union? No? It goes a little something like this:
EU walks into Oslo City Hall, takes all the chairs and is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Well, a number of people are viewing the awarding of the Nobel Prize for peace in that manner, a complete and utter joke. But, it’s not quite as farcical as one might think. Does it look good? No, not in particular. It doesn’t really matter what it was given out for, people have made up their own minds about this year’s recipient and their worthiness.
Perhaps the European Union receiving the peace prize was a not so clever ruse perpetrated by the committee, which had the intention of getting people talking about the award again, but that actually backfired?
Let’s begin to put the award in some context. What is the Nobel Peace Prize awarded for? Well, that’s all pretty clear there in italics. It’s about peace, or at least that was the original intention of the honour. The prize has come to mean so much less because the original intent of the this particular Nobel Prize, peace, has not always been behind the gifting of it.
The long-awarded prize has turned into a recognition, not every year, but from time-to-time, of relative peace rather than absolute peace on earth, sleigh-bells jingling and all that jazz.
Again, to the intent of the prize which appears lost on a number of people. It is about peace. The European zone, in case anyone hadn’t noticed, is going through a prolonged period of economic woes. They’re not great money managers, but that is usually a whole different story to being a peaceful or relatively peaceful region. Yes, we have witnessed scenes of less than peaceful protests, but that is slightly different to governments or individuals not promoting a wider form of peace.
Do economic woes sometimes lead to conflict? You bet. But precious few, indeed probably only the most uninformed, are suggesting that scenario carries any legitimate weight.
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Europe for their post-war efforts in developing the region into a peaceful, relatively secure continent after World War 2. It is a recognition of the huge shift from a politically and geographically divided region into one of relative harmony, regardless of the much less than ideal way the continent decided to go about uniting. It is though entirely arguable that awarding a supranational institution, which has the ability to erode national sovereignty, is a stupid one. Again, it seems to hark back to the Nobel committee rewarding relatively peaceful, secure and democratic recipients.
The European Union being given the award is also just as much about the way in which it has promoted human rights. Few could deny that Europe, partly as a result of the shame wrought by World War 2 acts of barbarity and aggression have fostered a culture promoting the human rights of every citizen. The European Court of Human Rights is an example of one such institution which aims to further the cause of human rights across Europe.
Very few doubt the source of black humour that the award has become. In 2009 the award was bestowed upon the President of the United States of America, a world leader responsible for the increase of drone attacks which have killed countless civilians, among other things. Examples of recipients like this are probably playing a part in clouding the judgement of the masses.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to an institution. It is an example of a body set up with the express purpose of promoting human rights. That’s great, but the award should be limited to individuals, or at the very least small groups of individuals that aim to promote peace, security and human rights, governments and governing bodies should do this as a matter of course.
The 2012 award does not look great, but it’s far less humorous than many are making out. It appears there is a need for a vocabulary lesson in order for the difference between economics and peace to be distinguished.
A Day For Remembrance and Unity, Not Division
It’s hard to believe that ten years have passed since what people have called our 9/11. This was our great loss of ordinary, everyday Australians enjoying holidays and end of season sporting team excursions. It is the worst terrorist attack that our nation has had to cope with, 88 Australians dead out of a total death toll of 202 with more than 200 injured.
Last year the United States of America had the 10 year anniversary of their own mass tragedy, 2752 killed in a different place, but for the same unjustifiable lack of reason.
What must be said too, is that it is not just our loss today. While a great number of those murdered were Australians, families around the world, whose loved ones ventured to Bali are also going to be grieving today. It is as much their loss as it is ours. Their grief is no less than ours.
What could have easily split our region, but also our world along rigid religious and cultural lines has actually brought us together in a common bond, a shared belief in decency and respect for all human beings based not on religion, but humanity. The small number of terrorists that have tried to tear our region and world asunder because of hateful and warped ideology are losing and will continue to lose.
Two nations that had experienced a long and troubled relationship, including the split over East Timor just a matter of years before, could quite easily have further parted ways. Instead the leaders of both our nations managed, from the ashes, to piece together arguably a stronger relationship than we have ever had with Indonesia.
Survivors, families and friends have had to endure the full gamut of emotions over the last 10 years. From the initial anger and sadness felt by them, by all Australians back in late 2002, we have shifted to a point in time where, for many, all but the deepest of psychological wounds, the awful memories of devastating scenes, of people dying and dead, people injured remain. Many of the victims, their families and friends have truly reached a level of acceptance, that nothing can bring those they lost back. But the thoughts, the memories will remain forever.
Most of us would not be able to begin to imagine the loss incurred on a human, a familial, a personal relationship level. This is not because many people haven’t experienced death, many of us have. But what the vast majority of us have not experienced is the untimely loss of a loved one, a family member, a friend, a teammate. Nothing could prepare us for such an abrupt and unexpected loss. Nothing could have prepared anyone with any direct involvement for the mode of loss either.
Today is a day that has to be about remembrance, one that we can share with each other. It is a day for quiet reflection, for empathy. Supporting others is something that we as Australians do remarkably well, whether that be through charity, or just providing a shoulder to cry on, calming words and thoughts.
Today is also a day to remember what, because of September 11 in the first place, we are actually fighting for. For some we are fighting a whole religion and that is a misplaced thought, we simply are not. We are not because of the attacks on the western world, fighting mainstream Islam. In the main, what we are fighting is a warped, a truly ugly interpretation of the religion. Yes, we may be hoping to change some of the practices through our efforts in Afghanistan, such as those that see women as second-class citizens, but the primary objective of our mission is to tackle terrorism.
Despite what some people may think, Islam taken as a whole is not dominated by people wishing to do us harm. If it was, we would have been defeated and subjugated across the world by Islam a long time ago. Nothing is to be gained by ascribing the same label to all Islam because of a small sect that hold a particularly obscene belief based on a misinterpretation of the Qur’an which fans hatred and intolerance and leads to gratuitous violence.
Let today be a day of further healing within the families of victims, of their friends and of Australians. Let it also be another day of maintaining and further repairing ties between faiths and cultures and also the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. What today must not be is one of hatred and intolerance toward Islam as a homogeneous group. If we were to do that then we would be surrendering not just to reason, but also to those who perpetrated the horrific acts and those that still want to inflict death upon us.
The Politics of Stupid Rules
It would appear that we are going to continue heading down the road out of Policy Town, hurtling toward Lameness and Hypocrisy City. The political car has been accelerating out of Policy Town for some time now. However, since the deplorable comments from Alan Jones about the Prime Minister’s father recently, the vehicle seems to have found some extra horsepower.
On Tuesday came that speech from Prime Minister Julia Gillard, now a worldwide sensation, accusing Tony Abbott of hypocrisy over the Coalition’s calls for the former Speaker Peter Slipper to be sacked over offensive text messages. Of course, just hours later, the embattled Speaker fell on his sword, resigning after what Rob Oakeshott claims was not an ultimatum, even though it sounded extraordinarily like one.
But it was the Alan Jones speech which established a precedent that the Labor Party said should be followed. That precedent said that when you are at a function of your own party as a parliamentary representative you must walk out when there is offensive remarks made. Failing that, you must at least interrupt the act or speech to register your disgust. Then you must at least condemn and ideally apologise on behalf of the party for the stupid remarks. Finally, you must accept responsibility for those remarks because they occurred at an event involving your party and because they happened at your party, everyone in it is responsible for them.
In the characteristic style of hypocritical politicians, some or all of the elements of that doctrine are bound to be broken from time to time. But it probably would have surprised many that in this particular case the rule was broken so quickly.
Last night, at a CFMEU function, senior Labor MP’s and Ministers in attendance, a comedian made offensive remarks about Tony Abbott’s Chief of Staff Peta Credlin.
The Prime Minister who was in attendance, had already left before the comedian began the act. Craig Emerson, another senior Labor Minister walked out once the offensive remarks were made. Unsurprisingly, Wayne Swan, due to make a speech after the comic finished his piece, no stranger to immaturity and bad judgement, remained behind. Not just that, but not until today did the Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister say a thing about the remarks.
S0, the ALP member’s of parliament still in attendance failed elements of their own test. The CFMEU, as much as just about any number of unions, is a part of the Labor Party. Not only did all bar Craig Emerson fail to walk out, it is reported that an awkward silence fell upon the crowd, no annoyance was directed at the person up on stage.
Where the ALP member’s of parliament passed the test, just, was their condemnation of the remarks, albeit slow, given that they had chosen to take the moral high-ground in the first place. Yet the apology for the remarks was not as slow as the response of the Leader of the Opposition after the function at which Alan Jones spoke.
But did things really need to get this absurd? Certainly not. Aspects of the precedent invoked by the ALP are just utterly ridiculous. Sure, if someone makes utterly offensive remarks, condemnation of the hurtful words is a reasonable response, if only to calm the charged nature of politics. An apology is just a little silly. To walk out or register discontent mid-act? Again, reasonable, but it is completely arguable that it is not necessary. But to accept responsibility as an act of and on behalf of the party? That’s an entirely laughable concept dreamed up with absolutely no degree of rationality.
This would not be the first time that politicians have painted themselves into a corner. It will happen again.
Surveillance Cameras, Crime, Fear, False Promises and Assumptions
It is just a matter of weeks since the rape and murder of ABC staffer Jill Meagher, the truly saddening case of a young woman going out for drinks with colleagues, never to return home to husband of 3 years, Tom Meagher again. There’s a man before the courts facing charges over the assault and death, a swift end to the most difficult of investigations for police. It was CCTV footage that helped identify the perpetrator, not in the Brunswick street, but from a local shopfront. Inevitably, such a high-profile case has provoked some discussion, mostly sober, of the appropriateness or otherwise of the increased presence of these devices in our community.
Today Opposition Leader Tony Abbott pledged to spend $50 million over 4 years, via grants to local council areas, to be used for the purchase and installation of CCTV cameras in cities across the country. This reinstates a program of the former Howard Government, not the first planned resurrection of policy from the Howard years.
Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu though, as leader of the state where Jill Meagher disappeared, beat his federal colleague off the mark, in swift response to the heinous crime. Premier Baillieu has pledged $3 million for local councils, in an identical scheme to that of the federal Opposition Leader, again for local councils to procure more security cameras for the streets of Victoria.
The whole matter raises the age-old question: at what price do we diminish liberty?
To some extent that is a false question. Security cameras do not stop people from going about legal activities in a public place. Indeed, the presence of security cameras does not even stop people doing things that are illegal.
When looking at the privacy side of the equation, things get a little more blurred. There are some surveillance cameras in very strange places, locations which tread a very fine line and can stray into the territory of absurd over-utilisation. That in itself should be the biggest worry, rather than the simple existence of prying eyes in our streets and other public locations.
In the debate over whether or not to make use of, or increase the abundance of security cameras, there’s another interesting element. Avid supporters of increasing the saturation of CCTV cameras will say that they are a very good crime prevention tool. They will try to argue that the simple presence of these facilities cuts down crime before it happens there is simply little or no evidence of this.
What they are, as the Meagher case has proved, is a vital tool, when not overused and abused, for aiding law enforcement. They can capture illegal practices and aid in the identification of offenders. Sometimes this will lead to the quick apprehension of offenders, when manned by alert staff, usually of councils. Other times, they can lead to the arrest of alleged criminals days, weeks, months or years later.
Security footage also helps build a picture of events that may have preceded a crime. Referring back to the death of Jill Meagher, this is exactly what happened. The footage formed part of the story of the last hours in the life of the Melbourne resident. That narrative is crucial for investigators in filling in the blanks in cases that are tough to solve if a sequence of events is not established quickly.
Surveillance cameras and facilities do not make communities safer as you would be made to believe. In this sense, the use of them, the simple talk of beefing up capabilities is used to appeal to an emotion. Rhetoric about CCTV footage is successfully applied, appealing to the human need to feel safe and secure in our daily lives. Human beings are susceptible to being very passive and accepting when fears we have are harnessed by politicians.
The CCTV issue is a difficult one and there are no easy answers. There seems to be a right and a wrong way for governments to go about implementing further plans for the over-watch of the streets and public facilities of our towns and cities.
The highly publicised murder of Jill Meagher will serve as a catalyst for more surveillance cameras around our country and that’s not automatically a bad thing. At the same time, our politicians have a responsibility to not make false promises which appeal to easily manipulated emotions.
Appealing to Women a Game of Catch-Up
The public relations campaign to win over the hearts and minds of Australian’s for our various political parties continues. Today that PR battle accelerated with the all guns blazing entry into the political debate of the wife of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. This political intervention has come on a usually politically quiet Friday, a great time to get airplay. The purpose of this battle to win over the electorate, an attempt to alter a perception, some of which has been proved a reality, that Tony Abbott has a problem with women. So of course, it’s a logical step to have the number one woman in the life of Mr Abbott, his wife Margie, speak out about the man she knows so well.
The key long-term aim of the Margie Abbott media blitz is an attempt to shore up some support among women for the leader of the Coalition and the side of politics that he has represented since December 2009.
However, the main-game, as far as the short-term politics of the situation, is to counter the most recent of attacks that Abbott has faced over the way it is perceived he has dealt with women in light of recent events and unearthed allegations. This has been prompted by the s0-called ‘handbag hit-squad’, female Labor Party MP’s, who have used a situation involving the Acting Speaker, Anna Burke as well as recently unearthed allegations against Tony Abbott from his university days.
It is at this juncture that we reach the first problem. The Liberal Party, mostly through the women on the frontbench and other female MP’s, but also the wider caucus, have decided it is a good idea to refer to Labor women as the ‘handbag hit squad’.
Coming from women only the term, catchy, yet over the top, is okay, though not ideal as a catchphrase to be utilised. It demeans politics even further than politicians have demeaned the occupation before. However, women referring to each other in that way will have much less of an impact, perhaps none at all than if men were to do the same.
Unfortunately, there has been the odd instance where male Coalition MP’s have taken to using the phrase. That does not look good at all. That just reinforces perceptions and helps them evolve into further home truths. It is blatant sexism. Repel the attacks based on the latest perceived indiscretions, but especially from the men of the Liberal and National Party’s, sexist intervention is not needed.
But back directly to the issue at hand: Does Mr Abbott have a problem with women? The short answer is ‘yes’, but it is a little more complicated than just saying outright that Tony Abbott is not seen in a good light by women and that he has a problem with women outright. In fact, it is entirely arguable that Tony Abbott does not have a problem with women, but rather, a problem with women’s issues.
Tony Abbott has said some very stupid and offensive things over the years, from comments on women’s equality, to abortion and the want to deny reproductive rights. The majority of these came when a minister in the Howard Government, particularly around the time of, as well as before and after becoming Health Minister.
These beliefs, do they come from a purely deep-seated hatred of women or from a religious background, a freely chosen inculcation of outdated beliefs that should hold no relevance in a free society?
The answer is almost certainly the latter as David Marr has recently argued. Since his childhood, the Leader of the Opposition has been brought up to believe certain things. In adult life, he freely chose to continue his religious experience and held onto the perceived teachings of the Bible. But this does not make those beliefs ones that should be prosecuted by a political representative in a liberal democracy where individual choice is supposed to be a key tenet. Far from that, it’s just common decency to think of all being equal.
The attack against Abbott in relation to how he dealt with Deputy Speaker Anna Burke however, is just a convenient usage of some incredibly horrific remarks from the past. Old words have been used to artificially construct an argument that because he pushed the boundaries in parliament, his actions were because of a problem with the fairer gender. The accusation is so absurd as to be laughable. His recent behaviour is a product of many things, including a thirst for power and media attention, but it’s a real stretch to characterise being a bit obnoxious in parliament as disdain for women.
As for the alleged events in his university days? Well, they are just allegations at this stage that have not been proven one way or the other. If they were proven to be true, then that would change the ballgame.
The television and airwaves mini-blitz, because of the long-term and justified impression of Abbott as having a problem with women’s issues will probably amount to little benefit. It was slow getting off the mark, years too late. Instead, Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party will be playing catch-up and probably, if there is any actual gain, only achieve a small uptick in support.
But of course, the Liberal Party will continue to pursue this campaign. The Opposition have to at least try to appear as if they and Tony Abbott is speaking to a wide array of women that hold a wide array of beliefs, even if the reality is the opposite.
aussiepollies 