Blog Archives
Not So Taxing Times
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax has commenced and it’s causing problems for the Gillard Government, including in particular, the Treasurer. What most people would not have expected is the way in which it is causing trouble for Wayne Swan. Instead of having to defend a huge tax grab, the Treasurer today was forced to respond to reports in newspaper The Australian that the MRRT failed to raise any revenue in it’s first quarter of operation. This is a circumstance few would have seen coming, though tumbling commodity prices should have provided somewhat of a warning to the pundits.
You see, the Minerals Resource Rent Tax, the renegotiated version of Kevin Rudd’s Resource Super Profits Tax was designed in an interesting way. Even though the name was changed, the new iteration was still a tax on profits. Therefore, when profits were high, the tax would be paid and when they were low, it would not.
Budget papers, released earlier this week in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook showed that the government believed the tax would still raise $2 billion this financial year.
A failure to clearly sell the way the tax works is the main reason that the response today was as it was. Too little time was spent saying that the tax would not raise revenue in bad times, but would in good times.
It is also a failure of design. If the ALP wanted to be sure of revenue then pegging the new tax to profits as they did was not the way to achieve a certain stream of revenue, especially one so easily impacted by poor commodity prices. To make matters worse, the new mining tax is not to prop up revenues with proceeds put away for future benefits. No, the tax revenue raised was to pay for promises made by Labor.
Clearly the turn of events this week, including the broader revenue shortfalls announced as part of MYEFO, make the prospects of returning to surplus extremely unlikely. Commodity prices for one would have to not just get back to where they were, but likely higher to make up for the time when the price was below expectations. Those prices could yet stay low for some time.
But the tough week, more accurately the tough day today did not end there for Mr Swan.
Speaking to reporters in Brisbane today, Treasurer Wayne Swan twice made a mistake when saying how much revenue the Minerals Resource Rent Tax would provide to the budget bottom line. Twice the Treasurer said that the tax would make $9 billion this financial year.
Actually, the resource rent tax is set to make $9 billion, not over the first year, but over the forward estimates, the next four financial years. It was a case of third time lucky for Mr Swan.
Ordinarily a simple gaffe like that does not mean much. It happens to politicians from time to time. However,for a Treasurer battling for a surplus and not having the numbers add up, it adds to a perception of confusion and uncertainty on the part of Wayne Swan and the Gillard Government.
The Opposition of course were crowing, enjoying a day where again, the Treasurer has been squirming over economic issues. But the celebration should also have been a tad on the difficult side for them too. The tax raised no revenue, so it was not doing the damage to the economy and businesses that the Coalition had warned about.
Federal Labor are seeing any remaining hope they had of returning the budget to surplus, which was delusional in the first place, evaporating before their very eyes.
But it is not the surplus the ALP should be most worried about the most. It is a worry, but the least of them. What they should be worried about the most is how much they might have to borrow to pay for the spending promises associated with this new tax of theirs.
A Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentence and Other Asylum Seeker Policies
Asylum seekers and refugees are never far from the headlines. Indeed from time to time stories involving them are among the most prominent in the news cycle. In recent times, boat arrivals of people seeking asylum have been more than weekly. The debate about what to do about the perilous journey, from Indonesia, Malaysia and Sri Lanka has been up there with the most politicised and most discussed issues of this 43rd parliament.
We have a new policy, a return to most aspects of the Pacific Solution that the Gillard Government continues to work towards implementing. This calls for offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island as happened under the Howard Government.
The Gillard Government has or is working toward implementing all of the recommendations of the expert panel on asylum seekers which was chaired by former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Angus Houston. However, the Coalition want more.
The Opposition, through leader Tony Abbott and Shadow Minister for Immigration Scott Morrison have continued to call for the reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas (TPV’s). The Coalition have also called for a return to that policy that Indonesia do not like and will never allow to happen- turning back asylum seeker boats toward Indonesia.
In the case of TPV’s, the Labor Party, as part of the recommendations from the Houston panel are, in effect, implementing an iteration of the Howard Government measure which will cut out family reunion.
But of course, and rightly so, the ALP Government is against turning back the boats This is the case, one, because the ADF sees it as no longer feasible or safe and two, because Indonesia would voice their anger and discontent at our contempt for our regional neighbour.
But it is the evolution of the asylum seeker policy of the Tony Abbott led Opposition, apart from the already announced measures, that will add to the poor treatment of people seeking asylum in Australia who arrive by boat.
Last Friday the Opposition Leader announced an effective minimum prison sentence for the “offence” of seeking asylum, seeking refuge from the fear of, or from actual persecution. The no advantage test, part too of the recommendations of the expert panel, has so far not had a time in offshore detention applied to it. But Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party think it should be no less than 5 years. In the legal fraternity this would be termed a mandatory minimum sentencing provision.
Of course, since mandatory detention was introduced in the early 1990’s, we have had what amounts to a term in prison. At first, a time limit of less than a year was implemented by the Keating Government, but that was removed in favour of an indefinite stay. In effect, the indefinite nature of asylum detention will continue under a Liberal Government with a 5 year minimum stay. The time served would almost certainly be longer.
In further worrying comments, the Opposition also appeared to question the efficacy of a regional solution, saying that too much time was spent on discussing the problem in the region and not enough on tough deterrence measures.
Also of concern in the comments made at the end of last week was what appeared to be utter contempt for the work of the UNHCR, the United Nations’ asylum seeker and refugee organisation. Australia has long appeared to feel this way towards the UN about asylum seekers and refugees. However, that would seemingly accelerate under an Abbott Government.
The Coalition is obviously moving towards an aim of being the most punitive in Australia’s history toward asylum seekers and refugees. At the moment that is just rhetoric, but there is a strong chance that the strong words will become punishing deeds in government, also a strong possibility.
Far from just showing a desire to put forward the strictest regime for asylum seekers, the Abbott-led Opposition appear hell-bent on isolating Australia further from the way the region and the international community should deal with the asylum seeker question.
All this punishment and pain for what gain? Seeking asylum is not a crime, thought it appears there is a wish that it was. Either way, asylum seekers are going to be locked away for at least 5 years under a Coalition Government.
The Stupid, the Strange and the Sensible in Search of a Surplus
The Gillard Government’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, or MYEFO for the acronym loving political wonks, is now out. The record continues to struggle, a fact not lost on many, even the most casual of observers. After some time discussing personalities, yesterday the discourse turned to discussing economics and the economy, a welcome shift. Wayne Swan’s budget hopes were always, at the very least optimistic and at the most fanciful when he brought down in May what he believed was the first of four budget surpluses.
Revenue and tax receipts have continued to decimate the federal budget in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis and as a result of the continuing shocks in Europe and the US in particular.
The May budget revealed a small budget surplus of $1.5 billion and that has already, in four months fallen by the wayside with the prediction of the final budget surplus downgraded to just $1.1 billion in the MYEFO update from Monday. Falling commodity prices and ongoing poor tax receipts were the chief factors blamed for the below expectation forecast.
Tax revenue over the forward estimates also points to an ongoing challenge for the budget, with expectations for the current financial year $4 billion down and over that entire period, down $22 billion.
Of course new spending will also be a major problem for the budget bottom-line and that still, despite improving poll numbers, seems like it will become the Coalition’s problem from 2013. But of course that will be tempered by widespread cuts in a variety of areas. This appears likely to include some areas of spending with bipartisan support, with rhetoric from the Opposition around the NDIS particularly troubling.
As there always is with budget cuts and payment increases, there has been much debate over the past 24 hours about the main measures employed by Treasurer Wayne Swan in an attempt to complete his budget mission. Overall, MYEFO revealed $16 billion in spending cuts and extra charges.
The main features of so-called ‘mini-budget’ were limits to the private health insurance rebate, increased visa application fees, changes to the baby bonus, a delay in funding for trades training centres and changes to how businesses pay tax.
In terms of political stupidity, cutting the Baby Bonus for a second and subsequent children wins the prize. The changes simply will not be widely liked and will quite easily be fed into the ongoing cost of living debate.
However, it is an entirely sensible decision economically to change the size of the payment made to families choosing to have more than one child. This payment is merely meant to assist with the initial costs of raising children and in no way makes a dent, nor should it, in the long-term costs of raising a child.
The government’s decision to dramatically increase the price of visa application fees, including the Working Holiday Visa, is one of the most ridiculous decisions taken in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Tourism is a very important part of our economy and has been hit by natural disasters in the north and more broadly by the GFC and continuing trouble in Europe and the US. Add the high dollar to the equation and the Gillard Government looks quite stupid in choosing to increase prices in this area.
Another odd decision for the Gillard Government to make is to delay funding for trades training centres. Delaying funding for their baby, replacing John Howard’s iteration, will look stupid to and hurt some of their constituency, at least in the short-term. The Labor Party making these cuts to their own program also effectively blunt their own attacks on the Liberal Party over cutting funding to this program.
The ALP has also, unsurprisingly, decided to give big business a bit of a whack, though this time, it’s not just the big miners, but businesses earning over a billion dollars in general. Changes to how companies pay tax, from quarterly to monthly installments will raise $8.3 billion dollars in revenue for the government. The overall effect on individual businesses is as yet unclear but the extra impost and timing of it will certainly have some effects.
Increases to the private health insurance rebate will now be limited to inflation. It is possible that some of those on low incomes who might choose to enter the private health insurance market at the lower end could be discouraged, though the punitive measures already in place will probably cut the chances of that down.
We have a bit of a mixed bag from a government in an almost vain search for a surplus. There have been some stupid decisions and there are some sensible ones in MYEFO. The sensible ones though, especially in the case of the baby bonus payment, will quite likely be seen by many as the exact opposite, dumb ones by the broader public. The unpredictability of some of the measures is also met with the predictability of others.
The only question left is will this budget update hold up to scrutiny? There will be attacks on and questioning of it and the Labor Government from various quarters. The political pain that will seemingly be felt still seems unlikely to be quelled by a surplus.
Time to Throw Aside Politics and Support our UN Security Council Efforts
In the early hours of the morning Australian time, voting for the two-year temporary seats on the Security Council. Five years in the making, we thought that the ballot would be tight, that it might take until the second round of voting, if at all, before we secured one of the two vacancies on offer. The odds were good, two out of three nominees would get up. Our competition was Luxembourg and Finland, with many believing the latter to be the overwhelming favourite to secure the first spot.
Ultimately, and surprisingly, Australia prevailed after the first round. One hundred and forty votes was more than enough to get us over the line in a contest requiring 129 votes, a two-thirds majority of the UN General Assembly.
The importance and efficacy of the position on the UN Security Council was questioned by some. What could a temporary spot on a flawed body, where a veto power exists, offer Australia? That was the main question asked. The absence of an explanation, other than having a seat at the table, surely added to the confusion and a lack of interest domestically over what such a role might bring.
In effect though, a short-term chair on the UN Security Council will actually mean little or nothing in the short-term and even less in the long-term.
However, while the benefits of having a spot on the Security Council are few and far between, now that we have won the election, it is important that the role is taken incredibly seriously despite the fact that there are many factors which make the role practically pointless.
Australia must, over the two-year term, make a lot of noise and throw itself at the role without fear or favour. To not now fully and actively engage with the actions and processes, whether flawed or not, would actually damage our relative standing in the world.
This government and the next must be willing to sufficiently fund the position for the entire period we occupy that temporary spot. By virtue of the fact that the Labor Party, through former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd actually launched the bid and continued with it, it is clear that the ALP have a commitment to fully funding the 24 months that we will have a vote on the Security Council.
It is also equally as clear that while the Liberal Party disagreed with the priority of seeking election to the UN body, and still appearing sceptical of the benefits of such a move, they will commit to taking the temporary tenure seriously if in government. The Shadow Foreign Minister Julie Bishop confirmed as much this morning.
But that commitment from the Coalition does not come without conditions and rightly so.
As Julie Bishop said, the Gillard Government must now, since it really failed to prior to the bid, set out a clear list of priorities for the two years we have on the Security Council.
Later this morning, after Julie Bishop’s comments on breakfast television, the Prime Minister outlined the key issues that will be pursued and not surprisingly Afghanistan was at the top of that list, closely followed by Syria. Action has already been pursued in relation to the former and ongoing commitments will undoubtedly be wholeheartedly supported by the Security Council and the UN as a whole entity.
In the case of the latter, Syria, concrete and decisive action has already been blocked by the obstructionist body, with Russia and China using the veto power . In that sense, Australia, needing to pursue action in relation to Syria, are and will be fighting a losing battle.
We must have a focus and also a recognition that we cannot save the world from itself, even individual countries, in such a short period of time.
In commenting on the win this morning, Julie Bishop made another very sound point. We must use our time on the Security Council to push for reform of the UN. That task is immense and we will inevitably fail. The threshold to force change in the processes and workings of the UN and the Security Council is as high as the bar is to actually get resolutions to pass. But this is too important to not voice an opinion on and a strong conversation at the very least has to be commenced.
The time for complaining about the bid is now over. The emphasis now has to be on giving our diplomats the resources and governmental support needed to give a difficult task their best shot. To do otherwise would mean showing contempt for the world.
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?
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.
aussiepollies 