Newmania: Weasel Words



Steve Austin



This morning, ABC’s Steve Austin, asked his listeners to submit their questions – and presumably their comments – for Queensland Premier Campbell Newman. You can hear the interview, here.

I’ve also whipped up a rough transcript (E&OE), as I like to consider the words, get in there and experience them. Sometimes, just hearing them isn’t enough.

  SA: What are the cutbacks to the public service meant to achieve? What’s the bottom line aim?

CN: I’m glad you asked me that, and what I’ll give you is the most recent Moody’s Investor Service assessment of all the Australian states and their budgets, and I’ve tagged two pages there, including the deficits of the various states: Queensland’s deficit is, sadly, head and shoulders above all the other states. We will have this year an operating deficit of at least $4b, a fiscal deficit of around $10b, compared to NSW which is less than $4b. This state is in a terrible financial position. The other one is the level of debt. Queensland’s debt is just so much more than the other states in terms of debt to revenue ratio, which is the key indicator that the ratings agencies who set the interest rates, and the lenders, who finance the activities of this government, look to. So, we pay a higher interest rate than any other state on our borrowings and the reason is contained in this thing, so what we’re trying to do is balance the budget. We’re gonna do that in 2014-15; we’ve got to stop borrowing to pay wages and to keep the lights on. This government was elected to do that. We have a plan to sort the mess out that we inherited from Anna Bligh and Labor, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

SA: I understand that, and we know the causes of the fiscal position, and that is two cyclones, a flood and a Global Financial Crisis, and I’m asking you, what’s the aim of all these cuts.

CN: That is complete nonsense. The Federal Government imposed a levy on people and provided very generous capital subsidy payments over the last few years. Billions of dollars paid to Queensland to help rebuild. The reason for the huge operating debt is contained in this, and it says, the expenditure, the head count, went through the roof and the revenues didn’t increase at the same rate, so the expenditure in Queensland has gone up by 8.7% each year for the last 4-5 years compound, and we’re spending far more than we bring in. It’s like household budget – blah blah blah – mad uncontrolled fashion – then you end up with budgetary problem, and we have 20,000 more people than we can afford to pay, and we’ve been paying them by borrowing, and it has to stop and it will stop.

SA: I understand that, and the Moody’s Rating Agency does not run Queensland. You do. What’s the aim of the cuts?

CN: The aim is to stop the escalation of runaway recurrent costs; it’s about getting the budget back into balance, and that’s what we will achieve in 2014-2015.

SA: It looks like the aim of the cuts is to keep your pre-election promises. In other words, you made promises you couldn’t fund, prior to the state election, and now public servants are the chief victims of this.

CN: Well Steve, that’s what the Labor Party says, but it’s not true. The bottom line is that we’re gonna have an operating budget deficit of at least $4b this year. Our promises didn’t add up to anything like that. It was around the $2b mark, and they’re all fully costed and built in to the way forward. We’ve found savings to pay for our promises, as we said. The problem is, we have too many people. If you look at the numbers of the public service in Queensland, it just exploded over the last 4-5 years, when Anna Bligh – it’s particularly Anna Bligh, although a lot of people like to blame Peter Beattie, I don’t – it was the Bligh Government who absolutely threw away the rule book, the sensibility of running the budget properly, and hence we’ve got the problems we’ve got, and that’s what we have to do, so it’s very hard, it’s very tough, but we have a plan to get back in the black, and you know what? I’m heartened by the feedback I got yesterday. I spent all day at the Ekka, seven hours walking around, and the overwhelming sentiment was “Premier, we know these are tough times and tough decisions, but please keep doing the right thing. We understand that you’re getting the state back in track.”

SA: When you spoke with me last time, you told me that this is what most people were saying; that most people were saying that we know it’s a tough thing, but that we want you to do it, and that no-one was complaining. I’ve been given an email from someone who emailed your office in July, where they complained directly to your electorate office, expressing their real concern about what you did. Not only were they expressing concerns about your actions, but that they didn’t even get a reply from you or anyone in your office. This is a clear example, in writing, of someone who was complaining; about what you were doing, what you are doing, and have either been ignored, or simply not responded to.

CN: Well Steve, I respond to every letter, every email, every phone call that comes into my office. People get a response. Now usually it takes about 3-4 weeks for a reply to be turned around -

SA: This was in early July…

CN: I’m more than happy to take that person’s feedback, actually get back to them and find out why they haven’t got a reply already. But we get thousands of emails, phone calls, letters, every month, and people all get a reply. Now -

SA: And none of the people complained about what you’re doing?

CN: Now, Steve, I did not even say that last time. I’d be happy to pull the transcript out. What I said to you last time was that I was reflecting that I’d been out on the weekend, in my electorate, at various activities, and across that period of that weekend, I’d had a very clear signal from people that they understood the tough decisions that were being made to get the state back on track, so let’s make sure that we’re very clear on what happened on that day when I came and talked to you. The bottom line is, look, we need to be grown up about this. What do we keep doing? Do we keep borrowing more money? The debt is $65b today. If we don’t sort this out, it will be $100b. These ratings agencies are totally independent of Government, but the most critical thing is, what they say in this is whether we can afford to build schools, and hospitals and put police on the beat, because the international investors, the bankers that lend us money, and keep this state going at the moment, look at these reports, and if these people say that the right things aren’t being done, the tough decisions aren’t being made, we get marked down, and we get hit with even higher interest rates. Right now, if NSW had the same level of debt as Queensland, we would be paying $100m extra a year in interest because they’ve got a better credit rating, so try that one. $100m.

SA: So Moody’s Ratings Agency has more influence on the government of Queensland than do the voters of Queensland?

CN: Steve, the voters of Queensland understand that we’re making tough decisions to get the state back on track. That’s why I mentioned the Ekka. The people who don’t like this are the people who are losing their jobs, and that’s understandable, but they’re also the union officials, that you have interviewed in recent days, who have their own vested interests. Look, we’re gonna make the right decisions for all Queenslanders. Lemme put it another way -

SA: We’re going to hear from more Queenslanders in just a moment –

CN: Let me put it another way. If we were to raise money to cover a $4b operating debt, and it will be more than that this financial year, that would mean that every man, woman and child in Queensland would have to cut off $1000. That’s $4000 this year for a family of four, just to try and balance the budget. That’s how bad it is. Now look – other politicians will come in and weasel words and won’t tell the truth. I’m telling it to you straight and to your listeners straight. We have to act. It’s not popular. It’s not easy, for those we’re hurting, and we’re sad about that, but it has to be done.

SA: That’s how bad it is. The Opposition tried to get a briefing, directly by the three audit commissioners, headed by Peter Costello, and they were rejected. Why is it, that the Opposition is not is allowed to speak to the independent auditors?



CN: Steve, frankly that’s totally spurious.

SA: They were offered a briefing by Tim Nicholls.

CN: They were offered a briefing on that, and at least one of the commissioners would’ve been there.

SA: They’ve put it in writing to me that their request was rejected, that they were offered a briefing with Tim Nicholls, but not with the independent auditors.

CN: They can have a briefing any time they like with Tim Nicholls and the commissioners, and I’ll just say, these are the people who got us in the mess. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Cabinet. Tim Mulherrin was a member of the Cabinet. Curtis Pitt was a member of the Cabinet. These people are deficit and debt deniers , I’m afraid. They seek to pretend that these reports aren’t true. How many bits of paper do they want? There’s the State Treasury, there’s the Independent Audit Commission Report, which is a public document, and now I’ve got this Moody’s report here. It was their own Mid-Year Review that they handed down before the election that said that the debt would be $85b, up from $65b now. I mean, these people need to hang their heads in shame. They’re the ones that created the problems that we’re now sorting out.

SA: Let’s take some calls. Wendy, from Murrumba Downs, you’re speaking with the Premier.

 

Wendy: I’ve got three questions that I’d like to ask... I believe that all members of Parliament who live outside the Brisbane electorate, the Brisbane City Council Area, get a fully funded apartment in the Annex.

CN: That’s true.

Wendy: And do they also get Living Away from Home Allowance?

CN: I’m not sure about that, actually.

Wendy: - and I’m assuming that you’ve now cut out all subsidised meals in the Dining Room, and subsidised Alcohol in the bar. It’s very easy, and you do it with such a look of glee on your face, to hit at the most vulnerable and the poorest in this state. You appointed 19 Assistant Ministers to your staff when you were elected – I know you don’t have Parliamentary Secretaries any more, but there were never 19 Parliamentary Secretaries – Do those 19 Assistant Ministers get staff, cars, and what is the extra salary that we are paying? I think you should start at the top. The 2.5% payrise that you got, when you look at how much it is on the salaries that you earn, could’ve helped keep some of these very poor charities going for quite a long time.

SA: Let me summarise Wendy’s question. Why don’t the cuts start at the top, rather than at the bottom?

CN: Well, they do Steve, and –

SA: So you’re cutting these allowances?

CN: No.No. No…Steve, just let me answer the question, please. Firstly, politicians had a 2.5% pay rise in August last year, but have had no pay rise while I’ve been the Premier. And any pay rise that politicians get will be commensurate with the core of the public service. In relation to accommodation and meals et cetera, that is set by the Committee of the Legislative Assembly, which is a bi-partisan committee. The Opposition and the Government are on it, and I make the point that politicians are in there when Parliament is sitting, usually til eleven o’clock or midnight, and that’s why they get accommodation because those that are outside the Brisbane local government area have a long hike home – blah blah blah – and others from places like Townsville. In terms of the overall costs of the Ministry, I’ll be tabling those expenses in the next week of the Parliament, and people will be happy to know that there’s a significant reduction on when Bligh, what the Bligh Government spent. So watch this space next week. It will be tabled. The full figures will be there, and it’s significantly less than Anna Bligh and the Labor Party spent, and indeed we have saved a LOT of money , since we became the government, through a whole range of initiatives, and I reject the suggestion that we’re hurting vulnerable people and deliberately cutting programmes to hurt vulnerable people. Indeed, we’re about putting more money back into the front line. I don’t want to spend money on the back of house; I wanna make sure the money is spent on front line services.

SA: Have you actually cut any MP’s allowances?

CN: No I haven’t, Steve, but I’ll just, again, those matters are dealt with by the Committee of the Legislative Assembly, which has Government members, and the Leader of the Opposition. And you know what, I could come on again like all politicians do, and I could sort of do the silver tongue thing and the weasel words, and I’m not gonna do that. Politicians have bills to pay, they have families, and politicians who run around saying they’re gonna cut this and cut that are being quite fraudulent about it. Politicians should work hard for their money, and they will on my team; I assure people of that.

SA: Michelle of Ashgrove, you have a question for the Premier.

Michelle: Mr Newman, to use the caller’s word previously, you have gleefully announced the closure of three caravan parks in Queensland because they have been costing $1m over the last, $1m a year. Two hundred and twenty families live in this. Now, your justification is that you want to sell these and supply more public housing for the 30,000 families that don’t have it. It doesn’t make an economic sense to… If you want to rehouse these people, most of them are again, the most vulnerable, they won’t be able to afford…they’re just one step above homeless, these people in caravan…

SA: So Michelle, your question is what? Where will they be housed?

Michelle: And if you wanna build, even at $300,000 a houses for these 220 families, that’s $66m dollars. It only works out to $5445/year for each of those families to be housed in stable, clean safe accommodation. How can you justify booting them?

CN: Well, Michelle, I’m glad you asked me the question, because it allows me to talk about the state of public housing in, and you reflected a figure. We’ve just had pretty much 20 years of Labor, and yet there are 30,000 families on the waiting list. So much for Labor caring about, er, people who are disadvantaged. I’ve got a Housing Minister, Dr Bruce Flegg, he’s been a successful businessman, I’m proud that he’s done that; I’m proud that he knows how to actually deal with this issue and solve the problem, and he will. What he’s doing, is he’s selling the caravan parks. He’s not closing them down, and I have to correct what Michelle said. There will be a moratorium on any change of use of those caravan parks for 18 months, and I’ve asked him to consider at least 2 years, so they’ll be put on the market, and new owners won’t be able to change their use. The new owner, by the way, might choose to keep them as caravan parks, but we don’t think the government should be in the business of owning caravan parks or specifically running caravan parks, nor do we even want to really be in the business of running public housing. We want to create public housing, create affordable housing, we want to create lots of it, and we’re gearing up to do that.

SA: Even though it’s an efficient way of housing people who are just one step away from homelessness?


CN: I don’t understand your point.

SA: If caravan parks…the caller’s point was that if people in caravan parks are one step away from being homeless, and this is an efficient way –

CN: Steve, Steve, I’ll have to say it again. We’re selling the caravan parks; they’re not being shut down. There’ll be at least a two year moratorium on their use, and it remains to be seen whether the actual caravan parks end up being closed. In the meantime, the money from those caravan parks will by “hypothecated” – in other words, will be spent directing on creating new, quality, public housing for Queenslanders in need, and again, Dr Flegg –

SA: Seems like a lot of uncertainty for one million dollars –

CN: Well, no, see, um, hang on. They’re worth a lot more than a million dollars. They’re worth several million dollars.

SA: All right.

CN: Well. What’s the uncertainty? The pledge is that they won’t be closed down for 2 years, the pledge is that the money will be spent on creating proper public housing, to deal with the absolute train wreck of a mess we’ve been left, because we do have a plan to create proper public housing for people. The other thing and I’ve pledged this already, that every single one of those two hundred or so people will be looked after, as an individual, and found alternative accommodation, should those caravan parks be shut down. I said all that a few weeks ago. I’m frankly happy to talk about this til the cows come home –

SA: We don’t have that much time –

CN: Buhbuhbuhbecbuhbedbugs but this really goes to the point. The Labor Party had 20 years to give us Public Housing Nirvana, and it’s a train wreck. Bruce Flegg, as Minister, has a plan to sort this out, and he cares passionately about every one of these people and he’s gonna provide quality accommodation for them. That’s what he’s gearing up to do, with the private sector in partnership.

SA: Michelle from The Gap, you have a question for the Premier?

Michelle: Mr Newman, you said that these cuts aren’t about ideology, but I think if you have a bit of a look at the list of people effected – the unemployed, women in the criminal justice system, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, tenants, people with disabilities, caravan park dwellers – and then on the other hand, look at the people where you have found some money to support: the gambling industry, the white picnic, graffiti removal, a High Court Challenge to the Mining Tax, moving your backbenchers onto committees which effectively gave them an $8000 pay rise. My question is, why are the cuts aimed at the least resourced in our community while you continue to support the most resourced in our community?
CN: Well, I’m sorry, but again, I don’t believe that’s the case. You could throw in other things, like Corporate Boxes going, the Literary Awards, y’know, I’m happy to talk about the Literary Awards going. Across the board, we’ve made all sorts of cuts that aren’t popular. They’ve been done wherever we think a programme has not generated value that it needs to, ultimately, with the tax payers. Another thing which we, er, I think we’ve sorted out now: we cut the Fanfare School Band programme, but we then found Corporate Sponsorship from the people that run the Convention Centre and we’re very happy about that, to keep the thing going, so y’know, that’s money that’s been saved. Across the board, the Government is making cuts that we need to make so that we can get the budget back in black. You made a comment about disabilities. Well, my position is very very clear. We want to spend a whole lot more assisting people with disabilities, and their families, and the only way we can do that, is to get the Government’s budget back in the black. In the 2014-15 Financial Year I’ve signalled, that at that stage, if we’ve achieved what we need to, we’ll be putting a lot more money – and a lot more money means hundreds of millions of dollars extra a year – as we gear up and then participate in the NDIS. So look, that’s where we’re coming from. There are plenty of examples of cuts that people can throw up. The bottom line, again, is the Government needs to do this, and we have a plan to get us back on track financially.

SA: Noel from Yeerongpilly, you have a question for the Premier?

Noel: How do you justify exaggerating by about $20b the level of debt by including Government owned corporations debt when the Government –owned corporations debt is just part of the general operational activity? The Government pays none of the interest on that debt and have no real responsibility for it, and the fact is that there’s no other government in the country, including the Federal Government that does this, and as the Mayor of a Council for many years, even Councils do not include the debt of their business enterprises in their general debt, so how do you justify it?
 

CN: Well, I hate to be disagreeing with callers, but I have to disagree. I was the Mayor of Brisbane for seven years, and the debt in things like Brisbane Water, Brisbane Transport, even though the standalone business units was incorporated in the overall debt picture, and the overall debt picture that we’re presenting is no different to the Government that just left. So, just again, let’s just look at it: Prior to the election, a thing called the Mid-Year Financial and Economic Review was released by Andrew Fraser and Anna Bligh. It said, the debt by the end of the 2012 Financial Year would be in excess of $62b, and it was; it ended up being $64b - $65b. It also said, so these are the Labor Party figures, that the debt would go to $85b by the 2014-2015 Financial Year. And guess what? It will, even though we’re making these cuts, it will, because they presented things in the most attractive and sunny-side-up way that they could. If we had no taken the action that we’ve been taking, the debt would end up being $100b. That’s what Mr Costello is saying. And that’s what Moody’s are sort-of saying in their report. It’s implied within the pages of this if you sort of look at all the information. So the numbers are the numbers are the numbers, and I urge all Queenslanders to have a good look at the Commission of Audit Report, look at Andrew Fraser’s Mid Year Review that was out some months ago, and the facts are exactly as they’ve been stated. That’s why these tough decisions have to be made. Look. The Government’s got a plan to sort this out. We’re very positive about being able to do that. We’re sorry about the people who are losing their jobs. We’re doing everything we can to keep that down to the minimum, sorry, the maximum number so that we don’t see anything like 20,000 going, but it’s pretty hard.

SA: Are you picking up the anger in the caller’s voices?

CN: Steve, I’m quite happy to acknowledge the callers you had this morning, but as I say, I spent…

SA: It’s pretty consistent.

CN: Yeah, quite consistent, but I spent seven hours at the Exhibition yesterday, and I can tell you that I had one person come up to me and express some negativity. For the rest of the 7 hours, I had people coming up, shaking my hand, saying “we know it’s tough, please keep doing what you’re doing, we admire the strength of you and the Government, and we know you’re doing the right thing for Queensland. Seven hours, Steve. I’ll, um, take heart from that because it has to be done.

SA: A couple of quick questions before you -

CN: I mean, no-one’s offering an alternative. No-one has said this morning, “we wanna pay an extra thousand dollars tax this year”. No-one’s said that. And it’s time that as Queenslanders, as Australians, we recognise that we have had a culture of, where we just say, we keep spending, and I’m afraid the music has stopped. It’s the morning after the party, and I’m afraid Campbell Newman and this Government, as a team, we have to deal with the hangover. We’re very positive about sorting it out. I know we’re gonna get through this, and by the end of this year, no, certainly, we’ve gotta get through the budget, but by the end of this year, I think we’ll have the finances tracking along very nicely, and one thing that’s really exciting is that I think we’re seeing some great signs in terms of our economy, great announcements by businesses and airlines about supporting Queensland, another one today coming from Etihad Airlines, we saw Qantas the other day into the Gold Coast, so I’m very positive about what’s happening in Queensland, going forward.

SA: Can I ask you, have you spoken to Anna Bligh since becoming Premier?

CN: Not since the night of the election, no.

SA: How do you feel about the news that she and her husband are leaving the state and moving to New South Wales to chase work.

CN: Well, that’s her call. We haven’t run them out of town; I know some people would like to. A lot of people I met at the Ekka yesterday would’ve liked to. But that’s all I’ve got to say on it.

SA: Final question. Does your Government have a communication problem? In other words, you’ve told me a great many things. You’ve heard the listeners call us, and I take your point about you have to deal with the real world of how you raise money to run the state, but it’s quite clear that the message is not getting through to the people who voted for you.

CN: Steve, it’s hard when you’re making tough decisions, but I sort of put it like this. At the end of the day, we’re in political office, and we know that it would be great to run around, cut ribbons and kiss babies and hand out money and just look good. That’s what we had in Queensland for 20 years. What you’re hearing this morning is fair dinkum, the truth. Nothing but the truth. The real reality we face, particularly at government, that has the guts to get in, deal with it, make it happen, sort it out, that’s what you’re hearing. At the end of the day, it’s not about us, about whether we get to be elected officials or whatever, it’s about whether we do the job to sort the state out. I just say to people, think about that. When was the last time you heard a politician, let alone a Premier actually telling you straight, tough stuff, unpalatable stuff, horrible stuff, but stuff that has to happen. I’m proud to do that, and I will keep doing that because that’s what we promised Queenslanders, that we’d sort out the mess, and that’s what we’re doing.

SA: Thanks for coming in once again.

GUNNING IT

14 August – Three dead as gunman opens fire near Texas A&M

6 August – Six worshippers and the gunman shot dead at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin

20 July 2012 – Twelve moviegoers were shot dead and 58 wounded at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado

 
Guns don’t kill people; People kill people…but it’s easier if they have a gun.


America, with all due respect to your Second Amendment, it doesn’t work. Your attitudes to firearms are contributing to the homicides of thousands of Americans every year. Americans need to make a choice between the right to own and carry firearms, and the right to live in a peaceful society. To a very large degree, we’re talking about gun control. To a much larger degree, America needs to embark on a population-wide culture change in it’s relationship with firearms.

 

Almost twenty years ago, I was living alone in an old house in a small country town. The house would be over a hundred years old now; the town grew up around it. Geographically, it’s in the main street. All the neighbours are shops and businesses, so there’s no-one around at night. The old house – Norma’s House - is a business too, now, but they’ve maintained the basic structure, with it’s wide central hallway, comfortable wooden verandahs and French doors.

I slept in the ‘back’ room so I wasn’t blinded by the street lights outside, but it was a small country town: after dark, it was quiet. Almost silent.

The first thing I remember is light crossing the glass of the French doors leading from the verandah to my bedroom. I don’t know what time it was – definitely after midnight, and a Tuesday night. It wouldn’t have been drunks stumbling home from the pub, and in any case, drunks probably wouldn’t have had a decent torch. The light was bright enough to stir me to complete wakefulness. I tried to ignore it and willed myself back to almost-sleep.



Norma's House



Seconds? minutes? Some time later, the floorboards on the front verandah creaked and shuddered. Someone was on the verandah. The screen door squeaked, and I heard the front door being pushed. It stood firm…but it was textured glass. Breakable. Somebody wanted to get into my house.
What to do? I was alone in a house with no neighbours. Screaming for help wasn’t an option. Norma’s house hadn’t had a phone since the sixties, and in the early nineties, small towns had little mobile phone reception, and in any case, I didn’t have a mobile phone.

I was an unarmed female, alone in an old house, with no way to call for help. Whatever I decided to do, I would have to do myself.

Easier said that done, when you know you wouldn’t have a chance in a physical fight with a man, and I had no idea if my would-be intruder was armed, or on drugs or…or…or… I could turn on the lights, the radios, the television, and start talking loudly as though as I was on the phone to someone, and try to scare him away.

Or I could lie perfectly still in the darkness, unable to see what was happening, and hope that he just gave up and left. So I lay there. I may have prayed; I don’t recall.

Minutes that felt like hours passed, until I heard footsteps out the back. Moving faster than I’d ever moved, I grabbed my keys and bolted down the hallway and out the front door, onto the street and into my car. Shaking, sweaty with fear, I swung the car around. The bakery half a block up the road had lights on. The bakers were there!

I banged on their door, explained, although god knows what I sounded like. Crazy or desperate or both. I used their phone to ring the closest police station. I don’t know why I didn’t call Triple O – I just didn’t. They’d send a car out as soon as they had one available, but if I wasn’t in physical danger, I would need to wait.

The noise I’d made thundering out of the house must have scared whoever was there. I waited at the bakery for the police to arrive. I’m still glad that I didn’t know the front door had ‘bounced’ as I’d yanked it closed behind me. It had been wide open for the forty-five minutes it took for the police to arrive.

The next day, a male friend came and slept on the couch, to protect me? To reassure me? I’m not sure. Before he left for work the following morning, he pulled a large, loaded handgun from his gym bag. I have no doubt that it unregistered. He gave me the world’s fastest tutorial on how to use it:

“Point it with two hands and pull the trigger. You’ll be fine. Sleep with it under your pillow.”

My friend wasn’t too happy about me staying in Norma’s house alone, and that gun stayed within reach of my bed for a couple of months.

Did it make me safer? No – it made me nervous, and if anyone had known it was there, it would have made me a potential target. I had no idea how to use it, no idea if I would have the courage to use it, should it be necessary. If I’d been confronted, and decided to use the gun as a threat, there’s every chance I would have been overpowered and the gun would have been out of my control, possibly used against me or someone else.

It was simply one more unsecured gun in the hands of the wrong person.

Some years later, I dabbled in Shooting as a sport. Shotguns, not handguns. I even had a Shooters’ Licence. As a result, I’m more comfortable with guns. I also know that I don’t want them in my house, even locked in an approved gun press, with the bolt removed and the ammunition stored three suburbs away.

America’s Gun Lobby is a potent political force, aligned with the Republicans and now, with the Tea Party. Australia has nothing analogous. This ‘Second Amendment Right’, which guarantees Americans the right to their firearms is sacred ground. While some Democrats agree with the need to reduce the number of guns floating around in the USA, the changes that have been made have been very small, very specific and as a result, not effective.

Add to this the arguments from around the world that indicate that gun control does not have a major impact on gun related crime. For example, in Australia, where lawful access to guns is strictly controlled, 85% of guns used to commit murder are unregistered. Having said that, while the general crime rate has remained fairly static, the proportion of crimes involving guns has been slowly declining for the past 30 years or so.

I see virtually no possibility that America will moderate its gun laws any time soon. The Second Amendment, with the backing of the NRA, is untouchable. It is part of the national psyche, and any threat to the Second Amendment would be treated as cause for rebellion.

Yet in under a month, America has witnessed three mass shootings, and indications at the moment are that each of the firearms used was obtained legally. Changing gun laws may have prevented some of the 20 deaths and nearing 70 injuries.
Change will come, and it will come from within, as revolutions do. Sooner or later, the unremitting series of gun crimes will become something Americans are unable to stomach. Then, and only then, will the culture start to shift away from the Sacred Gun.

Dilemma: Sequins In Sport

Faster. Higher. Stronger.

Without hesitation or modesty, I confess that I am one of the world's least sportiest people. Having said that, I believe I have potential as a world-class spectator; probably not a Gold Medallist in UnAthletics, but in the newest Australian tradition, I'd be a good shot at Silver or Bronze. In the Post-Modern Pent-Spectatathon, I excel at Couch, Food, Armchair Opinions (Uninformed Category), Instant Expertise and Recreational Napping.

In any case, after a solid fortnight of watching the London Olympics, I have a simple question: If it requires sequins, is it still sport?

More specifically, what is Olympic Sport? Many sports have come and gone from Olympic competition since 1896. What is the criteria? What should it be? Are we, the Olympic-viewing public of more than 200 countries that compete, happy with the selection of sports the IOC serves up?

I think most of us are satisfied most of the time, particularly as regards the core Olympic sports: Track & Field, Swimming, Artistic Gymnastics, Diving, Equestrian, Cycling, Weightlifting, Boxing, Greco-Roman Wrestling. The team sports are all over the place: there are some professional athletes (Basketball, Tennis, Soccer) but mostly amateurs (Volleyball badminton, table tennis, handball, water polo, beach volleyball). Don't forget the target sports: shooting and archery, the martial arts: TaeKwonDo and Judo, the regattas: rowing, sailing, canoe and kayak.

I accept that every one of these sports is a genuine sport; whether they should be included as Olympic Sports is an entirely different question, which we'll get to later.

And then there's Synchronised Swimming and Rhythmic Gymnastics: The Sequin Sports. I'm not convinced that anything requiring sequins and theatrical makeup is a sport. I also have reservations about competitions that are judged by people rather scored by an objective measurement of faster, higher, stronger. We've seen examples in winter skating sports of how this can be open to corruption, or how judging criteria can be interpreted differently.

So why am I picking on Synchronised Swimming and Rhythmic Gymnastics, when Artistic Gymnastics, Diving and even Trampolining are judged rather than measured? There's no doubt that the Sequin Sports involve extraordinary fitness, strength and co-ordination, comparable to that of an Olympic Athlete. I don't question the dedication of the competitors, either. So why do the Sequin Sports feel out of place, when I accept Artistic Gymnastics, Diving and even Trampolining with far more comfort?

Artistic Gymnastics was included in the first Modern Olympic Games. It's earned it's place. Trampolining is a great spectator-friendly addition, although I'm not sure it's a sport all by itself. Why not include the trampoline as another Gymnastics apparatus, alongside the floor, the beam, the horse, the rings, and the uneven bars?

Diving is similar, with over a century of Olympic inclusion, and standards that continue to stretch the sport.

Synchronised Swimming and Rhythmic Gymnastics were both introduced as Olympic sports in 1984, and are relatively new as recognised sports, even outside the Olympic sphere. Being "new" is not reason enough to exclude them though.

A line needs to exist that separates sport from entertainment. No, I'm not invoking the slippery-slope argument; one isn't "better" than the other, and Olympism (which I hesitate to consider a word) is not sinking into populist mass entertainment. I don't know how popular Rhythmic Gymnastics is with the general public, but I do know that Synchronised Swimming is one of the most mocked activities around. Despite their magnificent athleticism, there's an image, a focus on appearance that seems false. It can be mesmerising to watch, but I'm still not convinced it's Olympic inclusion is justified.

There's a fuzzy area in the middle between pure sport and pure entertainment where these judged sports exist. My preference to draw the line at the sports side, and omit anything that requires sequins.

The IOC is like any other government, and is vulnerable to lobbying, although they require that in order for a sport to be considered, it must be played in 75 countries across 4 contiments. Being an Olympic sport is the ultimate recognition for a sporting body. Other sports have come and gone: baseball and softball are no longer Olympic sports, neither is Rugby Union, although it will be contested in Rio in 2016.

Tennis was played in 1896, then dropped when tennis players became professionals during a time when Olympic competitors had to be amateurs, but was reintroduced as a fully fledged Olympic Sport in 1992, where professional tennis stars get to compete for medals rather than millions. In 2016, Golf will be played as an Olympic sport, taking the total number of Olympic sports played in Rio to 28.

The list of Discontinued Olympic sports and Demonstration Sports is fascinating, ranging from Angling to Motorsport to Hot Air Ballooning and Kite Flying to Polo and Tug of War. Add to these a list of sports which are recognised by the IOC, but which are not Olympic sports: these include Orienteering, Dance Sport, Cricket and Chess.

None of this answers the original question though: why are Sequin Sports included in the Olympics? The answer is, believe it or not, to promote gender equality in Olympic Competition. In the 60s and 70s, the height of Womens Lib, more men were competing than women. Synchronised Swimming and Rhythmic Gymnastics are the only two sports that are not open to male competitors, although some men do compete in both of these sports, just not at the Olympics. Sequins Sports are there to even up the numbers.

While I encourage women who aren't as wedded to their couch-life as I am to get involved, sports that are women-only don't sound like they should be in the same sentence as the word "equality", and the image those competitors portray doesn't do the cause of equality much good either.

It's time for the IOC to re-evaluate the competitor gender ratio, and consider whether Synchronised Swimming and Rhythmic Gymnastics are the best way to promote equality.

Newmania: Jessie the Elephant

Newmania: Jessie the Elephant

My late grandmother Queenie had a lovely turn of phrase for describing someone who oversteps the boundaries of acceptability. She used to say that someone - let's call him Eff - "has the hide of Jessie the Elephant". Grandma Queenie told me that it meant that Eff would do or say something that would obviously end badly, but that he'd be unconcerned by the inevitable fallout because he had a tough skin.*

I'd love to hear what my grandmother would say about Jeff Seeney. From the Brisbane Times, we learn that King Campbell's Ministers and MPs are experiencing emotional distress due to their task of cutting jobs from the Public Service.

Every government minister was facing ‘‘terrible, distressing times’’ as they made decisions about job and spending cuts, deputy premier Jeff Seeney told reporters this afternoon.

Mr Seeney said all ministers were finding the task very difficult to deal with.

‘‘It has been a very distressing time for all ministers,’’ Mr Seeney said.

‘‘They have been forced to look at making some terrible decisions in relation to a whole range of people who work for the government, who depend on the government for funding.’’

This bewildering piece of news comes just days after King Campbell's Mob acknowledged the morale problem within what's left of the Public Service, and blamed it on

(i) Leaks from within the Public Service
(ii) Frenzy whipped up by Unions and their scaremongering
(iii) The media, for reporting the job losses, the leaks, and the unions' displeasure

The one factor they didn't blame is their own intention to cut a total of around 20,000 full time equivalent jobs, with more to follow year on year.

Restructuring a business - or a government - is never easy for anyone involved. "Restructuring" is always business-speak for shuffling the organisation's human capital to enable a reduction in head count, and if any of King Campbell's Might-Do Team thought this governing business would be easy money, they're not only wrong, they're stupid.

Having said that, there are ways to manage a restructure to cushion the impact. Change Management on this scale might take a little longer and cost a bit more, but ultimately, there'd be less angst throughout the Kingdom.

Grandma Queenie, who would never have voted for anything other than the National Country Party in her 90 years on the planet, was a practical woman. Born in 1910, her first memories were of wartime, she left school just before the Great Depression, and had two war babies. She could squeeze the life out of meagre paycheque week after week, and she taught me how to extract the most value from a five-cent bag of mixed lollies. Guided by her Presbyterianism, decency, decorum and kindness were placed high on her list of priorities, yet her tongue was sharp when she felt it was justified.

If Grandma Queenie was around today, she'd have some advice for King Campbell, Eff Seeney, Prince Lawrence of Borg and the rest. She would raise herself up to her magnificent five-foot-nothing, smooth down her floral frock and pinny, and speak clearly but firmly. No-one would doubt that she meant every word. It'd go something like this:

Sit down, Little Man, and the rest of you, and listen to me. What you are doing to your people is terrible, but you are the Government and there's no way I can stop you. If you must do this, you will do it with care and compassion. Do you hear me? Compassion.

How dare you complain that you're having a hard time, because you made choices to put tens of thousands of people out of work? I mean, how dare you? Are you looking for sympathy? You won't get it, here or anywhere else. You people have hides like Jessie the Elephant.

You have made this decision to sack all these nice people. Don't you dare try to blame anyone else. We know you did it; you're the Government and you keep telling us that the state can't afford to pay for this and that. Okay, you had some problems to fix, but that's your job, and you earn bloody good money for doing it. In fact, you earn way more than most of the people you're sacking, and when it's done, you'll get to feel bad on a six figure salary. They won't have a salary. Think about that.

I'm glad you're suffering: you should be. You're hurting people, and it's not just the people you're throwing onto the street. You're feeling a little bit of what they're feeling. What about the people who need those services you're cutting? What about the kids in Logan who need Jude's SQW programme, or the nice gay people like Irene who need the QAHC?

So here's what you're going to do. You're going to ease up on this cut-cut-cut rubbish and start looking after people. You're going to let that nice Clive Palmer chap pay for his own high court shenanigans, and you're going to let the Horsie Race people look after themselves. If they can't make money out of gambling, good.

Then, you're going to put half that money away for a rainy day, and spend the other looking after all those nice public service people that you've upset.

Now, stop being so spoilt and insensitive and take responsibility for the pain you're causing. I've never seen anything this selfish in all my life. I'll bet your poor mother is ashamed. And for God's Sake, shut up about how hard this is for you. No-one cares!

*Jessie was a real Indian elephant, who lived at Sydney's Taronga Park Zoo from 1882 until her death in 1939. Click for more on Jessie.

Sink or Swim

What does it take to win swimming gold?

There's no doubt that representing your country at the biggest sporting competition on the planet is a rare honour. Winning an Olympic medal is the achievement of a lifetime. These two-and-a-bit weeks in London is the time when every member of the team should achieve their dreams.

Somehow, our swimming team failed to make those dreams a reality. Post-race media included speechless disappointment, tears and embarrassment.

Already, Swimming Australia has announced a review into the Australian swimmers' performances in London last week. The review will be conducted as a result of our relatively disappointing results in the pool, not the "performances" out of the pool. Frankly, I think that the two are inextricably linked, and to investigate one without the other is to do half a job and sabotage whatever recommendations are made.

The public face of the Inquiry will be retired swimming champion Susie O'Neill who was the expert commentator on Foxtel's Olympic swimming coverage. Ms O'Neill made headlines late last week when she publicly questioned the work ethic of the Australian swimmers, and suggested that they would have been more successful if they'd worked harder. That ballsy comment may have risked her relationships with some influential people within Australia's swimming community. I think she's going to test those relationships further over the next weeks and months.

The question of work ethic leads us to the question of payment, particularly in light of last night's 7:30, which focused on changes to how we - humble tax-payer/spectators - pay our Olympic swimmers. I'd never considered it before. The basic change is from a salary or allowance, to a system of payment based on merit, where merit equals medals. Swimmers who failed to make a final at the Olympics receive no payment; a gold medal is worth $35,000. The change to the merit-based rewards system was apparently made with little consultation with the swimmers themselves.

Medal winner Brenton Rickard talked about worrying about the paycheque and other extraneous crap (my word, not his) during the lead-up to the Olympics, and how that could be a distraction during the time when they need absolute focus. There was an atmosphere filled with friction, distrust and frustration around the swimming team, and a proven inequality in the way our Paralympic swimmers are treated. Non-swimmers can sympathise. Who hasn't had unwelcome concerns about their private lives crush into their work time and distract them, or tried to block out the office politics while existing in the midst of someone else's battles?

Numerous studies have found that money does not motivate performance, but if our athletes would benefit from a different pay structure, why not treat them as we treat our tertiary students? A HECS-style debt for elite athletes might allow our governments to offer more assistance to more athletes, across a range of sports.

But is distraction an excuse for a team performance that is below expectations?

That's the key word: expectation.

What did we expect from our Olympic swimmers? What should we expect from our Olympic swimmers? And what should our Olympic swimmers expect from the government? What should they expect from themselves and each other?

Former Vice President of the IOC, Australian Kevan Gosper, thinks Australia has fallen behind our traditional competitors in terms of public funding for athletes. That doesn't necessarily mean athlete's "wages"; it could also mean school programmes, sports science, facilities, coaches and support crew. The Sydney Morning Herald reported

Kevan Gosper said on Monday that Australian athletes had been hampered by a lack of public funds and government focus and said more money needed to be spent on top-level coaches and elite athletes.

"We've been down on the sort of financial support that we were accustomed to when compared with the financial support that's coming through from other countries, particularly here in Europe," he told ABC radio from London.

"The fact is you do need more money in international sports and preparing if you're going to compete with the world."

It's Swimming Australia that has commissioned the Inquiry, but as the organisation that directs swimming in Australia, it should not be excluded from the scope. It's been noted today that the Board of Swimming Australia is an all male board. More importantly, there are no current of former internationally ranked swimmers on the board: it's entirely made up of directors, sports administrators, and marketers.

Swimming Australia has a three-point strategic plan for 2011-2016, and I'd encourage the Inquiry to look at both the structure of the organisation, and at the Strategy document. While "Performance" is one of the three pillars of the strategy, the first interim measure - London Gold - was not met.

Meanwhile, there were those tears, there were those near-silent emotion-filled post-race moments. There was the still-contentious inclusion of bad boy swimmers Nick D'Arcy and Kendrick Monk, and Stephanie Rice's shoulder surgery. There are plenty of people who are happy to label this Olympic Swimming Team as lazy brats with huge egos and a sense of entitlement. That's both harsh and inaccurate.

Emotional responses have been all the rage, and not restricted to Aussies: American sprinter Tyson Gay was in tears after finishing 4th in his race, and an American gymnast was sour and spiteful after winning Silver. Bridget Foster Hylton's tantrum after her heat on the track is reminiscent of a toddler hurling himself on the supermarket floor and screaming when he doesn't get his lolly.

What kind of human support is available for these athletes? James Magnusson did not live up to anyone's expectations, including his own, but who was around to support him? Who knows what was going on inside the head of a young man, a world champion, at his first Olympics? Does the swimming team have a specialist sports psychologist with them? What kind of media training is provided? Is our selection process correct? In the wake of this swimming meet, are our swimmers receiving appropriate emotional counselling?

As for those expectations, I think we all want the same thing, all expect the same thing: we simply want our athletes to do their best; their Personal Best, when it matters most. Our athletes need much more than being trained to swim fast. The fact that so many of our swimmers failed to swim PBs at the London games suggests that we've got the swimming right, but we failed to prepare our people for the Olympic Games.

Mostest, Dumbier, Ignoranter

“...With the twisty turningness, it looks a lot closer than it does.”

- Eddie McGuire, 2012

A little over half way through the London 2012 Olympic Games, Australia is a nation of bewildered sports fans. How is it possible to be so proud and disappointed and disgusted and delighted all at the same time?


Try asking Eddie McGuire or Ray Hadley. Their attempts to answer the question will be all the answer you need. Expect to hear collections of syllables grouped into word-like verbal farts that carry meaning only to those on drugs. There will be groups of true, recognisable words assembled into an order that would make Strunk and/or White weep. And there are comments, well thought out, ably executed, which are completely nonsensical, and others designed to be as offensive as possible.


We have the very best expert commentary available from experienced athletes who've been there: Susie O'Neill, Liz Chetkovich, Robert DeCastella, Lucinda Green, Matt Shirvington, Lisa Forrest... They may not have the vocabulary or ease behind the microphone, but they have common sense, and seem to be able to behave themselves while the "professionals" sound second-rate.


And yet, this Olympics, the coverage is literally better than ever before. We have nine or ten channels bringing us live pictures of Olympic events through the night. I say nine or ten, because I don't know whether to count Nine and its digital echo as one channel or two. Foxtel has eight dedicated channels. There's even a 3D option, but does anyone even own a 3D tellie?


Even in 2D, our pictures are in brilliant high definition, with ultra-slo-mo action to showcase every fresh bead of sweat on the world's best athletes, all against the ghastly pink and purple and blue bunting of London 2012. We even have social media to bring us each moment from every angle, with commentary from the athletes themselves. This is quite simply the best ever coverage of an Olympic Games in history.

And the worst.


Channel Nine and Foxtel have taken Boofhead Commentary where it's never been before. I doubt that some of the talking heads could graduate from primary school. Aside from the never-ending massacre of spoken English, there are other challenges for these overhyped hosts.


Eddie McGuire has been getting into all sorts of pain with his "R"s, particularly during the Women's Marathon. He simply could not pronounce Australian runner Jess Trengove's name correctly. More often than not, he attached an extra "R" after the "G", making the second syllable "Grove" instead of "gove". The word "Performance" got the McGuire treatment too, becoming "preformance" more than once. Should we be surprised? Of course not: this is the same television personality who hosted Australia's "Who Wants to Be A Mooyonaire" for several years.


Apparently maths can be troublesome too, even when the sums can be completed on the digits of one of Homer Simpson's hands. The hosts have computers to provide the important information about athlete performances, records, splits, reaction times and twist velocities. They don't have to calculate much themselves, or even remember much. It's the basic mental arithmetic that throws up the challenges for these guys.


“There are our five leaders: two Kenyans, an Ethiopian and a Russian."

- Eddie McGuire

Ray Hadley isn't likely to be considered a statesman any time soon. He's adequate when it comes to calling the swimming races, but he should leave the geography to the high school kids. Several times, early on in the swimming competition, he must have seen the country abbreviation "CZE" and flashed back to 1992, duly announcing various swimmers as being from Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia is a country which ceased to exist twenty years ago. Perhaps being accurate doesn't matter to Mr Hadley but it matters to the Czechs and the Slovaks who formed separate nations in 1993, and to the athletes representing those two countries now.


It's a rookie mistake. Mr Hadley is not a rookie, not that you'd know that from his fascinating attempts to pronounce Kyrgyzstan. Not everyone can be George Donikian, but a commentator at the world's biggest sporting event should get the countries right, at least. (It's Keer-gis-tan, by the way.)

Mr Hadley wasn't satisfied with passing out accidental insults to Europeans; he needed to get in someone's face. Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph ran a story about Mr Hadley making friends with another commentator who asked him to sit down during Emily Seebohm's 100m Backstroke Final - a reasonable request to ensure that everyone could see. Over the course of 24 hours, Mr Hadley's response included a few choruses of "Fuck off", one verse featuring "You French Fuckwit..." (the European was Belgian, not French), one "Piss off you Belgian Pest", and a surprise solo from backing vocalist/sidekick Rebecca Wilson with "He told you to fuck off, so fuck off."


I've been unable to locate Foxtel Employee Code of Conduct, but I imagine it's similar to other corporate Codes of Conduct. I'm confident that telling a commentator from another country to fuck off falls far short of acceptable behaviour. There's a good chance that it could be seen as Workplace Bullying, and as such would be a sackable offence.


Meanwhile, both McGuire and Hadley are repeat offenders in calling female competitors "girls". Here's a free tip for them: Don't do that. It makes the female athletes angry.


Here's another free tip for Mr McGuire and Mr Hadley: let the BBC pictures and the expert athletes do their jobs. Unless you're being paid by the word, speak as little as possible.

Foot In Mouth Disease

Foot In Mouth Disease

"Non-productive old cow" might not be the most cutting, the most vicious, the most crude or the most personal insult ever thrown at a female, yet in context, it ranks up there with the absolute worst. Consider that the comment was delivered by the CEO of respected Australian company at a business function, and that it was aimed at our Prime Minister, and it's about as offensive as you can get.

Mr David Farley is the CEO of AACo, the Australian Agricultural Company, which is Australia's biggest private landholder with 7.2 million hectares, consisting of 19 cattle properties in Queensland and the Northern Territory. It's literally one of Australia's oldest surviving businesses, dating back to 1824. AACo has an international reputation as a supplier of quality beef from its herd of 660,000 head of cattle and is the world's biggest producer of Wagyu beef. In terms of Australian Agribusiness, AACo is the godfather.

The Herald Sun reported that last Thursday, Mr Farley was explaining AACo's plans for a new abattoir designed to process older cows when he made the comparison.

"So the old cows that become non-productive, instead of making a decision to either let her die in the paddock or put her in the truck, this gives us a chance to take non-productive animals off and put them through the processing system," Mr Farley reportedly said.

"So it's designed for non-productive old cows. Julia Gillard's got to watch out."

What on earth was Mr Farley thinking? That Ms Gillard should line up with AACo's other old cows en route to the Whiskas factory?

Minister for the Status of Women Julie Collins said that the comment was "totally unacceptable", but what she didn't say was that it's comments like Mr Farley's that make her Ministry necessary. If the Prime Minister was male, with the same policies, the same legislative record and the same choice to be childless, would Mr Farley have included a similar joke? If not, the comment is not only an example of extremely poor taste, it's also gender-biased.

As ABC journalist Latika Bourke shared via Twitter last night, AACo has a Code of Conduct, which has been signed off by Mr Farley himself. Included within the Code is this: http://www.aaco.com.au/_upload%5C20111018101058645.pdf

Employees shall not do anything that would be likely to have a negative impact on AAco’s reputation.

Whoops.

UPI has reported that Mr Farley has written the comment off as "tongue in cheek".

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Whether Mr Farley's "Non-productive old cow" remark was aimed at Prime Minister Gillard's political record, or her personal choices as a woman is irrelevant. Whether his comment was scripted or an impromptu "joke" is irrelevant. It was a personal insult aimed at a the head of our Government. That's not acceptable in any circumstances. That it came from a respected business executive makes it worse; he should - and does - know better.

Mr Farley should apologise to the Prime Minister, to his employees, the AACo Board and shareholders.

Newmania: The Scalpel State

Newmania: How Far Is Too Far

Tomorrow's Sunday Mail delivers the crushing news that King Campbell's relentless drive to cut costs has now taken aim at Newmania's Breastscreen Programme, which will be scrapped. Responsibility for screening for breast, bowel and cervical cancers will be shifted to regional health.

I have been unable to locate a media release from the Health Minister or the Premier, although the Premier is apparently unavailable for comment tomorrow. This is the same 'hide n seek' technique used by Prince Lawrence of Borg's communications team to dodge the fallout after announcing the defunding of QAHC.

In the age of social media, it doesn't work. The Twitter response has been immediate.

@Brocklesnitch holy fuck

@Psephy What???!!!??? This is getting beyond a joke. #newmania

@Brocklesnitch Fucking unbelievable!! The LNP dismantling Breastscreen QLD. Continuing their attack on women. http://t.co/OUZLFP7K (ht @SalPiracha)

@4CThinking OK, that's it - this LNP mob are seriously delusional. This is mad ideology masquerading as fiscal responsibility #qldpol

@melkettle that is just wrong.

@MarianSmedley Newman has totally lost the plot! Queenslanders must surely be feeling betrayed to have trusted this madman

@Nettie_2601 “Shock as LNP government winds up iconic statewide cancer service BreastScreen - http://t.co/F2D7QlLU ” WTF are they doing?

@ginoandrieri On Sat night of Olympics no less... “@SalPiracha: Shock as LNP winds up iconic statewide cancer service BreastScreen http://t.co/X4s7f9IC"

@Fraloob No words...

@purserj Campbell Newman is a complete arse. Its services like breast screen Queensland that gave us more years with my mother in law.

@littleaud1: @vanOnselenP hope you ask Newman why he is scrapping breast screen whilst he spends millions on the race industry. A travesty.

@MichaelTiyce: Breast screen QLD to be broken up ?? That's really a priority ? Gobsmacking stuff. #auspol

@Pollytics: Newman closes Breastscreen Qld, plus bowel & cervical cancer screening http://t.co/BxmoseQZ Naive madness

@bortlb: My aunt had breast cancer. My sister has breast tumours. The BreastScreen thing hits a little too close to home.

@GenGusface cant relax- newmans axing of #breastscreen is just so bad on so may levels- does he want qld women to die?

@Asher_Wolf: Every member of my immediate family has suffered from cancer. Some survived. Some didn't. Screening is essential. #BreastScreen

@cantdocampbell: I tried to think of something witty to say about my dismantling of Breastscreen Qld. But there is just nothing funny about it. It is fucked.

@lizbuchanan Can't be true, really BAD decision RT @GeorgiaWaters: So the Qld government will scrap BreastScreen. This is quite literally unbelievable.

This is a trending topic on Twitter tonight; the above selection is a few of the tweets from my tweet stream, and from a Twitter search for the term Breastscreen. There are many many more.

As Newmanians know, this is just the latest in a growing list of insulting cuts. After four months of governing, I imagine there are few Newmanians who have not been disadvantaged or disappointed by something King Campbell has altered, cancelled or cut.

Arts - Axing of the Premier's Literary Awards
Environment - Cuts to Solar Scheme from July 10
Roads & Transport - Plans for a new road Flyover into Enoggera Barracks Axed
Tourism - No sinking of 2 warships for a new dive site off Gold Coast
Values - No repeal of Gay Panic defence, which was promised by previous Government
Environment - ClimateSmart Programme axed
Public Service - Over 6,000 Public Service Jobs Axed on Black Friday
Values - Cuts to family planning services
Tourism - Axed military grave & memorials restoration programme
Public Service - 2,000 Railcorp workers get the chop
Values - Changes to Civil Unions legislation
Environment - Defunded the Environment Defender's Office
Values - Changes to laws allowing access to Surrogacy
Services - Defunded the Queensland Association of Healthy Communities
Services - Skilling Queenslanders for Work Programme has been cut
Marketing - Queensland's Logo - the "Beattie Burger" - is being phased out
Arts - Schools Music Programme, including Fanfare, has been cut
Education - The Education Budget has been reduced by $23m
Services - The Tennants Advice and Advocacy Service axed
Public Service - Another 2,000 jobs to go from Department of Transport and Main Roads
Public Service - More jobs to be cut from QBuild and Roadtek
Health - The Paediatric unit at Robina Hospital will be closed
Assets - The Sale of three Government-owned Caravan Parks
Environment - Wild Rivers protection removed to allow mining exploration to commence
Services - Refusal to contribute to the federal government's NDIS

This list is not complete; it's a casual list of what I can remember. Please use the Comments section below to add any other cuts you know about; I'll keep an updated list.

What's next, I wonder. In terms of programmes and initiatives that have been funded, I can only remember two:

$300,000 to assist Clive Palmer's High Court Challenge against the Mining Tax
$110m to prop up the state's Racing Industry

I'm really out of words. The priorities of this government? No words.

Newmania: A Nightmare on George Street

It's hard to know if the tide is turning against King Campbell or not. There's no current polling to indicate what Newmanians are thinking, although a voluntary call-in segment this week on 612ABC indicates the King Campbell and his overstuffed court of ministers and members might not have as much support as they enjoyed back on March 24. Calls were categorised and counted. Of 57 calls, 24 were positive about King Campbell, and 33 were negative. You can - and should - listen to the calls here.

Earlier this week, the Courier Mail carried a story about King Campbell's bizarre notion that the anxiety around job security in the Public Service was the result of "leaks" from within the public service itself. Is King Campbell's regal crown too tight?

Is he completely unhinged?

The reason Newmania's 200,000+ public servants are scared witless is because their King has announced to all and sundry that Newmania is (a) broke, (b) borrowing funds to pay the public servants, and (c) re-evaluating the conditions under which public servants are employed and remunerated. We're not entirely sure how many roles have already gone, but it's around 6,000. How many will follow? We don't know because that's information King Campbell can never supply. Based on his earlier statement that we had 20,000 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) public servants in excess of what we could afford to pay, assume that King Campbell's axe will fall on another 14,000 or so Newmanian Public Servants.

Meanwhile, King Campbell told us that the good people of Ashgrove had expressed no negativity regarding the job losses; in fact, King Campbell let it be known that Ashgrovians were thanking him for making the tough decisions and cutting the waste. The only negative feedback King Campbell was aware of had been orchestrated by Union Fatcats, and was therefore unworthy of his attention.

It's fascinating that King Campbell finds that the voices of thousands of union members who rely on him for their paycheques are beneath is his notice, yet a similarly organised group who campaigns on a platform of Christian values drives King Campbell's policies.
King Campbell should compare the voice of the unions with the voice of the ACL, just to provide some perspective.

I don't doubt that a lot of Ashgrovians have faith in their King, and aren't directly effected by the public service job cuts. Those who aren't so happy might not bother to seek out the leader to express their displeasure, particularly if they've already signed a petition and attended a protest rally.

In any case, Ashgrove is close to the centre of things, and already, several thousand fewer people are working in the CBD. How many Ashgrovians work in businesses that exist to support the city workforce: cafes, parking garages, retail, medical, hairdressers...? It's Newmanian trickle-down suffering and a anxious CBD.

It's not only the CBD of Brisbane that's nervous; jobs are in danger in all of the major regional centres. 200,000+ public servants are nervous, regardless of location. They're unsure about their futures, and they're hating every moment of the present. QR employees are particularly anxious: 2,000 of them are about to join the ranks of the unemployed.

So skant is the information about future job cuts that the Police Union fears that King Campbell's commitment to increase police numbers by 1,100 will be undermined by cuts to the Academy's budget. How is it possible to train and employ over a thousand new officers when the training budget has been massacred?

It'll all be okay though. King Campbell is denying that his bloody solution to a fictitious crisis is unpopular yet necessary, and Prince Lawrence of Borg says he feels the pain of retrenched public sector workers because state politicians have had what amounts to a pay freeze.

On behalf of Newmania's public servants, I say to Prince Lawrence "Diddums".

This mess is not the fault of the public servants, though. It's Kevin Rudd's fault, according to Prince Larry. Of course a new LNP government would blame a Labor Federal Government. Note to everyone on the planet: blaming achieves nothing.

Can a government creating this much personal upheaval remain popular? For now, popularity is irrelevant, which probably explains the lack of polling. The LNP has such an overwhelming majority, they can do whatever they want.

We're watching it happen.

Listen To The Music

In every modern democracy, there’s an ongoing struggle to balance ideology and policy, transparency and secrecy, fact and spin, truth and ‘gospel’ truth, recollection and statistics, experience and passion. Then, after the agreed, signed-off message has escaped from the party's sanctum sanctorum, there’s another phase of this convoluted process in which the professional political spin doctors polish the language, grind away any rough edges and make it fit for pre-public (traditional media) consumption.

Journalists with an expertise in their political environment digest the message released by the political communications specialists, many of whom used to be journalists themselves. Regardless of background, these reporters sieve the information through a series of filters, including whether a story is appropriate for their audience, the channel, the editorial bias, the journalist's personal perspectives and any other news of the day. 

What comes out of this apparently necessary series of processes is what we often see as "news"...or what is rejected by media types as being less than newsworthy. If you think the news is all 'spin', take a moment to consider the announcements and media releases that died with a single touch of the Delete key.
 
Sometimes we can remove one level - the reporter - and televise a live press conference, but unless its an impromptu one, the statement being read was prepared and approved by the spin department, or created from a set of Party-approved talking points.

Take Joe Hockey's presser this morning (transcript not available) in which he made hay from a report showing that Australia's productivity was relatively slow. There were some clumsy Olympic references and the suggestion that this is Very Bad for Australia. What he didn't say was which Productivity Report he was referring to, where Australia ranked compared to which other nations, or who funded the report. Was the report prepared by the AIG or the Ponds Institute? 

Mr Hockey also failed to mention how he might go about improving this dreadful situation with our constipated productivity.

Barely seconds later, Mr Hockey was critical of Wayne Swan's continued offensive against the Axis of Greed, and decided (probably with the assistance of staff) that Mr Swan was drawing attention to himself as "Acting PM" to set himself up as an alternative to the unpopular Julia Gillard. I hate to be the one to break it to Mr Hockey, but here goes: Wayne Swan is the Acting Prime Minister. He doesn't need to draw attention to himself. He gets our attention because right now, he is our elected leader.

Sadly for Mr Hockey, he'll never have that chance. In the Coalition, the Acting Prime Minister is always the Leader of the National Party. Perhaps that's why he doesn't understand how silly his claim of a "look-at-me" strategy really is. Given the absence of gravitas in Hockey's presser, I'd say it's a solid case of the Pot and the Kettle...

Yet on it went. Joe Hockey was anxious to mock the inspiration Mr Swan draws from Springsteen's Born To Run. Meh. I'm not a Springsteen fan, yet I'm delighted to see a politician who has room in his life for more than one idea, more than one source of inspiration. The Australian Labor Party doesn't begin and end at the site of the Tree of Knowledge.

Was the whole Hockey not-news conference simply a way for him to display his supposed intellectual snobbery compared to the Acting PM, who prefers a working-class flannie-wearing songwriter to Hockey's inspirations: Menzies, Howard and probably a trio of mining billionaires. I imagine most of the electoral battle-grounds in Western Sydney and South East Queensland would prefer The Boss too.

But it's not a class war. It's a message war and today, Mr Hockey failed on every count. PR101 still dictates that if you don't have legitimate news, don't call a presser or issue a release. As for his problem with Springsteen, a simple "yuck" on Twitter would've sufficed. Clive Palmer's response, complete with righteous Aussie indignation, was equally misplaced. The issue isn't Springsteen versus Redgum versus learned tomes from Joe's personal library. It's the optimism of knowing that inspiration is everywhere, and yet entirely personal. It's subjective and irrational and surprising, and to do anything less than welcome it, in whatever form it appears, is just plain dumb.

In any case, a sincere gut-felt love of music suggests creativity, vision and a mind that is ready for new ideas. Perhaps today's battle was between open and closed minds, between creating inspired solutions for the future or borrowing policy from the past.



"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
— Albert Einstein