Newmania: Independence Day

In November 2014, Newmania will host a meeting of the G20. As an Australian first and a Newmanian second, I find this wholly appropriate. Of course, Australia should host a meeting of the G20. Our economy is about the only one to survive the GFC, and we have the highest GDP per capita of any country in the world. Furthermore, the meeting should be held in Newbane, because Newbane is our New World City according to the marketing chaps, and home to our national Treasurer.

Plus, the weather’s nice.

The G20 is a national and international Big Deal. It’s not in the class of the Sydney Olympics, but it’s big. There will be leaders, treasurers, advisors, support staff, hangers-on, media, security and hospitality. It’s a time for Aussies to show off and be proud in front of leaders from the other G20 members: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.

Not everyone is delighted, though. Brad Hazzard, New South Wales Minister for GrumpArsery and Sore Loserism is appalled. He says Sydney is Australia’s only genuine World City, and therefore, Sydney has some divine right to host all of the important stuff. Gee, Melbourne is gonna be annoyed! He’s also accusing Wayne Swan of choosing Newbane for political gain. Well, let's see what happens in 2014 when in all likelihood, Swanny will be guest lecturing and serving on a few boards, and Joe Hockey will be Treasurer.

But here’s something to ponder, Mr Hazzard. It’s not a competition. It’s not same-sex marriage, or State of Origin, for quack’s sake! Newbane getting the G20 doesn’t make Sydney any less beautiful, less worldly, and less desireable; it just means that in November of 2014, Sydney won’t be in crazy lockdown mode. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with Mr Hazzard or New South Wales.

What’s worse is that Newmania’s own King Campbell is withholding some of his happiness about this opportunity to show off his beloved River City to the world’s biggest bigwigs. There’s already a stoush developing because King Campbell won’t commit any resources to the G20 Event, and Treasurer Swanny thinks he should. If New South Wales’ Brad Hazzard is the Minister for Sore Loserisms, King Campbell must be the Minister for Sore Winning. And then there's Lord Mayor Quirkie and a rumour about Council funded security? It's bizarre.

Note to King Campbell: Your state won the right to host a prestigious international event. Just be happy.

It’s starting to look as though King Campbell doesn’t want Newmania to be part of Australia any more. When Prime Minister Julia brought her Big and Important Economic Forum to a venue literally up the road from King Campbell’s Parliamentary Palace, he refused to attend. He said he was too busy…but he may have been flossing, or locked in the Shredder Room with Queen Lisa of Mooch for all we know.

In any case, we should prepare ourselves for Separation. Clive Palmer has no doubt advised King Campbell that even the very best hole-digging equipment won’t be able to dig a big enough moat between Newmania and those other states, so we’ll have to be all European about it and just pretend there’s a border.

All financial relationships with the Commonwealth will be severed. Don’t worry about missing out on all that lovely GST revenue; King Campbell will be able to continue sacking public servants until he’s saved enough money to provide the services we need: army, navy, airforce, customs, border protection, quarantine, foreign affairs…wait. Something doesn’t add up. Doesn’t matter – that’s Treasurer Timmy’s problem.

Newmania’s Spiritual Leader will be no surprise. Wendy Joy Of the ACL will lead the state in prayer through good times and bad, from her base in WendyJoy (But Not Too Much Joy and None of That Gay Stuff) Land. Newmania only needs one religion, and hers is fine for Bruce and Clive, so that’ll do for the rest of us. (Unfortunately, some residents of the former Sunshine Coast may feel uncomfortable with this decision; King Campbell recommends moving* to the Gold Rainbow Fun Coast, where everyone is mostly welcome, for a price.)

King Campbell anticipates very little disruption to business and industry as a result of the Great Separation. With the abolition of all trade unions, businesses will thrive and productivity will soar. The Big Holes in the centre of the new Sovereignty will be particularly successful, bringing much deserved fortune to struggling politician Clive Palmer and media Girl-About-Town Gina Rinehart. Of course the Carbon Imposition and Mining Success Levies will be stopped on Day 1, allowing our industries to emit as nature intended. After all, how can Newmanians be expected to take pride in our productivity if we can’t see signs of activity?

King Campbell has decided to make Way Out West a loving memorial to Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen, with one of the last remaining members of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Katter Kountry, as it will be known, will be a generous area of real-life, real-straight Newmania, with free admission in return for volunteer work driving cattle, controlling reptiles and fixing farm equipment.

Newmania’s glorious tourism industry will blossom. The Gold Rainbow Fun Coast will attract all types of visitors – including those types – and provide basically what it does now. WendyJoy (But Not Too Much Joy and None of That Gay Stuff) Land will become a Mecca, but not the same Mecca as the one for Muslims. A different Mecca. Protestants will flock to be part of the flock. The jewel in King Campbell’s tourism crown, the Great Barnaby Reef, will be a throbbing hub of happy tourists, boozy coconuts drinks, grey nomads, sunburnt back-packers, frenzied commercial shipping and truckloads of tailings from Clive’s and Gina’s Big Holes.

There’s no need to worry about the sludge though – King Campbell himself is an Engineering God, and he has promised to build tunnels from the Big Holes all the way to the Reef, where he will erect state of the art under-sea chicken-wire fences to contain the watery sludge and protect the sanctity of the reef. As King Campbell explained, the added advantage of choosing chicken wire is that it makes it hard for the scuba-diving graffiti artists.

Welcome to the New Newmania. God help us all.

*Resettlement Costs are the Resident’s Responsibility.

Happy Birthday, Mr Whitlam

This week Gough Whitlam turns 96, and aside from the sadness of the birthday without his late wife Margaret, Mr Whitlam will look back across the past half-century and wonder what the hell happened to the once great Australian Labor Party. He is not alone

This year also marks 40 years since Gough’s audacious strategy to woo middle class voters secured him the Prime Ministership in 1972. In the late 1960s, Whitlam recognised that in order to win government, he would need to attract middle class voters who had favoured the Liberal Party since the late 1940s, while at the same time, retaining the loyalty of traditional Labor voters from the factories and mines and shopfloors. 

Regrettably, E.G. Whitlam will always be remembered first for The Dismissal, that ferocious time in our political history which could have seen the death of the Labor Party. Labor endured, much to my grandfather's disappointment, and governed again under Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, yet right now, Labor’s future looks about as desolate as it did back in November 1975 when Sir John Kerr terminated Whitlam’s political career.

Gough Whitlam is probably in the best position of anyone to explain the desperate situation of the ALP in 2012, and possibly, to structure another miracle comeback. After all, he’s the one that started the slow-dance with the middle classes...

The music stopped about 20 years ago yet the ALP kept on pirouetting to the right, from Government under Paul Keating into Opposition under a progression of lacklustre leaders: Beazley, Crean. Latham. The more successful Coalition Prime Minister John Howard was, the harder the ALP tried to emulate them.  As Whitlam had done prior to the 1972 election, Labor seemed to think that if they were more like the Coalition, if the offered positions more appealling to the middle classes, they could win. 

Again, Labor went after the middle class voters. The strategy probably would’ve succeeded in 2001 too, but September 11. We were, quite appropriately, scared by the world. Conventional wisdom suggests that the left's strengths are in education and welfare, while the right is about border protection, defence and the economy. Labor lost another one.

Take a look back over the past twenty years:  Labor’s one big success was Kevin-07. It was also the one time when the ALP differentiated itself from the policies of the right: Your Rights At Work successfully tore the heart out of Tony Abbott’s WorkChoices and once again aligned Labor with its working class origins and union-based sponsors. On the environment, Labor was talking about moral challenges and an ETS while the Libs were trying to decide if Climate Change was a global conspiracy. 

Surprisingly, Rudd is socially conservative, but that mattered less to many voters, and gave Labor a vital point of differentiation against the Greens, who now occupy a position on the continuum very similar to that occupied by Gough Whitlam in 1972.

The landscape is very different 40 years on. Tony Abbott leads the most popular political party in the land, while simultaneously surviving spectacular personal disapproval figures. He has company, though; Julia Gillard's personal approval numbers are as bad as Mr Abbott's. Both primary voting intention and two party preferred figures have Labor all but gone. 

The future of the Liberal Party looks even healthier when viewed through the one-dimensional lens of polling results. The two parties are trying to kill each other by fighting over the same slice of electoral real-estate; the slice traditionally belonging to the conservative right. The Coalition has the home-court advantage.

I wonder what Gough Whitlam, Elder Statesman of the ALP,  would say about this situation. He certainly wouldn't be advising his team to fight Tony Abbott for the middle class aspirational voters, and the Mining Executive Class. I think it might be a lot simpler...and a lot more complex.

When the primary vote would have to climb to reach one in three, admit you've lost your way. It's not about leadership or carbon tax or asylum seekers. It's about the people Labor left behind when they forgot to stop moving right. Labor can't be the government we need if they're in Opposition.

The least we can do would be to ask Mr Whitlam for his advice, and listen to the wisdom of his 96 years.

Happy Birthday, Mr Whitlam. 

(Bloody) Oath

Last week, it was announced that Australian Girl Guides would no longer swear allegiance to God or the Queen. Although there has been some media comment, and a minor kafuffle on talkback radio, the new version has been well accepted, except by Bert, and Bert isn’t happy.

The existing verse that Girl Guides recite included reference to both the Queen and God.

I promise that I will do my best;
To do my duty to God,
To serve the Queen and my country
To help other people
and keep the Guide law.

The new, inclusive version is here:

I promise that I will do my best
To be true to myself and develop my beliefs
To serve my community and Australia
And live by the Guide Law.

We heard Bert’s sincere disapproval on 612ABC Brisbane’s Cereal Box segment this morning. He was so incensed that he wanted to round up all the Girl Guides and send them to Afghanistan for not recognising the Queen. Now Bert’s an ex-Nasho, and ex-Public Servant and he’s always sworn allegiance to the Queen. In mu opinion, he's also a silly old goat, but I don’t think that requires a sworn oath of any kind.

Surprise, surprise, neither does being a Girl Guide. After all, it’s girls, some as young as seven, making a promise, not declaring an Oath. In fact, the Girl Guides call it that: it’s the Promise, and I think it’s entirely appropriate for young people to make a promise that is relevant to them.

When Julia Gillard, an atheist, became Prime Minister, she had the option of taking an oath or an affirmation. The difference is that the Oath is religious in nature, and the Affirmation is not. She was roundly criticised by conservatives and Christian groups for choosing the Affirmation, which does not mention God. I consider Ms Gillard’s choice was the only truthful alternative. How could she swear an oath which includes a God she doesn’t believe in? Wouldn’t that have been the height of hypocrisy? It’s a no-win situation: she is criticised for not observing prayers, yet every time she sets foot inside a church, particularly for state funerals, she is criticised for that too.

Bert was passionate in his determination that Girl Guides who did not recognise the Queen were unworthy somehow. It’s important for Bert to understand that an Oath, or Affirmation, or Promise is a deeply personal experience. It needs to mean something to the person who is swearing their Oath. It’s pointless swearing allegiance to a religion, a god, or a monarch that has no significance to you.

At this stage, both options still acknowledge our monarch, as do the Oath and Affirmation for servicemen and women joining the Australian Defence Force. There’s a good reason for that: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is still our head of state.

I asked Rob about his Oath: it was before there was a choice of an Affirmation available, so he spoke the words about the Queen and God with one hand on the Australian flag, but the words did not hold literal meaning for him. He was swearing his allegiance to Australia, promising to do all in his power as a soldier to protect Australia. The words that were written down (see below) weren’t entirely relevant or irrelevant, but he made them personal. It’s the personal vow that Rob held onto, because that’s the one that held meaning for him.

And the Girl Guides have done the same thing. After a project lasting for about a year, the Australian Girl Guides found the right words that allowed people making the Guides Promise to find their own meaning, regardless of religion, skin colour, origin, or political preferences. The Promise includes the words, “to Serve my Community and Australia”, and Bert can assume that clause includes Australia’s head of state, The Queen.

The World Association for Girl Guides has ratified the new wording, noting that it ensures that today’s Guides and those of the future will be included, rather than excluded, from the Promise. The Queen might be an important figure in Bert’s life, but irrelevant in the life of a seven year old girl who was born in Thailand or Kenya or Argentina, in the same way that swearing allegiance to a Christian god would make no sense for a Buddhust, Hindu, Jedi or atheist.

I hope Bert continues to hold dear the words he spoke all those years ago, because they mean so much to him. Australia needs her history (and people like Bert to keep it alive), but she also needs a future that is inclusive of everyone who may be willing and able to serve, whether it’s as a politician, a public servant, a member of the Defence Force or a Girl Guide. No-one wants to take away Bert’s Oath or challenge his beliefs.

Bert’s Oath is Bert’s Oath. The Girl Guides are simply helping the next generation to find words that mean as much to them as Bert’s Oath means to him.

Sunday Night Sillies

There were Two Politicians at Parliament House
And one of them was Bad and the other was Grouse.
Julia kept busy, counting the votes;
While Tony kept chanting Stop the Boats.

They lived in Can'bra the weather was hot,
And one of them was Good, and the other was Not.
Julia promised a Carbon Tax,
Gina wanted to own Fairfax.

They lived in Can'bra when the weather was cold,
And they Did, and they Didn't Do, what they were told.
Julia struck a deal with Bob;
Tony was stuck with Andrew Robb.

They argued and bitched with Swanny & Joe;
And one said "Yessir" and the other said "No!"
Julia brought us the NBN,
Tony's still counting to...eleventy-ten?

Craig Thomson sobbed - they all went mad.
Nothing got better and the polls got bad.
Australia's economy is all straight A's,
But Tony knows: negativity pays.

Julia failed the asylum seekers-
Tony became a friend of Latika's(?)
Julia's offside with unions and greenies;
Slipper's offside with everyone. Meanies!

Leadership worries, Julia triumphed.
Turn back the boats, Tony harrumphed.
Marriage Equality, begged Penny Wong.
Now Malcolm admits that Tony's wrong.

There may be a Moral, though some say not;
I think there's a moral, and I think I know what.
They've forgotten to govern, they just want to win.
Kevin and Malcolm? All is forgiv'n!
Clive Palmer versus Katter and Labor's woes...
Julia's PM, but just by a nose.


With most humble apologies to A.A.Milne

Actions Unconscionable

Before you can advocate for a Conscience Vote, you need to have a conscience; a set of beliefs that are stronger than your desire for power.

Conscience votes are rare, and usually involve controversial issues of a moral or ethical nature. Within the context of party politics, a conscience vote is a risk.

In a hung parliament, a conscience vote can be a losing vote. With tissue-thin majorities, parties need certainty. Even with a solid majority, too many conscience votes undermines the party's image and appeal: why support a party that allows its elected representatives to vote against the party line? And to vote against your party when no conscience vote has been granted is to risk being expelled from the party, if you're an ALP member. The penalties for a Liberal crossing the floor are slightly less dramatic, yet still a deterrent.

The reality is that for most politicians, there's no need to decide issues one-by-one. In many cases, there's little need to understand the issues. Just vote the party line, regurgitate the party talking points, and no-one gets hurt. Julie Bishop's ridiculous performance on Ten Breakfast this week in response to the Carbon Tax is a fine example:  

JULIE BISHOP    We can deliver tax cuts by making savings. We’ll ensure that pensioners get a fair go. You don’t have to hit them with a job destroying tax in order to do that. 
 
PAUL HENRY    Will you take the money away that they have been given to compensate them for the carbon tax? 
 
JULIE BISHOP    If there is no carbon tax they won’t need that compensation, but we'll ensure there are tax cuts and that pensioners get a fair go. 
 
PAUL HENRY    But you will take that money away from them?
 
JULIE BISHOP    They won’t need the compensation if they are not hit with a carbon tax. 
 
PAUL HENRY    So you’ll take it away from them? 
 
JULIE BISHOP    But we’ll have tax cuts. Well we won’t need the compensation for a tax that isn’t there. I mean that is just the con isn’t it? To say that you put a tax on and then you give them compensation.
 
PAUL HENRY    And then you’ll take compensation off them. 
 
JULIE BISHOP    There will be tax cuts. 
 
PAUL HENRY    You’ll take the money off them won’t you, that will come away. 
 
JULIE BISHOP    There will be tax cuts but they won’t be paid for by the carbon tax. 
 
PAUL HENRY    I love you Julie, I just do!

What about when your conscience is in conflict with the policies you're required to support, crossing the floor is not an option?

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman is on record as supporting same sax marriage, yet the LNP would not permit a conscience vote on amending or repealing the Civil Partnerships legislation.  Newman is the leader of the Parliamentary LNP in Queensland, and even he is bound by the party machine, lead by Christian conservative Bruce McIver. Did the voters of Ashgrove elect Campbell Newman, or did they elect the LNP?

Malcolm Turnbull, in a curious bout of speech followed by duelling op-eds with Andrew Bolt, has urged his party leader to allow a conscience vote at federal level on the same issue. The answer from Tony Abbott  is, as usual, a flat 'no'. As the Prime Minister has allowed Labor MPs a conscience vote, it's unlikely that the current same sex marriage bills would succeed; the ALP members may cross the floor, and the Liberals may not. Turnbull, and probably others, will be required to vote against their consciences. 

If we had a free vote on the matter and, subject always to the wording of the Bill, I would vote to recognise same sex couples’ unions as a marriage. For reasons I have laid out I find the arguments against it unpersuasive.

Meanwhile, in Lyne and New England and Kennedy and Denison, where the sitting members are Independents, every vote is a conscience vote...or would be, if deals hadn't been done to form the minority ALP Government. In Lyne and New England, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor are struggling. 

Why? Is it because they've lost their genuine independence, or because they sided with the dreaded ALP, and that's a bridge too far for voters in these traditional National Party seats. Perhaps it's just part of the national malaise, the all-pervasive disillusionment with politics and politicians of all flavours.

On marriage equality, Rob Oakeshott will vote to represent his electorate, as will Tony Windsor:

Looming challenges for the self-described socially progressive Mr Oakeshott include the gay marriage vote.He said that his electorate has made it clear it thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, and therefore he would vote against reforms in favour of gay marriage unless lobbyists could somehow change his community's sentiment.

In a traditional parliament, with a majority, a minority and a handful of others, Independents would be free to vote with their consciences, or with the will of their electorate, on every bill. They don't have the luxury of a party machine to "help" them form opinions and provide catchy phrases to use when interviews get tricky, yet they enjoy the freedom to vote independently.

Political parties are part of our system of government. The decision to grant or deny a conscience vote is an indicator of a leader's willingness to risk surrendering power.I wonder if those leaders and party officials who deny their MPs the liberty to vote their conscience have consciences themselves. 



“Congratulations. You have met your conscience. In my experience, the world is divided between those who have one and those who don't. And the ones with one are divided into those who will act on their conscience and those who won't. Those who will are, I'm afraid, the smallest category. They will *jeito*. It's Brazilian Portuguese. It means to find a way to get something done, no matter what the obstacles.”
― Jean Ferris, Twice Upon a Marigold



.

Missed Manners

After my blog post earlier this week in which I compared Liberal parliamentarian Sophie Mirabella to Jane Austen’s delightful Miss Jane Bennet, I’ve been thinking again about standards of behaviour, where they come from, and what they mean. I’ve also been thinking about how Ms Mirabella is actually a mishmash of all of the worst qualities of all five Bennet sisters, but I’ll leave that one for the Austen aficionados. 

So what is the ultimate authority on manners? Who arbitrates good behaviour and differentiates it from poor behaviour? How are these standards communicated through a community, and how are they enforced?
Should we defer to the teachings of American Judith Martin, better known as Miss Manners? I’d mention her age, and suggest that perhaps her preferred style might be out of vogue, but I’m sure she wouldn’t approve of me talking about a lady’s age.

"You can deny all you want that there is etiquette, and a lot of people do in everyday life. But if you behave in a way that offends the people you're trying to deal with, they will stop dealing with you...There are plenty of people who say, 'We don't care about etiquette, but we can't stand the way so-and-so behaves, and we don't want him around!' Etiquette doesn't have the great sanctions that the law has. But the main sanction we do have is in not dealing with these people and isolating them because their behaviour is unbearable."

 
Australia has our own maven of manners, the indomitable Miss June Dally-Watkins. Around the same age as Miss Manners, Miss Dally-Watkins started Australia's first finishing school for young ladies in the 1950s, and still makes occasional media appearances to talk about etiquette, deportment and 'shoulds'. There are many many 'shoulds' in the world of manners, yet probably many more should-nots.

I have no idea what Miss Dally-Watkins would think of Ms Mirabella's performance on QandA, but I have a fair idea what she thinks of Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O. I'd guess she would dismiss Vile Kyle as absolutely beneath her contempt. His entire existence is a should-not. 

Jackie O would attract fierce criticism for tolerating Kyle's appalling behaviour, and for associating with him. The contrast is even more dramatic against the backdrop of Jackie O's gig hosting Channel Ten's Australian Princess, a reality show in which a selection of less-than-genteel young ladies were transformed into pretentious young ladies with near perfect manners. This was dramatic irony at its best.

But these are, of course, personal judgments, made with only my own sense of etiquette to guide me. There are some authorities which have to make official determinations: ACMA has found Kyle Sandilands to have crossed their line, and has imposed additional conditions on 2DAY-FM's broadcasting licence in an attempt to control Kyle's personal imperative to shock. 

Clearly, 2DAY-FM management has been willing to overlook Kyle's disregard of social standards to keep the money flowing.  They have implemented their own safety measures to ensure Kyle can be 'dumped' before anything too offensive goes to air, but against what standards do they measure  'too offensive'?So desperate are they to keep Kyle on air, they have taken ACMA's decision to the Appeals Tribunal today to have he conditions diluted. The SMH reported: 

Southern Cross Austereo's barrister, Richard Cobden, SC, said in response to Sandilands's behaviour, the broadcaster had taken ''remedial action'' to prevent further breaches, including a 30-second delay and two censors to warn him if he was likely to cross the line. All staff involved in producing and presenting programs had undergone training and Sandilands had been counselled.

But Richard Lancaster, SC, for the authority, said the watchdog wanted the condition to apply 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The condition states ''program content must not offend generally accepted standards of decency … having regard to the demographic characteristics of the audience of the relevant program''.

Wouldn't it be cheaper and simpler to employ a radio host who can be both entertaining and controversial, and can also be trusted to use common sense to censor himself? Or is Kyle's risky on-air behaviour the key to his success?

My friend Jillian suggested that one of the factors that determine standards is celebrity: if enough influential celebrities exhibit a certain behaviour, it can transition quickly from fringe to mainstream. Just look at the way glasses frames have changed over the past 40 years, or trace the origin of almost any fad you care to name, from miniskirts to destination weddings. 

Standards do change: Are the repeated behaviours of Kyle and Jackie O - Kyle crossing the line, and Jackie giggling - influencing standards and behaviours in their audience? Do young male listeners think its okay to call women "fat slags" when they disagree with them? Are  women learning that the appropriate response to hearing a man call a woman names is to emit an embarrassed giggle?

That's the only argument I would need to reject 2DAY-FM's appeal and uphold ACMA's ruling.

Technology is playing a larger role too. Social media provides the means for people to indulge in behaviours - often abusive - that they wouldn't dream of trying in a real life situation. Federal MP Andrew Laming (@AndrewLamingMP) has a reputation for questionable use of Twitter and Facebook, being provocative, at times rude. Failed Sydney politician Mark Sharma (vos2135) is abusive on Twitter, although he cleans up his act during any campaign in which he's a candidate. Dare to contribute an opinion under the #auspol hashtag and you should expect to be attacked for it, by people you don't know. 

In one of the truly great moments of Twitter irony, Rupert Murdoch complained how hard it was to have a civil conversation on Twitter, amidst all of the ignorant, viscious abuse. Is this a sign of social decay, Murdoch asks. Thousands of responses included suggestions about the risks of stones and glass houses, that pot and kettle have met, and that finally, Rupert is reaping what he has sown. 

And I'm still no closer to understanding standards of behaviour, other than to suggest that in most cases these days, the majority rules. Miss Manners, ACMA and even 5S are all about imposing external standards. I'd like to think that we each have our internal gauge of what is acceptable.

In the absence of anything better, The Golden Rule (Do Unto Others) seems appropriate. It's a rule, a guideline, a commandment in every major religion, it has credibility in psychology and sociology, and it's common sense if you don't try to complicate it. 

Let's all try that one for a while.


.

How To Stop A Boat

Australia finds itself in an embarrassing position. Build a word cloud of our national news over the past fortnight and you'll find all the scary terms in large type: asylum seekers, boats, illegal, refugees, detention centres, racist, people smugglers, Muslims, drownings, offshore processing...

This is who we are, or more accurately, this is what our elected representatives have allowed us to become: a prosperous multicultural nation which has lost her compassion, her generosity. Her heart. We allowed this to happen. We allowed our Government and Opposition to place politics and pride at the centre of their response to a human crisis. People died as a result. 

And if that's not enough to make you hang your head in shame, think about how we look on the international stage. A G20 member with an economy the envy of the world, millions of miles of open space, peace, prosperity, democracy and freedom. In 2010, there were 1,700,000 applications for asylum worldwide. Australia processed less than 10,000 of them.

All hell broke loose when ABC1 aired the now infamous 4 Corners episode about conditions in Indonesian slaughter houses. We risked our cattle industry and our relationship with Indonesia to take immediate action to stop our cattle from suffering, but we can't get out of our own way on the Asylum Seeker Issue. Apparently the life of an asylum seeker - possibly darker skinned, possibly Muslim - is less important than cattle. 

Our elected officials must find their hearts and rethink their priorities. 

There are many options, many more variations and combinations and compromises that could form part of a solution to the Asylum Seeker problem off our North Eastern Coast, but Tony Abbott's "Stop the Boats" slogan-response will fail and fail spectacularly. Think of the 2001 Tampa incident combined with last week's mass drowning and broadcast all over the world.

Here's a hypothetical situation: our Government will get word from officials - AMSA, Customs, Navy, Airforce - that a boatload of asylum seekers is in international waters and heading in our direction. At this stage, assume 100-200 people on board, including women and children. Australia's policy is to stop the boats,which in practical terms means stop the boats and turn them around when safe to do so.

Someone in authority will get on the blower, make contact with a Navy warship or a Customs and Border Protection Enforcement Vessel, and instruct them to intercept the boat. It's impossible to gauge the condition of the boat  from the air; this needs to be done at sea. After locating the boat, the Navy will make radio contact with boat, try to establish its condition and intent, and ask it to go back.

Now things get interesting. The people smugglers will either agree to the request, and the boat will make a U-turn and sale into the sunset, farewelled by their new friends from the RAN or Customs, or they will refuse. What do you think the chances are that the boat turns around?

Assuming the answer is no, our Navy Captain despatches a boarding party in a RHIB (rigid hull inflatable boat) to board the vessel, assess its condition, offer to provide fuel, food and water, and if the voyage would be safe*, repeat the request that the vessel's crew turn around and go back to where they came from.

Again, the people smugglers refuse. What do you think happens next?

In the absence of a standing order, the Captain has two options. He can let the people smugglers continue to their destination , or he can order that the boarding party take control of the vessel.

The boarding party is expecting resistance, so they may be carrying sidearms for their own protection. We now have people smugglers - criminals - refusing a request from the Royal Australian Navy. 

Two countries, a UN convention, international maritime law, one boatload of illegal activity, one warship, one group of professionally trained, armed navy personnel versus a group of sailor-thugs, plus an audience of terrified, terrorised refugees, including women and children, bobbing around in the Indian Ocean. 

If we're lucky, the crew will surrender, be handcuffed without resisting, and the boat will be turned around. The refugees will be someone else's problem. For now.

But we only get one shot at this. 

A week or so later, another vessel is detected. The same process is followed, but this time the asylum seekers had been warned that the Australians were playing tough. There's no easy surrender. This time, the crew is larger, and well armed. They're prepared for things to get ugly. In the absence of existing Rules of Engagement, the Navy will need authority from far higher up the tree to take this boat by force.

A political decision is made, and authority is granted. With no land in sight, a small, overcrowded boat controlled by people smugglers and carrying desperately scared refugees faces off against the RAN. There are military helicopters in the air, with special forces personnel ready to fast-rope onto the deck of the boat. Perhaps shots are fired. 

How far does this story go? Do the people smugglers set fire to the boat, sabotage the engine, take refugees as hostages or throw them overboard so that our Navy is duty-bound to rescue them? Does the Navy fire warning shots across the bow of the vessel? 

The next step involves gunfire at sea. 

Of course this is hypothetical, and exaggerated to the nth degree. There are civilians involved, and frankly, our military is too disciplined and too moral to allow such a situation to develop. The Navy would in all likelihood back down to avoid such a conflict.

Congratulations Australia. Our politically motivated dithering last week has already won the award for International Selfish Bastards of the Year. We cannot risk our humanity with Tony Abbott's proposal. "Stop the Boats" is at best a catchy slogan; at worst a humanitarian and diplomatic disaster.


* if the boat is considered unsafe, the Navy will ensure that the passengers and crew are taken to safety for processing. 

...

Vexed & Vacuous

It is a truth universally acknowledged that there are ways to behave in society. I'm not talking about Jane Austen-esque manners, the bonneted verbal bouts of pride, prejudice, sense and stupidity of 200 years ago. This is 2012, and there are standards, albeit somewhat more flexible.

Last night on QandA, GetUp! Director Simon Sheikh passed out on television. 

Immediately after the initial wave of shock and sympathy, viewers re-examined the footage and saw Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Sophie Mirrabella, who was seated beside Mr Sheikh, lean away from the slumped man beside her. In contrast, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, who was seated one seat further away, went to Mr Sheikh's aid. 

Twitter went wild with accusations that Ms Mirrabella's failure to act is an indication of her true character, and proof that she is an unfit representative. Certainly the vision is damning, made worse by Mr Combet's actions.

But several heartbeats later, the second wave of tweets commenced. How dare anyone criticise Ms Mirrabella for her underwhelming reaction? She was shocked. No-one knows how they'd react in a similar situation. Even GetUp! asked, via Twitter, that critics hold their fire.

In Austen's time, Ms Mirrabella's shocked reaction would have been perfectly acceptable. I can see  Miss Jane Bennet, the very model of all that is good and decent, reacting in a very similar way. Still, some critics are determined to attack Ms Mirrabella for not being more like the steady, useful (if entirely without accomplishment) Mary Bennet or the pragmatic Charlotte Lucas. 

Lecturer and writer Lauren Rosewarne suggested that criticism of Ms Mirrabella is because her reaction didn't include visible signs of feminine emotion. Ms Rosewarne wrote:

While I’ve not yet stumbled upon it myself, apparently there’s a handbook out there for women with some very precise shoulds when it comes to conveying emotions.

There's no book and this isn't 1815. We talk about these issues, laugh with friends, discuss over reheated leftovers at lunch, debate in one sentence bursts on Twitter. Should we wear ugg boots to Westfield? Pyjamas to the corner shop after 9pm? Ask guests to pay their own way at parties held at restaurants? Display tattoos at work? Slap other people's kids? Wear tights as pants? Drink Shandies? Lie about your age? Talk down the economy? Sing badly on tellie? Make fat jokes? 

Different people have different interpretations of what is appropriate behaviour in different situations, and gender is not always an issue. Yes, double standards do exist, yet I simply don't accept that this issue is one of double standards. There's no gender bias, just failure to align with Ms Rosewarne's expectation of how the Twittersphere should react to a surprising response to someone else's misfortune.

Convoluted, isn't it?

Put simply, Ms Rosewarne is defending Ms Mirrabella against criticism aimed at her failure to emote in an identifiably feminine way. My recollection of the Twitter stream is that the criticism was generated by the failure to act, the hostile body language and expression. I don't recall a single tweet suggesting that weeping or wailing would help. No hand-wringing displays were requested.

But I'm giving Ms Mirrabella a pass, despite her apparent impotence in last night's QandA emergency, if only because her very presence was largely as irrelevant as her gender during Mr Sheikh's collapse.

If anything, Ms Rosewarne's story in The Conversation seems to suggest that she might be the one with unrealistic expectations of human behaviour. We expected everyone on the panel to have the same reaction, the same desire to help, regardless of gender.

Because double standards are far less common than they were in 1815, and women are capable of being useful as well as decorative.


With apologies to those not familiar with Austen's P&P 

Drowning, Not Waving

Today’s Newspoll results are a bit of a non-event, unless you happen to be in Queensland, where they are worthy of more than a second glance. Nationally, the changes are minimal: the Coalition is still leading Labor by 12 percentage points on a two-party-preferred basis, but when you get to the Queensland figures, the LNP lead is 30 percentage points, a margin devastating enough to be likened to Whyalla and the dawn of the Carbon Tax. Even Kevin Rudd’s seat of Griffith, along with Treasurer Wayne Swan and Trade Minister Dr Craig Emerson’s seats in Queensland, would be in danger. Labor could be ShamWowed right off the electoral map in Queensland, leaving their paltry seven seats in Queensland’s state parliament looking like a strong result.

You have to wonder if a two-party preferred measure is relevant any more.

Worse than that, some are wondering if the ALP is relevant any more.

It’s a ridiculous position. Of course the ALP is relevant. Even on primary votes, 32% of people indicated that they would vote Labor. That’s one in three people, but one in three doesn’t win an election. If the ALP is going to hold onto power – and that looks less and less likely – they need more than 50% of the 2PP number. Nationally, the ALP needs to find a significant slab of voters who will support them and their allies...if they still have any.

So where are they: Paul Keating’s True Believers must be around somewhere. Are they the one in three who are sticking by this wounded Labor Government against all odds?

I’m quite sure that the ALP doesn’t actually know where to look for the voters it has lost along the way…so I’m going to point them in the right direction. Look to the left, Labor. We’re all over here!

Take a look at the Political Compass, which made the following observations just two years ago:

Conservative parties in virtually all western democracies have shifted to the right economically, and the Australian Liberal Party is no exception. However, in most countries a new generation of conservative leaders display eagerness to adopt more socially liberal policies in tandem with full-throttle free market (ie right wing) economics. In the case of Tony Abbott's Liberals, however, the party has not only moved right of the earlier Turnbull leadership years, but it has also shifted to a more authoritarian position on the social scale. This is a move that will no doubt appeal to the otherwise mostly homeless former supporters of One Nation.

Labor reflects this drift, now occupying a space to the right of the 1980s Liberals. The debate between the two main parties, however heated, is within narrowing parameters. The two parties are now closer together than at any other time. The clash of economic vision of earlier campaigns is absent. It's no longer about whether the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy is actually desirable, but merely a question of which party can manage it best.

By contrast, the Greens, once pretty much a single issue party, have emerged with a comprehensive social democratic manifesto, more in tune with an earlier Labor Party, and significantly more socially liberal than either of the others.

Take another look at the compass above. Should the ALP be fighting for the small stripe of ideological real estate between where they are now, and the conservative crush of Nationals, LNP and Liberals, or should it - to quote an astonishing television documentary series - Go Back to Where It Came From? As hated as she is by the political right, Julia Gillard is dragging the ALP even further to the right, but there's no-one there to welcome her. We're all behind her, in that big slab of open space to the left of Labor.

The results in Queensland are more pronounced, and the reasons are varied. For many Labor and undecided voters, the issue of Julia Gillard’s ascendancy still burns. These voters will not support a government lead by the woman who knifed “our Kev” in the back, and then lied about the dreaded Carbon Tax. Another reason for Labor still being hated in Queensland is Queensland’s reliance on mining and the perception that the combination of the Carbon Tax and the MRRT will damage the mining industry.

And then there’s the Campbell Newman Effect: despite 99 days in office, in which promises have been broken and every Queenslander has been squeezed somehow, Newman is seen as a winner. That’s not a hard look to maintain in comparison to Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk. Unfortunately for Queensland Labor, Ms Palaszczuk was the most qualified and most willing to lead a small and lacklustre group of MPs. She makes Mr Newman look good. State Labor must regroup and bring in a leader from outside the parliament.

In 21st Century politics, conventional wisdom suggests that elections are won in the western suburbs of Sydney, and the south-east corner of Queensland. Both look lost to the more conservative of the conservative options.

The Australian Labor Party would do well to stop trying to take ground away from the Coalition, and turn around. There’s an enormous streak of centre ground where Labor Voters – the lapsed True Believers, the Greenies with moderate economic views and the genuine Centre-Lefties are waiting with votes and bags of money for their party to return to them.




.

Twetiquitte

Social media has opened the channels of communication between politics, media and the public, giving us in the cheap seats unprecedented access to the movers and shakers in our world. This is particularly true of Twitter, where the short message format of 140 characters means communication must be to the point. No-one expects a deep and meaningful conversation about values on Twitter, which is good. They rarely happen.

Of course not everyone is on Twitter, so not everyone has this experience. Some don’t want to, some don’t know how to, some don’t see the benefits, and others only see the risks. Whatever the reason, those who haven’t taken up the Twitter invitation are missing out on two levels: firstly, they are not privy to the information flow which is now my primary source of news; and secondly, they can’t contribute to it. There’s a whole world on Twitter and they don’t see it.

More and more, it’s becoming a choice to opt out, rather than a choice to opt in.

The other factor is that people who don’t use Twitter and aren’t part of the “Twitterverse” may not understand it. As with any society, there are standards of behaviour and etiquette to be observed. Within that, there are subcultures with their own “cool” language and their own version of what’s okay and what’s not.

Just last week, Brisbane’s BMag ran a story by reporter Laura Stead, entitled Brisbane’s Top Tweeters. It caused a few ripples amongst the Twitter folk I run with, because it seemed as though she was reporting on a parallel Twitterverse, where the rules were different and so were the people. Ms Stead proposed four major rules for tweeting:

Twitter etiquette

• It’s ok to follow people you don’t know – they can choose whether or not to follow you back.
• It’s better to message someone rather than tweet if you’re making plans or having a personal conversation.
• It’s also ok to openly tweet a reply to a question asked by direct message if you think your
audience could benefit from your response.
• Promote and support others as well as promoting yourself – it’s a nice way to show
support for your community.

I was particularly concerned by her version of Twitter Etiquette (above), which is a little different to mine, and those of the thousand or so people I interact with on Twitter. Points 1, 2 and 4 are basically okay, but anyone who was to follow the third point might find themselves embarrassed.

Just yesterday, I saw an instance where a very experienced and popular tweeter sent a DM (Direct Message, which cannot be seen by anyone other than the sender and the recipient) to a radio personality who has chosen not to tweet, although he and his producer have access to the radio station’s twitter account. The radio man, not understanding the rules, then shared the content of the DM on the airwaves. That’s simply bad form: it's twignorance.

At the opposite end of the twittersphere is Paul Murray Live, a news/chat/commentary show on Foxtel’s Sky News Australia. Last night, Mr Murray mentioned Independent MP Rob Oakeshott on air, and invited viewers to tweet their response to an anti-Oakeshott campaign being run by the National Party. One of the tweeps who responded was Mr Oakeshott himself, who will be most likely appearing on PM Live tonight as a result of that random tweet last night. The difference here is that both participants knew how to conduct themselves on Twitter. Oakeshott, who tweets as @OakeyMP, agreed via Twitter to appear on the show, but arrangements were to be made this morning, off Twitter.

Ms Stead’s BMag piece completely misinterpreted what it takes to be a top tweeter. It’s certainly not about the number of followers, as was suggested in the article. As social media, it’s about engaging with the tweeps you follow, and with those who follow you. Photographer Greg Wilson was noted in the article for having over a million twitter followers across a range of twitter accounts. Bully for him. Does having a swag of followers provide anything of value for Mr Wilson? If his purpose was to amass millions of followers, he’s well on his way. If it was for something different - driving traffic to a website, engaging, making new friends - has he achieved his goals?

BMag also included the @QPSMedia account as one of their Top Tweeters, and that’s entirely justified. QPS's Twitter account is a great service. They provide timely information, they engage with their tweeps, they share some really bad puns, and they’ve earned their place as cluey users of social media.

Spencer Howson, who introduced both Mr Wilson and I to Twitter, would be one of Brisbane’s Top Tweeters. With around 7,000 followers, he’s far short of the million plus reach of Mr Wilson, but the difference is in engagement. Spencer, who also writes for BMag in addition to his regular gig as 612ABC Brisbane’s breakfast host, makes a point of engaging with his followers daily. He understands that Twitter is not a broadcast medium; it’s a means of personal communication with many people at a time, much like radio.

It’s not about the numbers; it’s about the people. It’s the “social” in social media.

Newmania: Free Gift With Purchase

Don’t you love freebies? It's so rare to get anything for free these days, so when something comes along, you should get excited. I particularly love those promotions where if you buy something, you get a freebie. Cosmetics companies love to do it: Spend $75 and we’ll give you a bunch of sample sized potions and unguents and lipsticks to try for free. Or some big box retailers will give away a year’s supply of cleaning products if you buy a dishwasher, or a pair of luxury towels if you buy a front loader. That's what I'm talking about - those little extras that build brand loyalty.

I like to think of the new LNP Government of Newmania a bit like that. We voted them in, we 'bought' their policies, and along with all sorts of politically accessible generalisations around cutting the cost of living and ending public sector waste. In fact, the whole deal was neatly documented in a list that’s available in convenient PDF format. But here's the surprise: we’ve received an abundance of extras, things we weren’t expecting, all tied up and looking “gifty” for the Greater Good of Newmania.

Not entirely unexpected was the Grand Reshuffle at the top of the Public Service Tree. New appointees in the Newmanian Public Service include several former colleagues and friends from his days as Lord Mayor of Brislantis, plus well-known members of the Liberal Party. I'm not 100% sure if those gifts were for the electorate or for the folks who got the new jobs, but at least someone is getting something, and that's good, right?



In addition to some lovely new jobs for friends, King Campbell has been particularly kind to his friends at the Australian Christian Lobby. There was always the possibility that changes would be made to the Civil Partnerships legislation, but King Campbell took it over the top when he not only outlawed state-sanctioned ceremonies, and then admitted that decision was to appease his Christian friends who’d been offended that the Civil Partnership ceremony mimicked marriage. That's a rarity. With free gifts, you usually get what you get. The ACL got almost everything they asked for. They must be very special friends indeed.

He didn’t stop there though, he also changed the name to Registered Relationships, which might not sound like much until you ask the love of your life to “co-register” and realise you said something similar last week when you registered your car, your dog or your Twitter username. Clearly King Campbell is not a romantic, despite all the public pre-election smoochies with his Consort Lisa.

The cherry on top of the Christian Gift Bonanza was the prospect of banning access to surrogate pregnancies, not just for LGBTI, but also for singles, and for defactos who’ve been shacked up for less than two years.I hope Wendy Francis isn’t expecting anything else for Christmas! There’s not much else King Campbell can give her, unless he joins the Salvation Army.



As for the rest of us, well, we lost out on this one. It's a shame King Campbell had to steal from our LGBTI friends to give to the ACL. It doesn't seem fair: I already have more rights than they do, but King Campbell stole some of them away? We'll have to accept that Newmania is broke, so perhaps King Campbell is really the Robin Hood of Giftiness. He steals from the poor to give to the noisy, irrational minority. I know I didn't vote for that, so it must be a special gift.

The goodies keep on coming, though. The Unions must be rubbing their hands together with joyous abandon at the thought of all the rare and exceptional opportunities King Campbell has given them! Imagine all that lovely lovely money that the unions won’t be able to pass onto the Labor Party unless their membership has okayed it via a ballot. Labor potentially misses out and the unions may suffer, but hey, Newmania is cold, stony broke. This might be one of those special imaginary presents that really isn't anything but a lot of hot air and distraction...like those little cardboard boxes full of positive vibes, for the friend who has everything.



It's also a fairly convenient way of kicking your opposition while they're down. Not so much a gift as a declaration of war, then?

Yet as every good gift giver knows, you have to find little treats for yourself along the way. Congratulations King Campbell, you got some new toys to play with.






Hmmm. I don't think King Campbell understands this Spirit of Giving business at all. He promised us all sorts of things - lower cost of living, less waste, accountability, dignity, grace, humility, and we haven't received any of those yet. His Free Gifts with Purchase aren't all they're cracked up to be either...unless you're a very special friend or have a good imagination.

Sometimes, it's not the thought that counts, and it's not the gift either. Sometimes you just want to get what you paid for.

Newmania: The Slippery Slope

The Courier Mail is, like its News Limited sister publications, a little right of centre. It plays to the classic reactionary talk-back style of tabloid newspaper, which is obvious from both the content and tone of the online reader comments. News Limited publications carry the southern commentary of such well known shockers as Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman, Janet Albrechtsen and Miranda Devine – the radio equivalent of Alan Jones and Ray Hadley. They appeal to a certain audience and in a self-sustaining cycle of misinformation, shouted from tinny kitchen radios and preached from between the inky pages of the morning editions, then fed back to the media in the most vicious of circles.

News Limited, and particularly the Courier Mail, which was allowed to exist for far too long without competition here in the land of Joh, land on the side of the Coalition, and now, the LNP. It’s what their readers expect.

So confident was the Courier Mail in the ultimate success of the new Campbell Newman LNP Government that it proudly ran a chart of Newman’s first 100 Days In Office. The graphic was of concentric green circles, with green ticks to mark success as measured against the tasks listed in the LNP’s own 100 Day Action Plan…

…Until it became Impossible to hide their problematic truth, that King Newman will not be able to tick off all of the items in his 100 day Action Plan within his hundred day schedule. Suddenly, around the first week of this month, the chart stopped appearing in the Courier Mail. Rather than admit, or even worse, publicise the LNP’s failure to meet their own KPIs, they heaved the graphic altogether.

They seem to have replaced it with Newman’s Razor, a blood spattered image chronicling the latest cost cutting measures. As images go, there’s a huge emotional variance between a bright green target festooned with ticks, and the new image, with the red splatters and photos of Newman and his team wearing Mafia style hats. The paper could have chosen a positive visual to portray the progress of cost-cutting, but they chose instead one that suggests old fashioned values, violence, goodies-versus baddies – just the kind of imagery to appeal to the Courier Mail’s dedicated readers.



Most telling, this image does not contain any key performance indicators – no dates or amounts, no charts or timelines. Let’s not let facts contaminate the beauty of the blood splatters.

It’s not just the imagery, either. The Courier Mail’s reader Poll hasn’t gone according to plan. They’ve been asking readers whether they support the LNP’s changes to the existing Civil Partnership legislation. As at 11:00am today, 55% of readers disagreed with the changes. These are Courier Mail readers – conservative and supportive of the LNP.


Furthermore, in a quick tally of the first 100 comments on the Courier Mail Reader Online section regarding King Campbell’s televised speech last night asking Newmanians to support state-wide belt-tightening, 62% of respondents were sceptical of government’s motives, their willingness to tighten their own parliamentary belts, or their chances of success. Of the 38% who sided with the government, many took the opportunity to blame the previous Labor Government, and snark the public servants whose jobs were under threat.

It’s easy to understand the frustration, when on the one hand, Costello’s Audit squawked a warning about the deficit of $100b, a fact which Sue Lappeman explains in the Gold Coast Bulletin.

There is no argument the previous Labor Government screwed up royally and the state's finances are in bad shape.

But there is no $100 billion debt. I repeat. There is no $100 billion debt.

That is a figure Mr Costello came up with as a possible outcome by 2018 if the spending of the past few years continued spending that included vast investments in major infrastructure including the Gold Coast's new hospital and the massive cost of catastrophic natural disasters and the global financial crisis.

To help manage the non-existent $100 billion debt, King Campbell has terrified every public servant by stating that we can’t afford to pay about 20,000 of them … while at the same time, engineering his team so that every LNP MP gets an $8000 bonus for being a committee member. Okay it’s around half a million dollars for the LNP members versus over $1.5 billion dollars in public service salaries, but as so many readers of the Courier Mail had commented, it’s the principle.

Meanwhile, King Campbell is still planning to spend an unspecificed amount of money to knock down existing buildings in the Brisbane CBD, have private companies build new buildings on the prime riverside land, and then lease the office space back from the private corporations to house the government departments. It was originally a Labor Government initiative, but I wonder why it’s still on the table now, when we’ve been told to brace ourselves for rough times ahead.

Or – Shock! Horror! – is King Campbell considering selling assets? Isn’t that what killed the Bligh Government?

I wonder if there are plans afoot to cancel the Queensland Government’s hundreds of subscriptions for the Courier Mail? That’d just about pay for the 60 seconds that King Campbell of Newmania had his head on television last night.

Newmania: The King's Speech

Tonight, King Campbell of Newmania will be taking some time to address his disloyal subjects in a pre-recorded announcement reminiscent of the Queen's Christmas Message. Unlike the recent Queen's Jubilee celebrations when hundreds of thousands of cheering Poms lined parade routes waving union jacks, tonight's address is less a celebration, and more a whimper of despair. 

Broke King Campbell used a $45,000 60 second spot,  prepurchased by the previous Government,to tell us how terribly, tragically broke the state is, and to urge us to read former Treasurer Peter Costello's interim report on our economy.

After delivering the bad news, King Campbell proceeds to the 'belt tightening' phase. This is the bit where he fails to admit that he can't deliver on his election promises because we are too poor. The timing is predictable: 92 days into his reign, the King is announcing that he cannot deliver the commitments he made in his 100 Day Action Plan. 

The King has been softening the ground for a week, with talk of a $100 billion dollar debt that doesn't actually exist, 20,000 unspecified public service jobs that we can't afford, and costs that are out of his control. Between chunks of economic disaster-talk, he's commanded the front page with his changes to the Civil Partnerships Act and Surrogacy Act. In fact, King Campbell has owned the news cycle. Bad news can do that.

There's more to the timing than just the First 100 Days. We're just a week away from the Carbon Tax. King Campbell doesn't mention that we can kiss goodbye to lower electricity prices - but blame the Carbon Tax;  lower water prices are looking unlikely - because we don't use enough water, and lower car registration - which is impossible because of rising CTP premiums. These are all parts of his promise to lower the cost of living in Queensland. Talk about belt tightening is spurious at best.

Newmanians, you have no-one to blame but yourselves.  I usually prefer to avoid blame. It achieves nothing. Far better to find the cause, allow the people responsible the chance to rectify the problem and learn their lessons, but in this case, Newmanians must accept the blame for electing a CouldDo LNP Government.

Okay, so the sitting Labor Government was virtually unelectable. The 'time for a change' factor was strong, combined with recent memories of the Queensland Health Payroll Scandal, Dr Death, Gordon Nuttall's convictions, asset sales, cost of living increases. Labor looked incompetent, Anna Bligh looked exhausted (and no, I'm not sure I'd say that if talking about a male politician) and Campbell Newman looked like a realistic option: fresh, decisive,  and able to unite the LNP. The CanDo team had policies, promises and positions, and Queensland voters overwhelmingly chose them over Greens (just another vote for Labor), Katter's Australia Party (too unhinged) and a raft of independents.

Why didn't you look to the South? Victoria and New South Wales had made their misakes already. They tried to warn you, yet you didn't listen. Anything had to be better than Anna Bligh, and the only 'anything' available was the LNP. Queensland was destined to repeat the mistakes of their Southern cousins, particularly as regards the public service.

In December 2010, Ted-the-Toff Baillieu led the Victorian Liberal Party to a narrow victory over the ALP, and has spent much of the past 18 months battling unions. His hatred of the union movement goes back to the early 80s when he joined the Liberal Party out of frustration at the power unions wielded. Premier Baillieu has promised just this week to cut 3,600 public service jobs. Premier Ted Baillieu said the job losses would not apply to "frontline service delivery roles". Sound familiar, Newmanians? 

Baillieu has also introduced a code of conduct for unions on publicly funded building sites, had a series of long-term struggles with nurses, teachers and police over wages and conditions, and even denied workers a public holiday for Christmas Day when it fell on a Sunday last year. Even worse, he scrapped the VCAL programme and has now stolen another $300 million dollars from TAFE education.

Like Newman, Baillieu has acted on behalf of the Christian Lobby as well:  

Shortly after his defeat of the Brumby-led Labor Party, Baillieu pushed to reintroduce the ability for faith-based groups — such as Catholic schools and charity organisations — to be allowed to discriminate against others on the grounds of their religion, gender and sexuality. This is also legal in NSW and WA. Despite attempts by the Opposition and human rights groups to smother Baillieu’s efforts, the bill was passed by the Upper House on June 15, 2011.

This law gives religious employers grounds to fire homosexual employees, or refuse to hire people with different spiritual beliefs. Religious schools are permitted to expel openly gay students, or sack a teacher who happens to be a single mother. People who are defended by this bill will face no consequences for their actions, but the victims of this will suffer enough for everyone.

Premier Baillieu did deliver an address at Victoria's Gay and Lesbian Midsumma Carnival. I can't imagine Premier,  er, King Newman being permitted to address a similar event, although the situation in New South Wales is very different.  Premier Barry O'Farrell signed a pledge to support the Mardi Gras. Sydney is home to one of the proudest LGBTI communities in the world; is it a coincidence that the ACL doesnt have as much influence in New South Wales as it does in Queensland? 

But Barry O'Farrell has upset the New South Wales Public Service every bit as  much as you'd expect. Not just job cuts, but changes to Workers Compensation has the NSW Public Sector Unions planning another round of strikes.

But here we are, less than an hour before King Campbell's speech on the tellie. Please, consider doing as he asks and reading the report into Newmania's finances. Then, when you've decided not to, take note of just how quickly the normally sympathetic media is turning against him. In just 92 days at the top, the man with the biggest majority in history has shown just how quickly he can make himself unpopular.


Play along on Twitter at #KingsSpeech.

Newmania: The Sad State

90 Days – but Who’s Counting?

Today marks ninety days of the Great State of Newmania, formerly known as Queensland, but as Queens have been relegated to the state of less tolerable sub-humans, the name had to be changed to best reflect the new state of affairs. The picture is emerging of a new way to live.


Fortunately, Premier Newman is a former army engineer who loves a plan, and he has one. Unfortunately, the mysterious Forces of Darkness who supported his ascent are exercising their power to drive their bizarre Bible Belt agenda. Strangely, this Bible Belt agenda isn’t including anywhere in the Pledge Premier Newman made to The People when he became Ruler.

Here’s the pledge:

In the first 100 days we will begin delivering on the five pledges we made: to grow a four pillar economy, lower the cost of living by cutting waste, deliver better infrastructure and better planning, revitalise frontline services for families and restore accountability in Government.

Even in Newmania, where life should be predictable and conform to the Pledge, politics can get confusing. Things happen in a tediously non-linear way. We could work through the 100 Day Can Do Plan item by item, and tick off those that have been achieved – but that wouldn’t be fair to Mr Newman, who has achieved so many things that aren’t in the plan! Besides. The Courier Mail is keeping track of the 100 Day Plan…or they were. I have asked the Courier Mail for a link to their most current update, but have had no response. Draw your own conclusions.



Still, the Bible Belt agenda isn’t a complete surprise to those of us who’ve been paying attention, but the speed and ruthless way it’s being applied has caught many Newmanians off guard.



Far more interesting is his promise to govern with Dignity, Grace and Humility.
Where is the dignity in banishing your opposition from the building? Where is the grace in ripping rights from your constituents to appease a minority lobby group? Where’s the humility in being to busy and important to attend a Prime Ministerial Summit in your home town? Where’s the dignity in lying to journalists about his plans to amend surrogacy laws? Where’s the grace in his treatment of his own staff?

Premier Newman’s traditional honeymoon period is over, just 90 days into his first term. Even those people who voted for him acknowledged that there would be some tough decisions, but he’s crossed so many lines, he probably feels like he’s dancing on railway tracks. After last night’s inexcusable carry-on in Parliament, in which the changes to Civil Partnerships and Surrogacy legislation were debated, the outpouring of disgust on Twitter was crushing.

Here in the luminous land of Newmania, life is changing faster than we could have predicted 90 days ago. Premier Newman was right to cancel production of number plates that said “The Smart State.” Perhaps he should have changed them to “The Sad State”.

Census 2011: It's Made of People

For some, it’s that annoying intrusion one night every five years. For others, it’s a boring set of numbers that waste my taxpayer dollars. For a very special group of geeks and weirdos, the release of new Census data is like statistics Christmas. The “are-these-numbers-still-accurate-enough” insecurity of the last couple of years is wiped away in an instant, replaced with the delicious bouquets of fresh numbers, new knowledge, insights and awareness of things only guessed at.

Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the data from the 2011 Census, and for the geeks and weirdos like me, the mysterious sets of numbers all fit together to build up multi-dimensional pictures of what Australia looked like on that one night in August, 2011. These beautiful new numbers are already ten months out of date, but this is the best that we can do, at least until the brave new world of micro-chipped humans emerges. Then, the chips will report back to Control every eight seconds, confirming where we are, what we’re doing, and who we’re doing it with. Personally, I look forward to that day; it will ensure the responses are accurate. No more writing “Jedi Knight” in the field where you should’ve written Lapsed Anglican. The Census Chip will know all. 

Mwahahahahaha! Just kidding. Probably.

But until that glorious day, we have shiny new figures that have been released today, and armed with these, we can do all sorts of brilliant things. By counting everyone, all at the same time, we can see how many of what sort of people live where, so that we can ensure governments and councils provide the right facilities in the right places. 

The beauty of the Census is not in raw numbers or processed statistics or colourful graphs for powerpoint presentations; it’s about people.

For example, we might not want to build a retirement home in a new outer suburb that’s full of young families or university students. Equally, we wouldn’t build a new infants school in a small rural town where the population was declining and most of the people were over 45. Councils and Governments love this data; it helps them to plan.

My favourite part of the Census isn’t the who, when and where questions. I love the way a series of numbers can provide such a rich view of our culture and heritage. 

Religion is one of the hot topics in Australia right now. Can the Census shed light on the state of Australia as a religious nation? 

We hear far too regularly from the Stop-The-Boats brigade that we must be alert to ‘Creeping Sharia’, the insidious (and imaginary) infiltration into Australia of the traditional Islamic justice system. Since the release of the Census figures today, I can report that the Muslim population in Australia is indeed on the rise. In fact Islam bounces into 4th place in the religion countdown. Is this Creeping Sharia business a real threat to our way of life?

The Census says its unlikely. Compare the 2.2% that identified as Muslims with the 22.3% of Australians who stated that they have no religion at all, or the 61% of Australians who identified as Christian, and you’ll recognise how truly insignificant Islam is as a religious force in Australia. It’s not even the fastest growing religion in Australia: Islam grew by 69%, but Hinduism grew by 189%, and I'm not hearing rumours about 'Creeping Dharma'.

Meanwhile, the Australian Christian Lobby has already released a statement asserting that Christianity is not on the decline in Australia. According to the Census, the number of Australians who answered as Christians has dropped from 68% ten years ago, to 61% now. That is a decline, yet its not necessarily other religions stealing our Christian souls, no! In the same period of time, the people reporting “No Religion” increased by the same amount: 7%.
Of course, we cannot conclude that 7% of Australians who were Christians in 2001 have lost their faith in the ten years since then, but there's no doubt that the population has less Christians and more atheists.

The ACL's Lyle Shelton puts this 7% increase down to an "aggressive" campaign by an atheist group convincing Christians to tick No Religion. Unsurprisingly, that's not quite what happened. There was a campaign, but it's purpose was to promote honesty - and sanity - by discouraging people from writing "Jedi Knight" on their census form as their religion. It might sound ridiculous, but thousands and thousands of people worldwide have done it, and it reduces the accuracy of the data. In the 2001 Census, around 70,000 Australians reported Jedi as their religion, but only 55,000 in 2006. 

Remember, today's gift basket of statistical bonbons is just the first release in a series of data releases from the 2011 Census. There's so much more...

Go! Have a browse through the Census data. It's all about us. 

Talking About School Reunions

Did you go to your high school reunion? Were you full of excitement, and eager to see all those people you spent so much time with in your teens? Or could you not think of anything worse, and would have rather sat at home and given yourself thousands of paper cuts than attend?

Last year, I organised our 30 year reunion, for my Year 10 class of 1981 at Wingham High School. Earlier this week, I chatted about all things "Reunion" with Rebecca Levingston on 612ABC Brisbane.



Click here to listen.

.

Newmania

It looks as though Queensland is about to go where no state has gone before.

Just days away from the 3 month mark since Campbell Newman and his LNP mates crashed into power, the face and the future of Queensland have changed.  Some commentators, including this one,  likened the new Premier’s approach to that of corrupt conservative Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen. It was a brave call, an early call, and now, from beneath a grimy layer of cynicism, I’m willing to admit, a naïve call.

Meanwhile, Premier Newman is in good form. He will surpass the notoriety of Sir Joh faster than Alan Jones can summon the Prime Ministerial Chaff Bag. Already we have seen the end of the Premier's Literary Awards, the EnergySmart Initiative, the Sleeman Ski Jump, the entire Climate Change department, the Queensland Association of Healthy Communities, state-sanctioned civil partnership ceremonies and more.

The Campbell Newman Abyss has claimed the careers of a handful of very senior public servants, and there's a quivering mess of exposed nerve endings formerly known as 200,000+ Queensland public servants waiting for their lives to resume. Expect up to 10% of them to be offered the opportunity to pursue their careers elsewhere. Remember, Queensland has no upper house and almost no opposition. Premier Newman and his crew can do whatever they want to do, and they are, without oversight.

Today, Premier Newman has announced to Parliament that his latest whim is to restrict trade unions from being associated with political parties.

Before I pose the obvious questions, like whether the LNP Government will distance themselves from other interest groups looking to barge or buy their way into positions of political influence – the Tobacco Lobby, Clubs Australia, Menzies House, the Institute of Public Affairs, the Farmers Federation, and the Australian Christian Lobby - I should probably know a little more about the relationship between Australian trade unions and the ALP.

According to the Australian Electoral Commission, Trade Unions are classed as ‘Associated Entities’, which means nothing to most of us. The AEC defines Associated Entities as

·        Is controlled by one or more registered political parties; or 
·        Operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties; or 
·        Is a financial member of a registered political party, or on whose behalf another person is such a member; or 
·        Has voting rights in a registered political party, or on whose behalf another person has such voting rights. 

Examples of associated entities include '500 clubs', 'think tanks', registered clubs, service companies, trade unions and corporate members of political parties. Associated entities may be: 

·        Companies or incorporated associations; 
·        Trusts, including charitable foundations; or 
·        Unincorporated associations, societies, groups or clubs. 

Fair enough. Under this official definition, trade unions are definitely Associated Entities of the ALP, with both financial and voting relationships. It's those relationships, those bonds reaching back to the earliest days of Federation, that Premier Newman wants to dissolve.

Why is Campbell Newman is concentrating this attack on the trade unions?

It's exactly the same reason why Gina Rinehart is after control of Ten and Fairfax. They want influence. They want power. They want to silence dissenting opinion, whether from the trade unions or the media, and they want to drive their personal agendas. Gina Rinehart is buying her stake via the media, Clive Palmer is buying the loyalty of a political party , and Campbell Newman is trying to disarm what's left of the Opposition, by stifling both the political heft and the flow of money from the unions to the ALP.

But make no mistake; there is conflict ahead: the Queensland Public Service will not take well to forced job cuts. The Together Union – formerly the QPSU, which was an entirely satisfactory name, by the way – is mobilising already. Teachers were meeting in Brisbane just a few hours ago, and the LNP Government should expect a lot more meetings, gatherings, protests and displays of public action in the coming weeks and months.

 In fact, we should not be surprised if this move against the unions backfires. The LNP won Queensland by such a terrifying majority, it's fair to conclude that many of Queensland's nervous public servants voted for them.  They might not be union members now, but if their jobs are threatened, where do you think they'll turn? 

And what does it matter whether the trade unions and the ALP are joined at the hip? Despite two decades of creeping to the right, the ALP is still the closest thing Australia has to a workers' party. If the unions can drag the ALP back to the left, where it should be, they might just regain the respect of the voters who deserted them months ago...and if they can't bring Labor back to its base, they will find another way to be heard. 

Mining magnates and media barons have much in common with conservative political leaders. They are not of this world: they are independent and ego-driven and measure their worth by the value of the deals they make.

For the workers whose jobs are threatened, and the unions that represent them, and the writers, the environmentalists, the LGBT community, even the ski-jumpers who've already lost out to Newmania, it won't matter who owns Fairfax, or who's got a paywall. It's about people. Political parties exist as organised groups of people with similar ideologies. So do trade unions, lobby groups, and churches and in the end, the abyss is hungry.

It's life, Queensland, but not as we knew it.