Tell Me Why

Much to my surprise, for the past few days I’ve been carrying on a twitter conversation with The Enemy – someone who doesn’t accept the validity of climate science. A climate change denier. The conversation has been civil, and incredibly informative as I’ve learned that denying climate science is akin to an extreme religion or cult. Arguing with a climate science denier is every bit as frustrating as arguing with a priest about the existence of god. Ironically, science deniers have used the same kind of vocabulary to describe those who oppose them – like me.


Climate Change Alarmists, as we are often called, have one advantage over the deniers. It is science, an endeavour which in its purest form has no purpose other than to explain the world in which we live. Science – good science – has no agenda, no ulterior motive. It exists for its own sake. The denial of science is the opposite: it must be driven by a belief or a cause or a fear. Without a driver, denying science is pointless.

Enter the Galileo Movement, a group so boorishly proud of their climate conspiracy theories, that they alienated their most high profile adviser, arch-denier Andrew Bolt. They retain the patronage of Alan Jones though, and have tried to style themselves as a legitimate organisation with an interest in promoting scientific debate. That image lasts about as long as it takes to glance through their website.



The Galileo Movement's Purpose & Aims, from their website

 The Galileo Movement is nothing more than a far right lobby group that vehemently opposes climate change and the science which proves its existence. In fact, much of their activity on social media is around provoking those who are “climate change apologists” – another name for us. Earlier this week, they took aim at the Sydney Morning Herald’s Environment Editor for posting a mildly humourous image related to climate change.

The Gallileo Movement’s twitter operator shot back with

After repeated requests for @bencubby to produce empirical evidence of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), this is the best he could come up with!

That’s where I ignored the first law of twitter: Don’t feed the trolls. I engaged. I responded to the tweet above in defence of Ben Cubby. As we know, individuals like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt, and the organisations they associate with, pretend to encourage meaningful debate, but in reality, they reject all dissenting opinions. My challenge (see below) to explain their theories was not taken well.

In fact, I haven’t heard from @GalileoMovement since their tweet in which they refer to “BS AGW”. Their position on climate change is articulated in those five letters, and my challenge was ignored. Not everyone ignored it though.

Welcome to the debate, @JWSpry, a tweeter with no biography, but a consistent history. Google him – we’ll assume it’s a male as his twitter avatar is of a man –and you’ll find the following quote over and over again:

After spending $50 billion on science research, no one able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made CO2 has significant effect on climate.

We don’t know of Mr Spry’s relationship with the Gallileo Movement, but it’s obvious that Mr Spry is a devotee of their theories, at the very least. He chose to respond in the middle of the night to the challenge I issued to the Galileo Movement, with the following series of tweets. This is the order in which they were received.

1. #AGW ‘scare’ product of 70/80’s Environment movements pushing ‘sustainability’ to limit pop(ulation) & economic growth

2. Ultimate aim is global control via regs and taxation under guise of enviro scare – easy if people willingly servile

3. “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key 2 unlock New World Order.” Gorbachev

4. One power grp behind #AGW “The Club of Rome” (Gorbachev member) Book “Limits of Growth”

5. “not hard to imagine climate problem driving political evolution toward global gov ovr long term” IPCC Pachauri

6. No empirical evidence exists proving man’s extra CO2 cause any GW that paused in 1996

7. Article by Larry Bell worth an ‘objective’ read for further insite [sic] into #AGW hysteria

It was all the standard climate change denier waffle, with a couple of references, including one from that pinnacle of accuracy, Wikipedia, and even a graph with no source. Had I been awake when I read these emails at about 6am, I would’ve laughed. I certainly wouldn’t have responded.

But respond I did. I wanted to know more, not necessarily about their conspiracy theories and group paranoia, but about what drives these attitudes. What was the purpose of this massive global conspiracy, who would benefit from it, and what would be the ultimate goal.

All credit to Mr Spry who has taken time to re-educate me by explaining that the conspiracy belongs to the United Nations and the Government elite “who don’t trust stewardship of Earth w. Democratic nations.” Once again, there’s nothing new here. We know that extreme climate change denial involves this incredible conspiracy by the UN to take over the world and redistribute the wealth, turning the planet into a big blue ball of socialist equality and general bliss: a sort of Brave New World, but with sunrises and daisies and burbling streams in place of the bad bits.

Mr Spry goes on to cite the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in June last year as a rallying cry for one planet (global governance) where the United Nations represented the voice of humanity against the voices of sovereign states, big polluters, and other world powers. Mr Spry is afraid that the one world government will give the United Nations – a body of people unelected individuals representing separate countries – the power to determine the distribution of consumables.

Aaaaahhhhh, now I get it.

Climate Change will ultimately change the balance of power away from the wealthy, towards…something else. Probably socialism.

There’s been another stream of tweets from Mr Spry, emphasising the intrinsic good will of humanity, and introducing me to something called Agenda 21 – there’s a 20 minute Youtube video about Agenda 21, posted by…The John Birch Society.

But before we get there, consider this: it’s all about money and power. Only money and power. Of course, if climate science is right, and the deniers are wrong, there won’t be much left to spend their money on, and that New World Order that they’re so afraid of will still be achieved, but through revolution rather than global control.



The Climate Science Deniers' Continuum



Follow me on Twitter (@SalPiracha). We still have to look at the John Birch Society. I'll tweet a link to the next blog post as soon as its available.



Caaanbra: Voter Intent

If you believe the polls of the past few weeks, Prime Minister Gillard’s new semi-hipster specs will be undermined and overthrown by the smoother, newly oranged Tony Abbott and his team of non-communicators. The major Polls – Neilsen, Newspoll, Galaxy, Essential – are all indicating that last year’s steady ascent of Julia Gillard is just so 2012, and that this is the year of the Abbott. Snake. Abbottsnake.

Of course, none of that will happen if the wildcard entry, Mr Kevin “I’m still from Queensland, still trying to help” Rudd ascends to the top of the ALP tree once more. The would be a game-changer. Professional pundits are drooling in anticipation of an ALP Leadership spill, which they seem to believe Kevin Rudd will win. They’re not talking out of their fedoras either: they are reporting the fears of senior ALP ministers, who have stated that the latest polling numbers make it impossible for the ALP to win in September. Many seem to believe that they have to make some changes.

Labor MPs were rocked by recent polls, which showed the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, ahead of Ms Gillard as preferred prime minister, jumping nine points to 49 per cent with her support slipping by five points to 45 per cent.

It followed a poor start to the election year for Labor, which was marred by policy and political errors, the failure of the mining tax, and the prominent emergence of Mr Rudd even as he called on people to ''take a cold shower'' over the leadership.

I really don’t want to discuss polls – there are people far more qualified to talk about them than I am. What fascinates me is what on earth could’ve happened in the past few weeks to turn what was looking like a very close election into a Coalition sure thing, Rudd notwithstanding. It’s not Ms Gillard’s specs, and it’s not Mr Abbott’s fake tan. I doubt it’s the arrest of Craig Thomson, or the whole Peter Slipper/Mal Brough brou-ha-ha. Ha-ha.

Is it policy? Has someone announced something, other than the date of the election, that would edge voters one way or the other? Are Australians more willing to risk a future with Tony Abbott and a sketchy policy than a government without Nicola Roxon and Chris Evans?

Is it absence of policy? Has the Liberal “leak” of Mr Abbott’s plan to build a hundred damns to drought-proof Australia been a winner? Perhaps just a glimmer of a suggestion of the hope of a policy is enough to convince voters that it’s time for change.

Is it the separation of the “other” Coalition, when Greens leader Christine Milne virtually told the government to shove off? I honestly doubt that has much to do with anything, but I thought I should mention the Greens, in case we’re watching the end of their obituary right now. Still, it will be interesting to see how many voters are genuine greenies, and how many were voting green as a way of ensuring a government that was slightly to the left of the other guys, without actually voting for Labor.

Because I am a lefty, I very much doubt that many conservatives read this blog, but for the one or two of you who do, this question is for the conservatives: Can you honestly say that you understand what the lefties are on about? Do you "get" leftie-speak, or is it just JuLiar and nasally accent going "blah blah carbon tax, blah blah misogyny, blah blah Gonski, blah blah blah."

And now, the same sort of questions for my leftie readers: Do you understand the conservative side of politics and the people who support conservative politics? How about conservative priorities, their thought processes, their leadership? When you think of Tony Abbott’s recent public appearances, are you aware of anything other than him turning orange and avoiding any and all serious media interviews?

Perhaps you're one of those progressive types who likes to watch Fox News so you can feel superior to Bill O'Reilly and his Low-Fact Friends in the All-Spin Cycle. Perhaps, like the IPA's James Paterson, you only enjoy QandA for the obscenities that the irrelevant ponces on the ABC trot out week after week. Fine – I’m in favour of mocking, providing some degree of intelligence and awareness of the issues is involved. Without understanding what you’re mocking, it’s not mocking; it’s trolling.

I'm not asking if you agree with the other side; that would be weird, unless you're Malcolm Turnbull. I'm just fascinated to know if you understand what drives the conservative, as opposed to what drives the lefty. At some level, it must come down to "what's in it for me", but that can't be all, particularly when both sides are promising more than they can pay for.

As the disparate sides of Australian politics awkwardly two-step together towards the right, there's not much between the core party platforms. The action, the fun stuff, is at the extremes, with the extremists. Out there, a party’s values still drive policy. It's great television, but not relevant to most average voters. Most Coalition supporters probably don’t support the platforms of the Australian Christian Lobby or the Galileo Movement, just as most Labor supporters aren’t gay Marxist baby-killing tree-huggers. Most of us are here, in the middle, staring at eachother over a wet cigarette paper.

I despair at the level of political debate I hear around me, sometimes on media, sometimes at the water cooler. But what have we done to improve it? What has anyone done? Who has accountability for ensuring that the people in this country who are required by law to turn up at a polling place know what they’re voting for and why?

I support compulsory voting, where everyone has a single, equal vote...and yet, if I vote Liberal in my seat because I don't like Julia Gillard's glasses is it a valid choice? It's definitely a valid vote, but was it made by someone in possession of the facts?

That's one of those horrible questions that keep me awake at night.

Now it's your turn. You can thank me later. 

BTW, there's a silly little poll on this very subject in the right hand column of this very blog. What drives your voting decisions?

Take it as a Comment

What is the purpose of a public debate if it is not to expose the audience to different perspectives on the same issue, and to encourage them to consider their own opinion from different angles? The ABC’s QandA exists for that purpose, and a noble purpose it is.

The added layer that supports the success of QandA is Twitter. Broadcast live, QandA includes tweets from television audience members, displayed on screen, allowing QandA to boast of it’s panel of experts, politicians and celebrities, the studio audience, and the television audience, all with the ability to influence the show in real time. In fact, tweeters who have a tweet displayed on screen during the show are heroes for considerably longer than the 15 seconds or so that the tweet is on the screen. They can even advertise their success with a range of QandA T-Shirts. Not just a television show for political wonks, QandA is a multi-platform cultural landmark.

What about the panellists who appear on programmes like QandA? Are they there to help viewers to expand their minds and raise the level of debate around the water cooler in the office tomorrow? Of course not. With the exception of a few pop stars and comedians who should never have been anywhere closer to the QandA panel than the audience seats, QandA panellists have political and social agendas. They are there to discuss their subjects, represent their cause and neutralise any opposing views, regardless of the carefully selected and worded questions asked by the audience members.

In a live television environment where instant feedback is encouraged and rewarded, it’s inevitable that a range of responses will be received. Some personalities are always going to attract an audience and polarise it; others are less sensational.

Why is anyone surprised then, when a guest from the conservative group, href="http://www.ipa.org.au/">The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) displays conservative views, as James Paterson did on this week’s QandA, and receives a barrage of negative response?

Writing for right wing magazine The Spectator, James Paterson isn't surprised. He revels in it, responding with glee at the number of “abusive tweets from engaged lefties” he receives. For James, it’s a matter of pride that he’s been able to stir up a certain level of consternation, annoy specific tweeters into responding, and provoke groans of despair from the studio audience. He writes:

We move on to the mining tax, and a self-described lifetime Labor voter complains to Chris Evans that the Gillard government hasn't hit the mining industry hard enough, to the delight of the studio audience. In his answer, Evans suggests that the applause is a good indication of changing community sentiment and perhaps the government should look at reforming the tax to collect more revenue. I can't resist the opportunity, and point out that if the ALP really thinks a QandA audience is a representative sample of the Australian community, no wonder they are in such bad shape. It wins me no friends in the audience, who loudly groan. But at least Sinclair Davidson at the excellent blog Catallaxy Files appreciates it - he writes that it was my best comment all night, and Andrew Bolt agrees on his blog.

Note Mr Paterson’s mocking tone when considering that the QandA audience might be representative of the Australian community. I’m pretty sure that it would be impossible for the Australian community to be represented accurately by an audience of a couple of hundred people, but I do know that the political self-identification of the audience members for this week’s QandA programme was ALP 36%, Coalition 41% and Greens 14% - with 9% in the Undecided/Secretive/Confused bucket. To my amateur eye, that does look a bit skewed towards the left, yet it’s not a whitewash.

Even if all of the Greens support Labor, and the entire noncommittal 9% favoured the right, that would put the audience at even-stevens. So those groans that Mr Paterson heard from time to time during the programme were probably less than half the audience. Whether he likes it or not, the IPA, the Coalition, the right in general is rarely a minority. Playing underdog at the mercy of the Big Bad ABC simply doesn’t make sense.

Another groan was heard when host Tony Jones announced that next week’s programme will include a guest from the Centre for Public Christianity.

“It's as if having a Christian on the ABC is something to be outraged about.” A groan does not signify outrage, Mr Paterson. Even a loud groan by half the people in a room cannot be considered a sign of horror or indignation. It’s a groan, an involuntary noise that expresses derision, disdain, or disappointment. For a communications director, the choice of words veers towards hyperbole...and yes, I can pronounce it too.
Pedantry aside, it’s absurd to think that the ABC or its audience has an issue with putting Christians on air. Songs of Praise has been on air since Adam was a boy, and Compass, with Geraldine Doogue is as old as Methuselah. Moreover, the ABC has been responsible for such brilliant television as Brides of Christ and The Abbey.

Mr Paterson seens particularly unhappy – apparently on behalf of the regular QandA audience – at QandA’s regular coverage of political process stories rather than issues. This surprised me, yet  it illuminates part of the reason why Mr Paterson and his IPA are so far away from reality: the QandA audience is genuinely interested in process stories, particularly when they are related to how the Leader of the Opposition may act if he is elected Prime Minister in September. I believe Tony Abbott's inability to handle the media is a major election issue all by itself. Mr Paterson disagrees:

“I can't think of a less important topic to discuss than the Opposition Leader's media appearance schedule and the panellists' theories of what sort of media management tactics his team are running, so I say so. Of course, Corrine Grant believes this is a deadly serious matter of national concern. And nobody mentions the failure of every Gillard government minister bar Anthony Albanese to appear on The Bolt Report on Ten.”

Anyway, what else is there to discuss? The only Coalition policies we know about are the ones that are leaked.
Corrine Grant understands a helluva lot more about media than Mr Paterson does. Australians – even those on the right – might have a problem with a Prime Minister who goes out of his way to avoid talking to the media. That Tony Abbott has not appeared on QandA in a while is entirely Tony Abbott’s decision – just as choosing to not appear on The Bolt Report is the choice of many ALP figures.

It should probably be noted here that except for a couple of episodes, The Bolt Report rates last in its timeslots: in order to maintain an audience in the mid 200,000s, Channel Ten screens the programme twice on Sundays.

QandA is watched by around three times as many people as The Bolt Report, and frankly, Mr Bolt has such a tainted reputation that I’d hesitate to recommend that any politican of any side appear on his show.

The biggest question of all for Mr Paterson is this: Did he kick any goals for his team? Did he change any minds, win any votes for the coalition or attract any new members for the IPA? He speaks of having personal key performance indicators for his QandA appearances. He isn’t satisfied unless he’s getting hostile tweets, particularly from Marieke Hardy, although I’m sure there are others whose antagonism he values as much.

And that’s pretty damned childish. James Paterson is on QandA to do a job for his employer, to promote his organisation and their values. Pissing off your opponents is no reason to be proud - unless you’re trying to cause a riot at nap time by stirring up the other three year olds into making a noise.

I’m pleased for him that he finds satisfaction and fun in such a pointless activity. We all need to enjoy our work.

Meanwhile, if Mr Paterson is tempted to respond to this post, he's welcome to do that. My interest has never been in provoking a response from the right.

Caaanbra: Julie & Julia

When I sat down today to write, it was not with the intention to write about Julie Bishop. Imagine my surprise to look up and find 1200 words on the wonder that is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. If you're looking for me to sing "Isn't She Lovely" as she sashays through the corridors of Parliament House, you will be disappointed. If you're up for a quick read on the hairdo behind the Death Stare, pour yourself a drink and relax.

Julia Gillard did a masterful job of ripping the carpet out from under Tony Abbott when she named the election date just days after the newly tanned, de-wrinkled, combed-over Leader of the Opposition launched his mini-campaign. The Libs had no choice but to follow the ALP agenda, and that does not sit well with an opposition that was expecting another six months of game-playing and Election Date Bingo with the media.



But never underestimate the power of Julie Bishop. Outwardly, little has changed from he LA LAW-vintage boxy suits, frosted, flippety hairstyle and laser-powered death stare. Perhaps nothing has changed but the calendar, yet I suspect That there is more than a hint of desperation. What else could have prompted the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party to appear on Radio National last week to make the case that Australia should revert to a “caretaker government” status until Election Day in mid-September?

I will restate it here, for the benefit of all who may be in doubt: the government is not in caretaker mode, and will not enter caretaker mode until all of the Governor-General-seeing and writ-issuing and church-hall-booking has been done in mid August.

If this was a caretaker situation, what would that mean? It would require that the ALP Government wouldn’t make any major policy decisions without agreement from the Opposition. The same restriction would apply to making significant appointments of public officials, and would need to refrain from being involved in any international actions, from diplomatic visits to acting on the UN Security Council. In summary, the government would cease to do everything other than keep the country ticking over in neutral for over seven months. Politically, that would deliver a chocolate coated election campaign to the opposition – just keep pointing at the Government’s impotence and try not to do anything dumb. 

And yet, there she was. Ms Bishop’s appearance on RN was reported in the Australian:

Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop said the opposition was seeking legal advice on whether Julia Gillard's nomination of September 14 as the election date should force the normal business of government to cease.

“We believe that the government has made the call. We are in virtual caretaker mode,” she told ABC radio.

But Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said it was clear that caretaker mode began with the issuing of election writs, which would occur on August 14.

“Why should a government stop just because Julie Bishop says so?” he said.

“This is an attempt to disrupt the government of our country.”

It did not take long for the media, the Twitterverse, the government and potentially a few low-flying seagulls to point out to Ms Bishop that she was wrong: legally, factually wrong. Of course, she knew that – she must have known. The purpose of her short caretaker offensive would’ve been to put the concept and phrase into the hearts and minds of conservative voters and commentators, thereby making the ALP Government look illegitimate. It almost worked too, except that the electorate isn’t quite that stupid.
And then last week, the poor woman admitted that she and the Prime Minister don’t get on all that well together. In fact, Ms Bishop stated that she’s tried to make friends with the PM, but that Ms Gillard won’t talk to her. This, according to Ms Bishop, is extraordinary.



Y’know what? Diddums. It’d be nice if everyone could just work together, and be polite and courteous and helpful to those irksome co-workers who share our working environment. Julie Bishop’s reality is the PM is the leader of the Government, and Ms Bishop is 2nd in charge of half the the team that came in second. Julie and Julia may be the two most powerful women in the Australian government (although that is debatable) but they are not equals, nor on the same side. The deputy leader of the opposition’s job description probably includes a requirement to do all she can to destroy the government’s credibility.
In the world’s softest interview, Ms Bishop admits that she decided to hound Prime Minister Gillard only after Ms Gillard’s famous misogyny speech in parliament last year.

"Tony had always given Gillard the benefit of the doubt, he'd always thought there was a line she would never cross,'' says Bishop. "She crossed the line that day, and as far as he was concerned, all bets were off. So it ultimately backfired on her, because I would never have raised the AWU matter had she not done that. It hurt his family so much. His daughters were stung by it.''

The Prime Minister’s misogyny speech has been viewed by millions of people around the world, and praised by most. It was a singular event in our history which was, at the time, entirely misread by the media, and apparently, by Ms Bishop as well. Meanwhile, the Opposition keep raising the Gillard – AWU connection, but have failed to find a anything that can be pinned on Ms Gillard. 

Now this is just a observation, but if I was in Ms Bishop’s position, and I thought that the PM had a geniuine case to answer on the AWU matter, I would be gunning for her because I believed her to be in the wrong, not because she attacked my boss and upset his daughters. Similarly, if there is no case for the PM to answer, constantly attacking her out of revenge is like an episode of Glee without the music, isn’t it? Time to grow up and find priorities appropriate to a senior politican.

Julie Bishop just hasn’t had a good run in Opposition. She’s been deputy to three leaders, and while she is deputy, she won’t be Acting PM, as that role goes to the leader of the Lib’s Coalition partner, the Nationals. If the Coalition wins the election, and the Prime Minister is out of the country or unavailable, Ms Bishop may be acting Leader of the Liberal Party, but she'll be watching Warren Truss as Acting Prime Minister. 

She can’t even say in all honesty that she’s the most powerful woman in the Liberal Party, because I’m pretty sure that Mr Abbott's Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin would outrank almost everyone.

But here's a claim to fame: Ms Bishop was the first woman to be Treasurer or Shadow Treasurer until she was forced to resign over concerns that she wasn’t up to the job. Those concerns may have been based on the fact that she wasn’t any better at it than Barnaby Joyce would have been. That’s a hard truth.

In 2010, as Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, she suggested that Australian intelligence organisations forge passports for use in covert operations. Even if that did occur, we sure as hell shouldn’t be talking about it – but I suspect she knows that now. It seems that her ambition is to be Australia’s first female Minister for Foreign Affairs is achieveable; it’s also a frightening ambition, given her inability to keep possible intelligence activities secret.

Still, Julie Bishop has stickability; loyalty to her position, if not to the leaders she’s served. She’s seen off two Liberal leaders in Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull, and she’s survived as Tony Abbott’s 2IC for longer than most would care to comtemplate.



In the past week or so, Ms Bishop has made headlines by suggesting that women “can’t have it all”. Apparently we can’t have a career and a family, that we must sacrifice something. That’s an extraordinary statement coming from a career woman whose role in supporting Tony Abbott is at least in part to add a little feminine balance to the blokey-blokedness of the Opposition Leader, and possibly to help lighten his image with women. There are plenty of women around Julie Bishop’s age, who are childless and in de facto relationships – there’s Julia Gillard and me, and that’s just for starters. There are far more women in their 40s and 50s who have achieved great things in their career, and have had children as well. Ms Bishop is just flat out wrong, as she was on the caretaker government issue, forged passports and her motivation for pursuing Julia Gillard.
I am not being disingenuous when I say that Julie Bishop has already achieved much more than most will in their entire lives. Being Deputy Leader of a mainstream political party is one helluva line to put in your resume. I can’t mock that, and I wouldn’t want to.

Having said that, Ms Bishop has been in Government and in Opposition, and she's a high profile politician. What has she achieved?

…and as I type that, twitter tells me that Ms Bishop’s arch nemesis Julia Gillard is handing out a master class in budgetary variances, primarily for the benefit of Ms Julie Bishop.

Orange Crush

Some blokes are blokey blokes. They like blokey stuff, and they like other blokes, but only in a blokey way. Other blokes are ladies’ men. Ladies men prefer to be seen in the company of women, and see other blokes as competition. Most blokes are somewhere in between, enjoying the company of both men and women, as appropriate to the circumstances.

At one end of the Spectrum of Blokeness is the archetypal Ladies Man, Mr James Bond. At the other end? It’s Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. He is a blokety blokety bloke’s bloke. That’s not to suggest that Mr Abbott doesn’t like women, or doesn’t get on with women, or doesn’t respect women. My care factor on Mr Abbott’s personal feelings about women in general and ‘his’ women in particular is non-existent in so much as it doesn’t matter a jot.

What does matter to Tony, and to me, is how women feel about him. Most of us don’t like him much. For a politician, that’s extremely bad because we are about half of the population, and in order to get elected, at least some of the women have to like you enough to vote for you.

Yes, you may now give me a lecture about the fact that he only has to win his seat and remain Opposition Leader for a crack at The Lodge. I know that, but we need to remember that plenty of people equate a vote for their local candidate as a vote for who they want to be PM. Opinion polls which track “Preferred Prime Minister” don’t help by making it seem as though we are voting for the PM.

As I was explaining, a lot of women don’t like Tony Abbott, and that is a problem in an election year. His whizz-bang team of media spinners and image makers have been grappling with the women-problem since Mr Abbott narrowly beat Malcolm Turnbull for the Liberal Leadership. It’s been really easy to tell when the team is terrified: out comes Mrs Margie Abbott and their three lovely daughters. The subtext is the impossibility of Mr Abbott disliking women when he spends his life surrounded by them.

Hogwash. There is no doubt that Mr Abbott loves his family, but how does that translate into female voters liking Mr Abbott enough to vote Liberal? It doesn’t. Strike one.

Peta Credlin is Mr Abbott’s Chief of Staff, a position which comes brings with it an extraordinary amount of stress and expectation. From all reports, Ms Credlin is doing a top job, except when it comes from neutralising her boss’s problem with the women. Ms Credlin’s answer was to sacrifice her privacy – some say dignity – and do an interview about her experiences with IVF. The focus of the article was the compassion and care that was shown to her by her gentle boss, Mr Tony Abbott. The theory was that if the women could only see what a kind and gentle man Tony really is, they would like him more.

Bollocks. I am yet to speak to a single woman whose opinion of Tony Abbott was changed by the Peta Credlin IVF story. Their opinions of Ms Credlin changed though. The perception of Ms Credlin as a successful young woman in a man’s world was replaced with a desperate woman who would sacrifice part of herself for her job, her male boss and her husband – who is, co-incidentally the National President of the Liberal Party. The net result was a negative impression. Strike Two.

And now, we must speak of the thing that should not be spoken of. Since Mr Abbott reappeared to launch his mini-campaign – which was promptly and comprehensively trumped by Ms Gillard’s announcement of the election date – he has been different. Where is the rugged blokey bloke who looks more at home in hi-viz lycra than he does in a suit? Where’s the stony face with the clenched jaw who stood silent and shaking while Mark Riley’s cameras recorded every cringeworthy second? Where the bloody hell is Tony Abbott?

As far as I can tell, he’s hiding, ashamed of himself, under an “expertly” applied layer of makeup. Girly bloody makeup. A highlighter around the eyes, a hint of pink on the lips, a close shave an orange gump that looks like it was sprayed on by his local volunteer firefighters. I’ve been saying for a few days on Twitter that I think he might have had a little work done – the wrinkles of a life in the Aussie sun are almost gone, yet the orange-o-tan has been turned up to 11. The hair is a little darker, a little longer, a little thicker than before. It could be dyed, it could be follicular implants, it could be a burgeoning comb-over with a decent spray of Final Net. I’m not an expert on how to turn an Action Man into a Metrosexual (do they still use that word?), but clearly someone is. Tony is a man transformed.

There are two groups of people who know a lot about the power of a subtle makeover to change the essence of a person: the marketing teams at cosmetic companies, and women. Yes, women. We know that slathering on the war paint each morning won’t change a damn thing – except possible our self confidence – and yet a lot of us do it every day for our entire adult lives. So will a makeover make Tony Abbott more attractive to women voters? Will a bit of a buff and shine make all of us – or any of us – turn into Tony fans? HELL No! Why? Because it’s obviously fake and we’re the experts at it. Strike Three.

Let’s just be honest here. Tony Abbott is a blokey bloke. At a backyard barbecue, he’ll be with the blokes around the barbecue. Why? Because that’s who he is. He appeals less to women than he does to men. It’s probably some elusive blend of the way he speaks and the way he swaggers and his reputation as a bloke who puts his fist through walls and whispers his Catholicism, and his marvellously bumbling attempts to make himself more appealling to women. Now, he's a blokey bloke wearing makeup.

Please note: This blog post is a policy free zone. Make of that what you will.

Tea Party For One

Bernard Gaynor will go down in history as having one of the shortest, stupidest political careers in Australia’s history, and history is where he should stay.

At 11:53am on Tuesday 22nd January, Bernard Gaynor announced via social media that he would be running for a seat in the Senate, as a member of Bob Katter’s Australia Party. Not long after, the deluge of bizarre tweets had begun:

2:42pm 22 Jan @BernardGaynor: As a KAP senator I’ll have the courage to close borders to those who do not accept Aussie values – burkas are not a sign of tolerance. #auspol

I’m quite certain that not accepting the women who wear burkas is a far stronger sign of intolerance, particularly from a man who has spent considerable slabs of his life in Iraq, and a flying visit to Afghanistan.

By 7:38pm, the Sunshine Coast Daily was reporting that Mr Gaynor has said that “Climate Change is crap”. Despite the overwhelming weight of science, in this country the debate on climate change continues, so Mr Gaynor’s position is not rare. It’s just dumb. Mr Gaynor is a proud climate science denier though, and tweeted a link to the story.

The tweeting continued, on topics as diverse as denial of climate change to defence of his Catholicism to the boganisation of Australia Day and the use of the Aussie flag in Australia Day celebrations. Controversial, conservative, and largely unsurprisingly.

Wednesday 23rd January was to be the retired army major’s own chapter of revelations.

8:11pm 23 Jan @BernardGaynor As a KAP senate nominee in Qld and former Party National General Secretary, I fully support Tess Corbett.

Tess Corbett is another now-former KAP candidate whose claim to infamy is her statement that she considers gays and lesbians to be in the same category as paedophiles. Its Ms Corbett’s dicey version of the slippery slope: if we accept homosexuality as normal, we’ll eventually accept paedophilia too. That’s a slippery slide that is usually occupied by Liberal Cory Bernardi, who thinks acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of polygamy and bestiality. Isn’t it just possible that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to a decrease in depression and suicide within the gay community?

But I digress.

Less than a minute after his tweet supporting Tess Corbett, he tweeted again.

8:11pm 23 Jan @BernardGaynor I wouldn’t let a gay person teach my children and I am not afraid to say it. #auspol

And there endeth a political career.

8:12pm 23 Jan @BernardGaynor If we value free speech and democracy then we would respect the right of Christians to hold their views about right and wrong.

Fair enough, too. I sincerely agree with this point, at least. What Mr Gaynor doesn’t mention is that in every state and territory in this country, it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of a lawful sexual preference.

Mr Gaynor was less than 36 hours into the role of candidate, so perhaps we should forgive him for being so naïve in the ways of Twitter:

8:47pm 23 Jan @BernardGaynor Woah! Just said prayers & put kids 2 bed. Came back to find many ppl tweeting against discretion over teachers. #goodluckwiththat

8:49pm 23 Jan @BernardGaynor Parents should have discretion over who teachers their children. #auspol

  Around about this time, one of two things happened: Either Bob Katter phoned Mr Gaynor and told him to get off Twitter before he does any more damage, or Bernard himself realised that he was facing a whole world of twitter-related pain, and decided to pray about it. Mr Gaynor’s increasingly popular twitter account went dark. There were no new tweets until the following day when he tweeted a link to a press release containing “clarifying comments”.

It’s always a concern when a politician needs to issue clarifying comments – surely politicians should be able to communicate at a professional level, with honesty and precision, and not need to elucidate their comments later. But no – serial clarifiers include Andrew Laming and Barnaby Joyce. Australians are lucky though – at least none of our politicians have tweeted their Anthony Weiners at us yet. I wonder what a clarifiying statement on that one would look like!


The shortlist (so far) of things Bernard Gaynor doesn't like

 Back to Mr Gaynor’s illustrative comments, which are available on his blog: his argument does not soften his stance against gay teachers, but it elaborates on his position that parents should be able to choose who teaches their children. He even makes a few assumptions about how he believes the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would act as regards the rights of parents to choose who teaches their children. Hell, I support that right too, which is handy because it already exists. If you don’t like the value set at a certain school, you are most welcome to remove your child from that school and send it somewhere else.

Of course, if you can’t afford a private school that reflects your values, you can enjoy the widely varied range of qualified teachers available in the public school system, and stop making sexual orientation an issue. Alternately, give up your day job and home-school the children.

Mr Gaynor has received a swag of hate-tweets and death-wishes since making his homophobic comments on twitter, and that makes both of us sad. It’s a shock when it happens. I’ve received twitter death-threats from a political candidate because I (politely) challenged his views. Twitter can be a trial because of a handful of people with strongly held extremist perspectives and no idea how to conduct themselves in public.

And that’s it. He has been suspended from Katter’s Australia Party, and which means he won’t be standing for the senate as a member of the KAP. That should have been the end of the shortest, saddest political career since Mal Meninga tried to run as an independent in the ACT. Big Mal lasted a mere 28 seconds; Bernard Gaynor still hasn’t accepted that his race with the Katter stable is over. He’s still tweeting.

25th Jan @BernardGaynor I agree with KAP candidate Jamie Cavanough. I don’t want to buy meat that has been faced towards Mecca and blessed.

The rationale provided by Mr Cavanough is that if he buys Halal meat, some of the money from his purchase might find its way to the Muslim Community. It’s nice to have his position on Muslims confirmed; it wasn’t quite clear after his comment about burkas.

Meanwhile, just after 2pm today, Mr Gaynor released a statement confirming that he would be fighting his suspension from the KAP. It’s worth reading.

And that’s one helluva hate list to have put out there in just a few tweets: Bernard Gaynor’s 35 tweets have indicated that he does not tolerate gays, Muslims, climate scientists, Bogans and even Bob Katter. It’s fortunate that he has his faith and his family; it appears that he doesn’t have much else right now.

BTW, there is no mention of Mr Gaynor on the official Katter's Australia Party website.

Oi Oi Oi

January 26, 2013 is the 225th anniversary of the day the First Fleet sailed into Sydney Harbour and raised the Union Jack. It's our national day. Just twenty-five years ago, Rick Price was singing "Celebration of a Nation" for Australia's Bicentennial festivities. Aside from the Sydney Olympics, it was the biggest outpouring of nationalistic pride in our history.

1988 seems like another lifetime ago. Australia Day is officially our national day, yet it's gone from a day of ultimate Australian pride to a mish-mash of speeches, protests, parties and cringe factor. January 26 is the day when the best of Australia is on display, and the worst of Australia is right there beside it. It's a hard day to love.

For Aboriginal Australians, January 26 is observed as Invasion Day, a day of mourning, when their independence, culture and even their existence was threatened. Since 1992, it's become Survival Day, a day when a determined people remember the impact "White Australia" had on those who were here before.

Impact? Let's be honest. The "impact" was murder, rape, theft of land, destruction of sacred sites, introduction of white-fella diseases, booze, guns and the undermining of a culture that is thousands of years old ... Yeah, why would anyone -black, white or lime green - want to celebrate any of that?

And yet, we "celebrate" in a myriad of ways. There are just as many reasons to be proud of what started 225 years ago as there are to be ashamed. Australia has achieved much: formed a democracy, developed successful industries, built a stable first-world economy, supported science, the arts and sport and created a unique - though imperfect - society. Can we celebrate the achievements of a modern Australia on the same day as our Aboriginal citizens are mourning? Should we?

Then there's the way we choose to celebrate: the traditional Australian barbecue, divided down gender lines, with beer, backyard cricket and more beer. Lamingtons and a cup of tea; pavlova and bubbly. Muscle car owners have removed the Christmas reindeer antlers from their cars and replaced them with Aussie flags. In fact, the flag - the one our grandparents, parents, husbands and brothers fought under - appears on everything from beach towels and board shorts to disposable plates, bucket hats, beach balls, eskies and thongs. Classy or poor taste?

But brace yourself, because the Ugly Australian is here too. He's the one wearing the xenophobic T-shirts that screech “go back to where you came from”, and "If you don't like it, leave!". She’s the one who stumbles out of the nightclub at sun-up, holding her sparkly stilettos in one hand and her hair in the other as she vomits a stream of chunky Midori cocktails and four letter works into the gutter. He’s the wag you changed a portable sign outside a Queensland regional airport to read “Fuck Off We’re Full”. [sic]

Last year, the Prime Minister tripped and the media went hog-wild. This year, we have the next step in offensive slogans: "Australia, Est 1788" and the political controversy over the Prime Minister’s pre-selection of Nova Peris-Kneebone for the Northern Territory senate seat.

Of course none of that is the official version of Australia Day, with its formal events, Honours Lists, Citizenship Ceremonies and now Affirmation Ceremonies. There’s also the usual round of editorials and debates about what it means to be Australian, the challenges and benefits of multiculturalism, the customary hat-tip to the original owners of the land and questions about whether it’s appropriate to celebrate the beginning of almost two centuries of genocide.

The answer is – I don’t know. I am 100% Aussie, although my father was born overseas. I don’t need an Affirmation Certificate to prove my allegiance. I feel uncomfortable with Australia Day because no amount of integrating the Aboriginal experience into the events of the day can erase this country’s past, and it’s not something we can all celebrate together.

Other options have been discussed and dismissed – the common response is moving our national day to Anzac Day. I’m even less in favour of that. Our veterans deserve their day, and Anzac Day is it. For many Australians, it’s a day with far more significance than Australia Day. Let’s not dilute the authority of Anzac Day by changing the meaning. The first day of Federation is unsuitable too, as its January 1st – it’s already New Years’ Day. We could consider Sorry Day – February 13, the anniversary of Kevin Rudd’s apology – but that is as divisive as Australia Day, and our national day should be about more than history.

…Which leaves May 9 as our national day, the anniversary of the opening of the first Australian Parliament in Melbourne in 1901. It has historical context and meaning, and as far as I know, doesn’t offend anyone. It’s also pretty dull, unless you’re a history or politics wonk.

I think we need a new day, a new reason to celebrate together as one nation. It’s time to reconsider becoming a republic, and re-examine our national flag. My preference is to be a republic, yet retain our role within the Commonwealth, and to find a new flag, yet retain the Southern Cross. I’d like Australia Day to be a day when we remember where we’ve come from, celebrate what’s great about where we are, and look forward with confidence and unity.


But I’m a sentimental idealist.

Because Logan rhymes with ...

If you're sick of hearing about Andrew Laming, join the club. The Sydney Morning Herald is calling his tweet a "Twitter gaffe" - not what you'd expect from the Member of Parliament whose own Liberal Party website biography describes him as being "Australia’s most innovative user of social media in politics".

It’s the kind of tweet you should never see from an elected official.

I first became aware of Mr Laming’s “innovative” use of social media a couple of years ago when I saw that he was using Twitter to promote a competition he was running on Facebook. The concept was that he would use Twitter to attract followers, and tweet links to his Facebook page. If you followed the link, and then “Liked” his Facebook page, you’d go into the draw to win a weekend away on the Sunshine Coast.

Of course, once you’d clicked the Like button, you would then see everything that he posted to his Facebook page – Liberal Party statements and conservative comments, punctuated with pithy backhanders and sledges aimed at the ALP.

I heard on Monday night via Twitter that Andrew Laming was trending, and wondered what he had done this time. You see, this is not the first time that Andrew Laming has tweeted something controversial. It's fair to say that the majority of Mr Laming's tweets are controversial at best, ill-considered most of the time, and occasionally, downright offensive. In fairness, he's not alone is being a serial mistweeter; his colleagues Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb, Nick Sowden and Barnaby Joyce have all learned the hard way that sometimes, a mere 140 characters is plenty of space in which to make a complete twat of yourself. Mr Laming has been doing it for years.

In fact, I take an interest in what Mr Laming tweets - not because I'm a fan, but because I'm incredulous at some of the things he shares on social media. Yes, I used to mock him for his more foolish tweets, and his response was to block me so that I could no longer see his tweets.

Twitter isn’t that simple. I asked for a copy of yesterday’s “clarification” tweet, and nine different tweeters sent it to me. The only way to ensure that tweetable thoughts remain private is not to tweet them in the first place – which given Mr Laming’s history with social media, might be a good thing for the Liberal Party.

It was Andrew Laming who tweeted three days before Christmas:

“Gutless Gillard nowhere to be seen when ‘balancing the budget’ goes up in smoke”

A flock of tweeps leapt to the Prime Minister’s defence. Perhaps Mr Laming had forgotten that this would be the Gillard family’s first Christmas without their patriarch?

But back to Mr Laming’s tweet this week: the main question on social media has been around whether or not the initial tweet was racist.

I’d say yes, it is a mildly racist comment…although that’s not the most obvious source of offense in his tweet. Logan – which all too conveniently rhymes with Bogan – is one of the most multicultural areas in Australia, with about one in four residents being born overseas, and since the tweet was sent on Monday night, we’ve learned that the feud which lead to the violence is actually between two families who happen to be from two ethnic groups which often clash: Aborigines and Samoans.

That wasn’t what Mr Laming was getting at, though; his tweet was a direct insult to the people of Logan, challenging the sophistication of the population. We all know that in Logan, the demographic is a little different, and that expedient rhyme just makes it easier for people to associate Logan with poorer, less educated, less employable, less mannered people. Aside from the immigrant population, Logan has a 7.2% unemployment rate, which is high. Similarly, the median total personal income is up to $300 per week less than in Brisbane.

So why did Andrew Laming tweet about Logan anyway? By Monday night, it was common knowledge that the violence was occurring in Woodridge, a suburb of Logan. Despite Twitter limiting tweets to 140 characters, there were plenty left, so Mr Laming could have said Woodridge but chose not to. He chose to use the name Logan to ensure that we all understood that he was referring to a set of anti-social behaviours which are associated with Logan.

And if by chance he didn’t think of the connection and the whole thing was an accident, it’s still unacceptable. Mr Laming is an elected representative and should display far more care and maturity and less innovation when using social media.

Newmania: Ticked Off

Last week, after the last of the turkey had been curried and the News Years hangovers had subsided, King Campbell’s Deputy the Honourable Jeff Squeemey and the media team released a statement trumpeting a successful six months during which the Newman Government had ticked off every item in their Six Month Action Plan. In the statement, the Honourable Mr Sqeemey said

“We promised Queenslanders that we would be a Government that acted on its commitments,” Mr Seeney said.

“We said we’d grow a four pillar economy, lower the cost of living for families, deliver better infrastructure and revitalise front-line services.

“Now the proof is there for Queenslanders to see that this is a government that actually does what it says it will do."

The media statement claims that there were 149 actions included in the original Six Month Action Plan, yet lists less than twenty of them, plus special mentions for the Bruce Highway upgrade – which has its own Action Plan – and the construction of 1 William Street, a gleaming new CBD high rise office tower also known as King Campbell’s Folly Mk III. (For interstate readers, his first two follies were the shunned Clem7 Tunnel and the mock-worthy City Cycle scheme, two of the visible scars of King Campbell’s years as Lord Mayor of Brisbane.)


Now King Campbell and his majority might be satisfied with a list of items ticked off a list. I’m not, so let’s take a look at a few of the items on the list in more detail.

Delivering a once-in-a-generation budget to set Queensland’s finances back on track

The Newmania Budget 2012 appeared to satisfy the Government’s need to get the state “back on track” but will ultimately fail due to a shortfall in revenue and a lot of crazy talk about a $100 billion dollar debt which doesn’t exist. Furthermore, the budget will be forever associated with the termination of 14,000 jobs from the Queensland Public Service, leaving many people and many departments bleeding. We can only hope that this was a once-in-a-generation budget; a repeat in 2013-14 would not be tolerated.

Attracting new aviation business and routes into Queensland from overseas

Supporting the Tourism industry is part of the infamous Four Pillar Economy, and in this area, the Government has been successful. Hawaiian Airlines are flying direct into Brisbane from Honolulu*, China Southern are flying into Brisbane ex-Guangzhou, and Etihad has increased the frequency of its flights from Brisbane to Abu Dhabi.

It’s not all good news in Brisbane’s aviation news though: Virgin Australia is considering relocating its headquarters away from Brisbane. Why? Because Virgin Australia has been locked out of tendering for Queensland regional air routes by the Newman Government who has supported renewing existing QantasLink contracts. This single decision may force a business employing thousands of Queenslanders to move interstate; at worse, it’s stopped the business from being able to grow here in its home state.

Amending the Racing Act to restructure Queensland’s racing industry

By mid-June 2012, two directors of Racing Queensland Limited had announced their resignation as a result of changes being proposed by the new Government. As with all restructures, some senior positions are being replaced with other positions with more buzzwords in their names. In the end, the work still needs to be done.

Planning has started on a $35.4 million dollar upgrade of the Gold Coast Turf Club, accounting for around one third of the Government’s $110 million dollar budget to upgrade racing across the state. This is not new money for the racing industry: former Premier Anna Bligh made the commitment on January 11 last year.

Expanding the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme from 1 January 2013

King Campbell and Lawrence of Springborgia doubled of the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme (PTSS) for to assist Queensland patients who are living in rural and remote areas and need to travel for medical treatment. As well as an accommodation subsidy, the mileage subsidy has also been increased from 15 cents per kilometre to 30 cents per kilometre.

By the way, the standard mileage allowance for government employees last year was between 66 and 71 cents per kilometre.

Encouraging construction growth by amending the Sustainable Planning Act

What used to be the IPA (Integrated Planning Act) became the SPA (Sustainable Planning Act) in 2007 to bring consistent sustainable planning practices throughout Queensland. King Campbell’s amendment, passed in November 2012, is to remove the minimum dollar value from the process, making it easier and more attractive for the construction industry to operate in Queensland. Construction is another one of King Campbell’s four pillars


Construction is doing well in Queensland, but despite the Marine Industrial Estate in Maryborough, the Sarina Barracks, Masters Everton Park and Costco at Northlakes, it is the tower at 1 William Street that keeps drawing focus. It’s big, it’s seen as frivolous, and it’s costing over $650 million dollars – an amount of money which seems impossible to justify when so many necessary programmes are being cut.

Delivering a 10 year strategy to upgrade the Bruce Highway

A strategy is important. Without one of those you don’t know where you’re going. In all fairness, it’s just a strategy and the Bligh Government released a comprehensive 20 Year Masterplan for the Bruce Highway in July 2011.

King Campbell did however commit almost $400 million to fast-track works on some of the worst areas of the Bruce Highway. The Federal Government met that funding commitment with another $400 million to enable work to commence.


Transferring responsibility for South Bank and Roma St Parklands to Brisbane City Council


I can’t help but wonder if, as Brisbane Lord Mayor, King Campbell was always a bit peeved that the South Bank precinct and the Roma Street Parklands weren’t his playgrounds to control. In any case, he’s transferring responsibility to his then 2IC Lord Mayor Quirk, along with millions of dollars to cover the additional costs to Brisbane City Council. King Campbell and his team believe that “local councils are best placed to determine what is right for their local communities.” King Campbell has promised to have the same close working relationship with each of the other 72 local councils in Queensland. He'll be busy.

A note to those other councils: be careful. Never forget the Clem7. Always remember those City Cycles.


Reforming the Local Government Act to empower local councils

In 2008, when the previous Beattie Labor Government forced through its plans to amalgamate close to 70% of local councils, you’d think the world was ending. Playing on lingering bitterness over the amalgamations, King Campbell and Jeff Squeemey promised to de-amalgamate communities that wanted their old councils and old identities back. It’s a long, complex process of recommendations and hearings and consultations and polls, but ultimately, local residents will make the decision.

Of the 73 existing councils, only four will vote on whether to de-amalgamate. Congratulations to King Campbell for re-opening the door on this issue; Congratulations also to former Premiers Beattie and Bligh and their teams for forming such a stable local government structure.

But King Campbell’s Local Government Legislative Reforms are far wider reaching than the single question of de-amalgamation, and covers a range of subjects from Rates, Charges and Fees to Council Transparency and Accountability to major new powers granted to the Local Government Minister and to the State Government. How is it possible that I didn’t know about any of these changes before now?

Introducing a trial for self-directed funding for people with a disability

“Your Life Your Choice” is a great slogan. It’s King Campbell’s choice for his trial of “self-directed funding for people with a disability. Basically it means that people who have a disability will be able to choose the disability services they prefer and pay for them. Just keep in mind that this is a trial only, participation is voluntary, and it’s only one component of the Federal Government’s National Disability Support Scheme.

Queensland spends less per head of population on providing support to people with disabilities than any other state in Australia, and King Campbell's reluctance to commit to the NDIS is both wrong and embarrassing.


Completing the Skills and Training Taskforce and delivering the Government response

The Skills and Training Taskforce was established by King Campbell as a way of using vocational education and skills training to support the Four Pillar Economy. The Government has responded to the Taskforce’s Report, accepting 35 of 40 recommendations, many of which referred to fixing the TAFE system and bring their buildings and equipment up to date. That sounds sensible. It’s important to note that this is just a response to findings – it’s not an action plan, a commitment of funds or a strategy. Important things like details, costings and timing will be released some time during the first half of this year.

The same day as the Government Response was released, it was announced that 13 TAFE campuses will be closed, and another 12 campuses will become part of the merged Central Queensland University/Central Queensland Institute of TAFE.

Furthermore, months before the Taskforce presented its recommendations, King Campbell de-funded the Skilling Queenslanders for Work Initiative, which was an programme of grants-based projects for local community groups, councils and others to deliver training tailored to the needs of job-seekers in their area. Much of this work was with long-term unemployed, and people from groups that traditionally find it hard to gain work: older workers, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and ATSI jobseekers.

Amending the Weapons Act to introduce tougher sentencing for illegal firearms offences

This move is overdue, and possibly still too soft. In response to a wave of shootings in the South East corner of Queensland, King Campbell proposed tougher penalties and sentencing without any impact on the rights of firearm owners who abide by the law.

Finalising the recruitment of 300 new police officers

“Finalising” something tends to suggest that it’s not finished. It’s not done yet. As part of King Campbell’s commitment to bolster frontline services, 300 shiny new inexperienced police officers sounds like a good call – until you remember last week’s revelations from the new Police Commissioner Ian Stewart. An internal review has recommended axing 143 senior police officers (ranked Inspector or better) while balancing that with 300 new recruits. In addition, the current regional structure of eight policing areas will be redrawn and reduced to five areas. It will cut administrative staff requirements, but will it get more police into the community? Time will tell.

Amending the Proceeds of Crime Act to crack down on unexplained wealth

The Criminal Proceeds Confiscation (Unexplained Wealth and Serious Drug Offender Confiscation Order) Amendment Bill 2012 is a no-brainer is respect to criminal activity and an imposition when applied to lawful behaviours, but if it means that drug dealing scum doesn’t get to spend their lives floating up and down the Queensland coast on the squillion dollar yacht that they bought with the money they made from ruining lives, I can live with that.



Engaging service providers for boot camps to commence in 2013


Boot camp? Is Newmania raising an army to repel the cashed-up pale-skinned southerners from Schoolies’ Week? No? Then it must be King Campbell’s scheme to run early intervention programmes to work with young people and hopefully, reduce the incidence of youth crime in Queensland. It’s an idea that has been stolen from America, and it’s worth trialling, to see if it can be effective in Queensland. It’s a shame about all the other programmes for kids that this government has axed, from defunding the Queensland Youth Orchestra to axing the Volunteer Cadets programme that fed young volunteers into the SES, QFRS and QAS.



Commencing operation of hospital and health boards across the State

Restructuring Queensland Health and handing responsibility for health services to regional health boards comes under King Campbell’s drive to restore accountability in state government. It’s not so much restoring accountability as it is moving accountability. It’s as much as obfuscation as it is about transparency. There are seventeen Hospital and Health Service areas (HHSs) reporting into one central office which will co-ordinate the ‘shared services’ aspects of the department.

I’m not convinced that this structure is the right structure in terms of health service delivery, or managing costs. In fact, it looks needlessly complex. Having said that, after the parade of disasters befalling the Queensland Health Department over the last decade, from Jayant Patel to the Payroll fiasco, perhaps the best solution is to be seen to be making radical changes.

Beginning to address the health payroll disaster left by the previous Government

Ahhh yes, the Health Payroll Fiasco. In the land of Project Management, there are certain things that must be done, and done to death, particularly when working with new technology solutions. At the top of that list is something known as UAT: User Acceptance Testing. When the IT wizards have built and installed the new gizmo – a new version of Windows, a new control panel in the on-air control room, a new point-of-sale system, a new payroll system, an upgrade to a website – you call in a group of people who are subject matter experts, and you get them to test the system. In the case of Queensland Health and their new SAP Payroll system, the people who actually process payroll should have tested every single scenario they could think of and compared the results to what they expected to see. When any errors appear, these are sent back to the IT wizards to fix and that process continues until there are no more scenarios and no more errors. Then, and only then, does the business accept the finished product.


From what I understand, Queensland Health did not test the payroll system, or did not test it well enough, and the results are costing the state billions.

If after 9 months in Government this fiasco is just starting to be addressed now, I ask what took them so long. My approach would be to find an LNP member – and there’s no shortage of them – and make her Special Minister for Queensland Health Payroll Solutions. She’ll need four teams, including the UAT group.

1. A team to document what is really required by Q-Health on a day to day basis

2. A team of forensic payroll experts to calculate and document who’s been paid what, and the variances

3. A team of forensic IT gurus to unravel the SAP mess that currently exists

4. An IT development team to build the new system

Whoever is to blame for the decision to deploy the system without adequate testing and sign-off is already irrelevant. The priority should be in getting it fixed, and the fact that it’s taken nine months to even start on that is as unacceptable as the fiasco itself.

King Campbell must be aware that not all of these items deserve the tick he’s given them – and that’s just the sixteen items listed in his press release. Don’t you wonder why the communications team picked these sixteen achievements to highlight? Why are they more media-friendly than the other 130-plus points of the Six Month Action Plan?

Like Tony Abbott, King Campbell needs a new message for his people, because while he’s busy ticking off his six month miracle, the rest of us are just ticked off.