Tragicocomedia

The recent public outcry across the Australian community at large about the Abbott government’s budgetary decisions have revealed one of this nation’s core values – the belief in fairness and egalitarianism – which has been absent from the general zeitgeist for some time – most especially in the case of asylum seekers. The decisions of the Abbott Government to impose significant cuts on education, health and welfare have caused outrage, not simply because of the fact that these cuts constitute broken promises, nor because of the utter contempt and hypocrisy that have been revealed by their rhetoric that all must do the “heavy lifting” and that this is the “end of the age of entitlement” but because they so obviously target the disadvantaged and leave the wealthy largely unscathed. This is hardly surprising considering it has long been the modus operandi of neo-conservatives, yet the measures contained in this budget are so patently unfair that they go against traditionally upheld core Australian values, at the heart of which is egalitarianism. It is the kind of breach of trust Australians generally do not tolerate.

Unfairness, in “the land of the fair go” is, to put it bluntly, un-Australian. The term is here used with ironic awareness that it is most often falsely deployed by nationalists and narrow-minded knee-jerk patriots with the least interest in the greater good. Fairness, or egalitarianism might be an abstract idea which can be realised in many ways, yet in recent decades in Australia it has been associated with equal opportunity and equality of access to services and welfare. Australians have long boasted of their good fortune in not being like America, something people of all political persuasions talk about with pride: our free Medicare; our decent, if not perfect education system with its relatively equal access, our social safety net which, despite its holes, is broadly adequate and at times generous; our better safety and health regulations and more sober judgements on issues such as gun ownership. This position is even reflected in the way this debate is characterised in the media, where the question has been repeatedly asked as to whether Australia is in fact turning into America: a United States of Australia. We inherited our social system from the British, yet we look to America for comparison to see its virtues, and its virtues are the fairness and egalitarianism encapsulated in the idea of universal access.

Forcing people to pay $7 for a visit to the doctor is clearly unfair and no amount of rhetoric about “price signals” is going to change the public’s view of what is clearly an unnecessary and highly unwelcome tax. It is an outrageous imposition on low-income earners and those dependent on welfare, yet even more galling is the dismissive suggestion that it is merely the cost of “a couple of middies.” For a start, there are many disadvantaged Australians who don’t have the opportunity to enjoy a couple of middies, because finances are so tight, but irrespective of that, the failure to empathise with the situation of these people, or worse, care about it, is indicative of the age-old conservative blindness to the actual cost of living. A man with Joe Hockey’s assets and income is not well placed to contemplate the incapacity of people to pay this fee – though he should be, or else, he should not be in politics. If we can accept that Hockey is, in fact, capable of such empathy (bearing in mind his student protest days) yet has chosen to pursue this policy anyway, then it merely highlights the government’s indifference to fairness and equality.

The attack on unemployment benefits – cutting off payments after just six months – is not only unfair, especially in areas where work is not available, it is socially irresponsible and dangerous policy. On the ABC’s Q & A on May 21, a young Tasmanian man pointed out to Joe Hockey that there are roughly 18,000 job seekers in Tasmania, and around 500 jobs advertised monthly. How are those people expected to live when, still unable to find employment, their benefits are cut off? What kind of Australia are they trying to create? One in which crime and depression are more widespread? No one is suggesting it’s OK to exploit welfare, but to have a system which might deny support to people who genuinely need it is not remotely fair. You can’t have a watertight public system and feeding a few leeches is a small price to pay for security and dignity.

The public has already had a sniff of this government’s “un-Australian” tendencies with their unwillingness to save Holden and blithe indifference to a future foreign takeover of Qantas. This might not been the greenest polity in the world, yet they are deeply suspicious of the government’s lack of concern for the environment, most evident in their willingness to expose the Great Barrier Reef to risk. Irrespective of any cold logic or economic rationalism that might be argued in any of these cases, the gut response across the community is that Australia is losing its icons and its unique environment is directly threatened. Woe betide any prime minister who carelessly tinkers with the very soul of the nation and transgresses its core values.

This country might represent the richest and most decadent society in human history, but it is less stupid and complacent than Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey seem to believe. How do they think it looks to the average person when they move to cut billions from education and deregulate university fees, along with increasing the interest on student loans, in the light of the knowledge that Tony Abbott’s daughter was offered a scholarship that was clearly only granted on account of her wealthy, influential pater? How does it look when, on budget day, a day on which measures that would harm the livelihoods of millions of Australians were announced, the treasurer and finance minister are seen joking and smoking cigars? We are not a bunch of mugs, and, so far as doing the “heavy lifting” is concerned, such arrogant, hypocritical rhetoric will see this government picked up and tossed into Lake Burley-Griffin in the next election.

These are but a few examples, yet the unfairness of this government’s agenda is evident on many fronts. Why push to remove the mining tax, perpetuate tax breaks for the fossil fuel sector, but cut welfare payments and services? Why claim to be a government for indigenous Australians, then rip more than 500 million dollars out of funding for indigenous programs? Why push for a ludicrously generous and expensive paid parental leave scheme which will primarily advantage high income earners, but not invest in child-care whilst at the same time cutting family support? Why spend $12.4 billion on foreign-built fighter planes, while offering no support for local manufacturing? There are so many clear inconsistencies coming out of this budget, but they all add up to one very clear and alarmingly loud message – the rich pay once (maybe, if the levy passes the senate) while the rest of society pay forever with an unaffordable, elitist education system, more expensive health care, under-funded services, inadequate childcare, slow, expensive internet, and a bleak environmental future. This does not reflect Australian egalitarianism, in fact, it is the most blatantly arrogant form of elitism we have witnessed in decades.

The government’s program might seem less cruel and vindictive if it was coupled to a sound vision for Australia’s future, yet their performance so far makes it clear that they are clueless. The Coalition never had any real alternative policies in opposition, only oppositions and disingenuous arguments about how to fund things, whilst pretending they would uphold the significant social infrastructure which Labor had put in play – particularly Gonski and the NDIS. It is now clear that this government’s only purpose is deregulation – creating an environment in which their donors can operate freely without red and green tape getting in the way. This is especially evident in their attitude to science, climate policy and the environment. Why dismantle the Climate Commission, as though climate change is not a real and present threat? Why fail to appoint a science minister for the first time since the 1930s? Why shut down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, even when it’s turning a profit? The answer is simple – no matter how much they might pretend otherwise, Tony Abbott still thinks climate change is “crap” and the coalition have absolutely no vision for Australia’s environmental future.

What makes this all so stupid strategically is Tony Abbott’s failure to understand how greatly disliked he is across the community as a whole. He won the last election on the back of the most vicious and partisan propaganda campaign by the right wing media, and only because, despite their best efforts to sell him to the public, he was viewed incorrectly as the lesser of two evils. After such vitriolic rhetoric about lying and broken promises, after taking the moral high-ground so stridently against Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, he would have done well to adhere to those standards. By treating the public with such contempt, namely, in breaking almost every single promise he made prior to the election, he and his government have lost the small amount of credibility they had mustered. They now have no political capital left to spend whatsoever.

Even Tony Abbott’s one big win in “stopping the boats” has become a slow-burning, potentially metastasising cancer that will eat away at Australia’s international credibility and come back to bite them as the situation inevitably deteriorates. In “solving” the problem they have, ironically, removed the one issue on which they might have argued competence, thus nullifying any positive effects on public opinion. The mainstream media has already moved on, and, increasingly, the focus is on conditions on Manus Island – a human rights disaster which no amount of whitewashing can disguise.

The very nature of this government’s broken promises also significantly undermines their credibility, because they mostly serve to punish people in need, without any net positives for the majority of the population. The lie that these cuts will improve Australia’s position economically and save the country from perilous levels of debt quickly evaporates with a glance at the comparative statistics on debt levels across the OECD. More importantly, however, the cruelty and short-sightedness of these cuts is readily apparent when we consider that there are other, far more effective ways of generating wealth without restricting the grass-roots spending power of the lower middle and working classes, or imposing unreasonable charges and debts on the most vulnerable socio-economic groups.

The government’s attempts to sell this budget have been pathetic and contradictory to say the least – relying either on false dichotomies, blaming Labor, economic rationalist rhetoric and even bullying. One MP , George Christensen, had the temerity to suggest on Twitter that Australians should tour Asia and live like locals to put their “First World complaints” into perspective, going so far as to post a photo of a poverty-stricken street. The take-down was swift – “Aussie battlers should take a glimpse at LNP model for Australia’s future,” was one reply. Apart from the exploitative, disgusting sentiment expressed by Christensen, he might bear in mind that most Australians have visited Asia and already appreciate what they have and will fight to keep it. He might also bear in mind that many of us have been to Scandinavia too, and know only too well how much better things can be with even fewer resources if only the government has the balls to tax industry properly and make the people it was elected to represent its priority.

But of course, in reality, this is class warfare pure and simple. The government has been using a false premise to wage ideological warfare on behalf of its benefactors. The “incompetence” and “profligate spending” of Labor, resulting in a “budget crisis” are rhetorical constructs of right-wing ideologues. Yes, Labor at times appeared shambolic on account of their lack of internal discipline, yes their PR team is likely the most incompetent in history, but at least their policies (with the very clear and obvious exceptions of cuts to welfare for single mothers – the greatest betrayal of their heartland – and their pathetic and cruel policies on asylum seekers) were primarily geared towards providing the essential hard and soft infrastructure Australia requires to function as a progressive, competitive and fair society: the National Broadband Network, the Gonski School funding program, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Carbon Pricing Scheme, the Minerals Resource Rent Tax among many others.

These are in some cases expensive, but arguably necessary policies, designed to promote fairness, equality and to raise revenue from areas that are inadequately taxed or require taxation to curb current practises. At least when Labor broke their promises about the Carbon Pricing Scheme it was, arguably, for a good cause. We do need to reduce our emissions and make an effective transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Other programs for which Labor have been pilloried, such as the Home Insulation Scheme, smack of a bad case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No one doubts that the deaths of those installing the insulation were an unmitigated tragedy and should have been prevented, yet the policy itself was implemented with sound intentions. Do we really need a royal commission, especially one that is ideologically motivated and has siphoned funding from the royal commission into child abuse? Labor made mistakes, but arguably their efforts were more broadly in the public interest – more egalitarian – than those of the present government, which are abundantly non-egalitarian.

The real problem underlying Labor’s program – a problem which still prevails – was not how much they spent, but how little they taxed. If they truly believed these programs were necessary, then it was simply a question of raising revenue to pay for them. There were, and still are, plenty of ways to do that without cutting anything. In a recent article in The Guardian, Luke Mansillo outlined six means by which the government could raise revenue totalling $136.5 billion dollars: through removing unfair superannuation subsidies which are skewed in favour of the wealthiest; increasing taxation on the mining industry; abolishing fuel subsidies for the fossil fuel industry; defunding private schools; introducing more progressive income taxes and abolishing negative gearing.

It is worth pointing out just how little mining is taxed – at present, it effectively equates to 13% . This amounts to revenue totalling around $17.6 billion from an industry that was worth $135.6 billion in 2010-11. As Mansillo points out, Norway taxes its industry at a whopping 78%, and it is a thriving, going concern. With a tax of 50% on industry profits, Australia could raise around $67 billion – single-handedly wiping out the deficit and paving the way for a future of generously funded public services. How long is this rort going to continue?

What is most astonishing about the present debate is that it focuses squarely and, to some degree appropriately, on the cruelty and suffering inherent in the budget proposals, but has not as yet centred around alternative measures of raising revenue. Why aren’t we discussing how much more we need to tax the mining sector? Why are we merely imposing a one-off levy on high income earners, rather than increasing income tax for high earners and thus locking this revenue stream into the taxation structure? Do we honestly buy the redundant argument that this will cripple the economy and drive mining investment away?

Of course, with the next election still two and a half years away, Tony Abbott might just get away with it. The bounce for Labor will be unsustainable if they fail to remove the taint of their recent time in office and if Bill Shorten remains as uncharismatic as he is at present. The Greens and Palmer United are more likely to be the longer-term beneficiaries of the present storm – a storm which might herald the beginning of a new politics in Australia. After all, this has been the most volatile period politically since the sacking of the Whitlam government. Are we entering a new era of one-term governments, a far more diverse senate and the greater presence of minor parties in the Lower House?

One thing is for sure, Abbott must resign as minister for women. Winkgate has made his position untenable. It might seem trivial to some, but, wink aside, the contemptuous and disrespectfully glib smirk and body language expressed during the conversation, along with the patronising tone of voice, perfectly illustrate precisely why so many women are so suspicious of Tony Abbott and find him so contemptible. The very fact that there is only a single woman in Tony Abbott’s cabinet sends a clear enough message already.

Right now as Bomber Harris once said, quoting Hosea: “they that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind” and Tony Abbott and co had better batten down the hatches, for they have been flagrantly tossing their seed into the wind for some time. Australians have traditionally punished those they see as elitist or arrogant, those who don’t believe in a fair go. There will be no exceptions for Abbott if he doesn’t win back the public’s trust. I for one, most certainly hope that he fails in that endeavour.

Read Full Post »

I recently wrote a piece in response to Kevin Rudd’s return as prime minister of Australia, in which I endorsed him as someone with the potential to be a good prime minister. Over the course of the past few weeks, however, my disillusionment with Rudd has reached such a point that I can’t now express the same sentiments. Let me be clear that this has absolutely nothing to do with any preference for the conservative opposition, a bunch of loathsome worms, but with a sense of moral repugnance at what Labor has ostensibly come to represent in recent times. It is in their handling of the issue of asylum seekers that I have felt most moral outrage, but also in their lack of spine on certain matters of policy.

An old friend and long time Labor supporter recently published a piece in which he stated that the Labor party deserved to be repudiated at this election on account of their inhumane policies on this front, and I wholeheartedly agree. That the opposition policy is no less deserving of repudiation changes nothing – it simply means that both parties, or rather all three, including the Nationals of the opposition coalition – deserve repudiation. In a nutshell, no one should be rewarded for taking a heartless and hardline approach with the issue of refugees and asylum seekers.

It’s a complex question. Should we attempt to deter asylum seekers who have a right to seek asylum? If so, how do we establish an effective deterrent, whilst at the same time maintaining international obligations to which we are bound under the refugee convention? The problem is that in approaching this question both parties have focussed solely on the question of deterrent, factoring their “humanitarian concerns” only with regard to “stopping the boats” on account of the number of drownings at sea. This in itself is a worthwhile goal – no one wants to see people drown and nor does anyone think it is appropriate for people smugglers to put refugees into boats that are not seaworthy. From this point of view the idea of “stopping the boats” might seem almost admirable, yet the sad truth is that it is all about keeping the bloody wogs out.

When Rudd returned as Prime Minister, it was perhaps inevitable that, with such a short time frame until the election, his priority would be to “neutralise” the issues that were crippling Labor. First of those was Gillard herself, through no fault of her own, the victim of an increasingly hostile press who never had a chance to establish a positive narrative of good governance, despite an impressive record of legislation.

Second for Rudd was neutralising the “Carbon Tax,” another embarrassing failure for the government. The very fact that the government itself began referring to it as the “Carbon Tax” is indicative of how much they were overwhelmed by the negative narrative surrounding it. Julia Gillard had already tarnished the issue with her fatally stupid promise that there would be no carbon tax, turning a moral high ground positive into a broken promise nightmare. Within a few days of returning to office, Rudd effectively quashed the tax by switching a year early to the floating carbon price – a wholly ineffectual licence to pollute. Now, in another pathetic backdown, Rudd has said that Labor never had a mandate for the carbon pricing scheme. Yet, in effect, Labor already had a mandate for carbon pricing as it was on the cards in the 2007 election, which they won handsomely. It’s just that Rudd chickened out once he failed to get his policy through the senate in 2010. A government’s job is to govern – they must make decisions that best suit the public interest, short or long term, and not all of those decisions can be popular. Are we supposed to believe that any decision they make in the course of their term that was not flagged during the election campaign requires a mandate? Labor should own their policies if they have any merit and stop apologising. That is leadership. And yet, in the sorry and apologetic way in which they went about constructing the carbon pricing scheme and the mining tax, they came up with policies not worth owning.

Not quite last, and certainly not least, was Rudd’s attempt to neutralise asylum policy – “stopping the boats”. He was quick out of the blocks in promoting his hardline PNG Solution, denying anyone who comes by boat to Australia the right to seek asylum in Australia – instead being re-settled in Papua New Guinea. This might seem to some like a coup for handwashing pragmatism – keeping the problem entirely offshore and denying asylum seekers any incentive to come here. Other things aside, this policy smacks of a mix of colonial superiority – the idea that no one could possibly want to be re-settled in PNG and would thus abandon their plans to cross the sea smacks of grotesque arrogance – and gross irresponsibility in refusing to accept legitimate refugees into our wealthy, safe country, and instead fobbing them off to a developing country with one of the highest rates of rape, murder and violence in the world and drastic levels of social inequality and dysfunction. If this isn’t bad enough, the refugees are, in the meantime, to be housed in crowded tent camps on poorly serviced tropical islands like Nauru, waiting potentially years to be processed and suffering all manner of anguish and indignity in the meantime.

Yes there’s an argument that allowing onshore processing or settlement in the community might encourage more asylum seekers to risk their lives in boats. There are also pragmatic and economic questions to consider. Can Australia support any further intake of refugees? Outer suburban Australia, in contrast to inner city electorates, has largely been suspicious of and hostile to the influx of refugees into Australia. Much of this reflects some degree of neglect by state governments in providing services and infrastructure in places such as western Sydney, where hostility to asylum seekers is strongest. There is a misguided and incorrect perception in the community that asylum seekers get a better deal than locals and that the government favours these groups. The numbers themselves are not significant. Despite arguments by the government that Australia takes its fair share of refugees, on a per capita basis, we are actually ranked 69^th in the world and 49^th when considering the total number of refugees on a yearly basis. This rather belies the idea that we are drowning in refugees. Jordan, with 73 refugees per thousand people, is drowning in refugees. Australia averages 1 refugee per thousand people.

Yet of course, it’s not really a practical or an economic question. It is a moral question. How do we treat people in need and what do we do to protect the vulnerable? Sending them offshore to a tent-camp hell-hole is utterly un-Australian in my books. Whatever happened to our generosity and hospitality? And yes, many refugees might well turn out to be economic migrants, but why not take them at their word and allow them to live and work in the community until proven otherwise? Or are we afraid that they might take our jobs and fuck all our women?

Irrespective of their pissweak attitude in certain policy areas, and equally irrespective of their policies which I strongly support – the Gonski education reforms, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the National Broadband network and Denticare to name a few, this wilful demonising of asylum seekers is not something I can support, and I can’t support a government that expresses these attitudes and implements such a ghastly deterrent. This is not good enough from Labor and nor is it in line with my understanding of their core beliefs and principles. As Tom Clark recently wrote:

If you believe the policy of deterrence is immoral – clearly, not everybody does – then you simply cannot give your vote or your money to federal candidates of the ALP. You can argue they are victims of history, naively caught in another prohibition folly; you can argue their approach is less appalling than the Liberals, although this is now a very hard claim to sustain; but I don’t see how you can admit Phillip Adams’ case that it is worth tolerating because Labor is doing good work in other areas. Unconscionable wrong is unconscionable wrong — or else it is not a moral question after all.

For a while there I was flirting with the idea of voting Labor, as I once used to do with regularity – anything to stop the conservatives getting back in – but not now. Only the Greens have shown sufficient humanity in this ugly, quite frankly, disgusting debate and it is they who will be getting my vote. Of course, in our two-party preferred system a vote for the Greens is usually a tacit vote for Labor, and a Labor victory is still my preferred outcome, over the wholly inappropriately named “Liberals”. Yet, as I said above, anyone who pushes this kind of dog-whistle politics is not eligible for my vote.

I conclude with a song by Waiting for Guinness, which pretty much sums up the irony of Australia’s present stance in relation to refugees. Written during the Howard era, it is perhaps even more relevant now than ever – because, don’t kid yourselves otherwise, this is really all about “keeping out the riff raff.”

Keeping out the Riff Raff – Waiting for Guinness

I’ll tell you a tale,

about the history of an old floating gaol

about a fact that’s well reported,

the place where riff-raff were transported.

And so they all swam ashore,

murdering thieves and the poor,

a nation made of riff raff,

a nation made of strangers from afar.

So in order to last

we wrote a story and extinguished the past

and then we made a few decisions

and put the locals into missions

and then the governing few

set up an orderly queue

to filter out the riff raff

to filter out the strangers from afar

That’s why we’re keeping out the riff raff

locking them all away

sending them into darkness

back around the bay

you’ll be re-elected

it’s as clear as day

just keep the whingers in the gutter

and the riff raff away.

We’re waiting in line

We wait here while they count our numbers

And keep our eyes out for queue jumpers

Wait for instructions from the bunkers

Keeping our big eyes wide

Keeping the pigs by our side

Keeping out the riff raff

Keeping out the strangers from afar

And we’re all keeping out the riff raff

locking them all away

sending them into darkness

back around the bay

you’ll be re-elected

it’s as clear as day,

cos if they sew their lips together,

you can’t hear what they say.

Because they’re taking our jobs and fucking our women

and they’re taking our jobs and rooting all our women

and they’re taking our jobs and fucking our women

taking our jobs and rooting all our women

repeat (increasingly hysterically).

Read Full Post »

One of the first things I ever posted on this blog, in November 2007, was an expression of my sentiments on the eve of the election which saw the Labor party re-elected and Kevin Rudd become prime minister of Australia. At the time I was ecstatic after eleven and a half years of conservative rule under the much-loathed (by me) John Howard. I’m not about to go over that old ground, suffice to say that I disagreed not just with his fundamental beliefs and policies, but also the tone of his leadership – a brand of dangerously incendiary, flag-waving nationalism that fuelled Australia’s undercurrent of xenophobia and selfishness. Seeing John Howard defeated in that election made me want to return to Australia. I felt a renewed hope that this country might not be so bad after all.

When Rudd became prime minister, his popularity was unprecedented in Australian history. Indeed, he achieved the highest ever positive ratings in polls regarding satisfaction with his leadership and preferred prime minister. It seems almost impossible to believe then that, three years later, in June 2010, he was dumped by his own party in a bloodless coup and replaced with Julia Gillard, the then deputy PM. Rudd’s popularity had certainly fallen considerably in that time, largely on account of the clumsy implementation of otherwise good policy and his failure to get both the mining tax and carbon emissions trading scheme through parliament, yet most leaders lose much of their shine in their first term and come good in the ensuring election. Rudd is such a good campaigner and had, at that time, enough feathers in his cap to defeat Tony Abbott convincingly.

Yet it was not merely a knee-jerk reaction from the Labor party in the face of increasingly bad polls, it was, apparently, also on account of Rudd’s leadership style within the party. Rudd was said to have been dictatorial, inconsiderate, both disorganised and a control-freak, and not adequately consultative. And there were other reasons which say much about the structure of the Labor party – Rudd was unaligned factionally and was often at odds with the unions. This was very much a part of the recipe for his public popularity, yet it did not endear him to many in caucus who felt he was somehow not a  true Labor party member on account of his lacking more traditional affiliations. The Labor party had seen that he was an election winner on account of his appeal to a broad section of the electorate and his personable public style, yet once his popularity was called into question publicly, his lack of broad support within the party left him exposed and they dropped him like a hot potato.

I was, it must be said, totally and utterly surprised when this happened and had not seen it coming. How could a party who had been in the wilderness for eleven and a half years, politically assassinate the very man who had got them so emphatically back into government, before he had even served his first term? I was confused in my loyalties, because I had always wanted Julia Gillard to be the leader of the Labor party and was extremely pleased to see the elevation of Australia’s first female prime minister, yet felt deeply sorry for Kevin Rudd and considered the manner of his ousting to be unfair. I failed to realise at the time just how destabilising this would be and, considering the policy vacuum and low standards on the other side of the house, figured the Labor party would be returned to power in the ensuing election. Ultimately, they were, but as a minority government with the terrible taint of illegitimacy.

In many ways, replacing Kevin Rudd with Julia Gillard was the stupidest tactical move the Labor party has ever made in office. I am an admirer of Julia Gillard and think she performed admirably as prime minister. She is tough and intelligent and succeeded in pushing some very important and progressive legislation through parliament in one of the toughest parliamentary environments in Australian political history. The sheer amount of legislation is staggering – over 500 pieces in a hung parliament, all of which had to be negotiated – but it is the big ticket items – the Gonski education funding reforms, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Minerals and Resources tax, the Carbon pricing scheme and the continuation of the implementation of the National Broadband Network which will go down in history as most significant – and, indeed, divisive.

Indeed, Gillard succeeded where Rudd had failed, under even more difficult circumstances, yet these successes often came at a considerable cost to the integrity of the policy. The Carbon pricing scheme has proven deeply flawed on account of the collapsing price of carbon on international carbon markets, whilst the mining tax lost so many teeth in the process of being re-negotiated that it raised only a negligible amount of revenue, far short of the what it was supposed to achieve to fund Labor’s other projects.

Despite various set-backs and public distrust, Julia Gillard’s popularity as a leader remained stronger than that of the opposition leader Tony Abbott’s for much of her prime ministership, whilst that of the Labor party gradually languished. Yet she also created many problems for herself with misguided and unreasonable promises, such as the naïve and frankly stupid promise not to introduce a “carbon tax”, despite clear intentions to do so, and the promise to achieve a budget surplus by 2013. The carbon tax issue is a classic example of how Labor lost control of the narrative. What should have been a positive example of Labor taking the moral highground and acting in accordance with the wishes of the public – remember how much Rudd suffered for failing to introduce this legislation – this issue rapidly became the acrimonious curse of a broken promise. Any sense of the righteousness of the policy was lost in the ensuing bun fight.

Ultimately, however, it was Labor’s handling of the issue of people smuggling, refugees and asylum seekers that brought the most discredit to both the Prime Minister and the party. Faced with a rapid increase in the number of boats carrying asylum seekers coming to Australia, the Labor party was caught between a rock and a hard place and seen to be making policy on the fly, without due consideration or consultation. This is of course a very complex and logistically difficult issue, as much as it is a moral and humanitarian issue, and Labor handled things poorly on all counts. From the perspective of the right, they were far too soft in failing to “stop the boats.” From the perspective of the left, they were far too draconian in insisting on off-shore processing and then adding insult to injury by “housing” refugees in a tent-camp hell-hole. From the perspective of anyone looking on, they were hopelessly incompetent and morally bankrupt.

I’ve been pretty disgusted with the attitudes of both sides of parliament on this issue, and whilst I don’t have all the answers myself, believe humanitarian concerns must trump all others. Of course I want to stop the boats too – because no one should be putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers who stick them in decrepit and overcrowded vessels and send them to their deaths on the high seas – but that we should show such a callous lack of generosity in looking out for those who do come into our care and ask for our help, makes me sick to the core. Whatever happened to the “fair go” for fuck’s sake? Can not one of the world’s richest countries afford to find a place for more refugees in our community – especially when so many good and kind-hearted Australians would be willing to dedicate their time and money to helping them?

To further this digression, it is astonishing how this has become one of the biggest political issues in the country. Yes, it is a moral issue of epic proportions, make no mistake, but to hear people out there echoing Tony Abbott’s shrill wailing about “stopping the boats” – not because people are drowning, but because we don’t like “queue-jumpers” who abuse our hospitality – is alarming. There is little difference between this mentality and the “taking our jobs and fucking our women” paranoia of traditional xenophobia. How many of those voters’ lives have actually been affected by this issue? Almost none, I would venture.

So yes, Julia Gillard struggled immensely with a degree of vituperation usually reserved for people who poison their children. Much of this was legitimate disappointment with policy, but there is no doubt her gender played a significant role. Men are far less fair to women once they decide they don’t like them, and each of Gillard’s mistakes or inconsistencies only amplified the perception amongst many men that she was a “stupid, incompetent bitch,” a variation of which quote I’ve overheard many times in reference to her. With the increasingly rotten albatross of illegitimacy hanging around her neck after the manner of her elevation to the top job, the perception that she didn’t really win the 2010 election anyway, and the widespread belief that she was a tool of the union movement and a product of the “faceless” men, the powerbrokers of the Labor right who had orchestrated similar coups in New South Wales, there was always a lingering distaste in the electorate and potent ammunition for the opposition.

Julia Gillard also suffered considerably from internal destabilisation. Most of this came from supporters of Kevin Rudd or from Rudd himself, who never relinquished the limelight nor accepted his deposition. There were leaks, rumours and the backhanded compliments of his tepid and often deliberately ambiguous expressions of support for his usurper. His failed challenges for the leadership – one in which he was soundly defeated and a second in which he never fronted – caused considerable damage to Labor’s vote and Gillard’s popularity. Indeed, support for the party and PM tanked during and after both of these challenges and only added to Labor’s woes. Whilst Kevin Rudd failed to reclaim the leadership on those occasions, the cumulative damage would eventually make it possible for him to reclaim the office that was taken from him.

Throughout all this, Julia Gillard never flinched nor showed any sign of personal weakness. She was tough as nails and exuded a confidence that is a testament to her fighting spirit. There is no doubt that she came under a dramatically increased level of pressure and scrutiny on account of the tenuous nature of Labor’s hold on power as a minority government, and her being a woman. I said years ago that Australia was too immature to have a female prime minister and feel vindicated after having witnessed the shameful way in which she has been pilloried by both the media and the electorate. There is no doubt that Julia Gillard was subjected to questions and attacks that would not have been directed at a male prime minister, and whereas she was hailed as a wonderfully strong feminist icon by the international community when she spoke out against the evident sexism in parliament and the media, in Australia she was considered to be making excuses and hiding behind these assertions as a means of deflecting attention from her unpopular policy and underlying illegitimacy.

I can’t recall such vituperation and lack of respect for a prime minister, and it seemed largely at odds with the narrative of the economy or the success of policy. How could a prime minister be so unpopular when presiding over such a successful economy in its 21^st consecutive year of growth which had grown 14% in the five years since Labor came to power? A nation in which real wealth was slowly but surely growing on account of low inflation and wage increases increases above inflation; a nation with 5% unemployment; a nation which hardly blinked while the rest of the developed world fell into deep recession, high unemployment and austerity-driven stagflation, a crisis that has now lasted longer than the Great Depression. It disappoints me to think how unaware or ungrateful Australians are of their good fortune, both in living in such a lucky country, and in having sufficiently good governance not only to survive the Global Economic Crisis, but to thrive in it.

Yet, of course, there is much complexity to Julia Gillard’s unpopularity, but underlying everything was the sense of illegitimacy that came with the manner of her elevation. Katharine Murphy at the Guardian recently quoted the Irish existentialist Samuel Beckett – “the end is in the beginning, and yet you go on.” Labor’s tactical folly in failing to see how tainted her office would become through the “undemocratic” ousting of Kevin Rudd was their biggest mistake of modern times, short of putting Mark Latham in charge. Ironically, of course, in removing Kevin Rudd, the Labor party was exercising its own internal democracy, and yet its actions revealed that whilst we ostensibly vote for parties and not leaders in Australia, in reality the public very much chooses on account of the person of the party leader. Take away their choice and you, in effect, disenfranchise them. In August 2010, the people took back their right to exercise democracy and showed their displeasure in no uncertain terms. Yet this did not satisfy them. Nothing short of the re-installation of Kevin Rudd as prime minister would close the wound. Now, exactly three years and three days after Julia Gillard became prime minister, the party has acknowledged its error of judgement and handed the crown back to Kevin Rudd.

Wednesday was one of the most extraordinary days in the history of Australian politics. It began with the dramatic announcement of the retirement of two prominent independent members of Parliament – Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor – both of whom came especially to prominence in the wake of the last federal election in August 2010. The result of that election was the loss of the Labor party’s majority and a lengthy series of negotiations to form a minority government with the support of the Greens and independents.

For a while there it seemed as though the conservative opposition might have snatched power, but fortunately Julia Gillard was able to convince Oakeshott and Windsor to support her agenda over Tony Abbott’s. This was a coup of sorts in that both of these independents occupied traditionally conservative seats, and it seemed, at the time, to be a testament both to Gillard’s capacity as a negotiator, and also the fact that, looked at objectively, Labor’s policy was far superior to that of the jokers sitting opposite. Windsor and Oakeshott were the “queen-makers,” and both men impressed me with their refreshingly non-partisan rationality and apparently careful consideration of the nation’s interests over their personal interest, especially as their support for a Labor government went against the wishes of many in their electorates.

So the day began with a farewell to these two prominent independents – fine examples of how important it can be to keep the doors of parliament open to those not affiliated with any of the major parties. They likely made as many enemies as friends, but a large portion of the Australian public have shown appropriate respect for the way they have conducted themselves – with apparent good sense and plain-spoken straightforwardness. Though, it must be said, Oakeshott certainly does bang on a bit.

These resignations soon paled into nothing, however, when it became clear that on this second-last day of parliament before the September 14 election, Kevin Rudd was not only moving to challenge for the party leadership, but that he had the numbers. The so-called Ruddmentum had become so great, so inexorable, that the Labor party had no choice but to accept its inevitability. Realising what was afoot, with rumours of a petition circulating in caucus to call for a vote on the leadership, Julia Gillard called a 7 PM ballot, and the rest is history. Roughly an hour later, Rudd emerged as leader of the Labor party and Prime Minister elect, having secured 57 votes to Gillard’s 45. Six prominent cabinet members, including deputy PM and treasurer Wayne Swan, promptly handed in their resignations. Just under three months before the now doubtful election date, it seemed a change of government had already taken place.

So, what to make of all this? Firstly, it’s bloody exciting. As sad as I am to see Gillard go, and what her treatment by the public says about this country, I’m happy that the whole nature of this election has now changed. Under Gillard, there was no doubt that the Labor Party was facing catastrophic defeat in the upcoming election. They stood to lose almost all their seats in Queensland and western Sydney, along with a whole range of seats across the board. With their primary vote at a miserable 29% and the two party-preferred offering equally discomforting margins of 16 and 18 percentage points, not even the most optimistic Labor pollsters believed there was any hope of avoiding a colossal defeat. Such is life, such is politics. The party quite simply could not go to the election with Julia Gillard on the ticket.

This is also a victory for democracy, of sorts. In the public imagination, where polls have unceasingly shown very high levels of support for Kevin Rudd as an alternative prime minister, and that voting intentions would change were he re-installed as Labor leader, there has long been a perception that democracy was taken out of their hands. I don’t generally like “populism” and it is a dirty word for a reason, because these days it is associated with the base, ill-informed desires of the  “lowest common denominator.” Yet there is no denying that in this case, the public has had a legitimate grievance.

Despite deep reservations about how he has conducted himself over the past three years, I am pleased to see Rudd back in office. Only Kevin Rudd is capable of changing the narrative of Australian politics and only Kevin Rudd is capable of giving Labor a chance of re-election. No one was listening when Julia Gillard or Wayne Swan spoke, irrespective of the content or quality of their message. Consequently, Labor could never articulate its successes. This wasn’t helped by an apparently incompetent PR machine – after all, who could fail to sell a mining tax, which creams off the profits of the super rich to fund important public infrastructure and welfare projects, which the public support? – yet in reality, so unpopular had Labor’s leadership become that it no longer mattered what they said.

Kevin Rudd will have a willing audience to whom he can, in his broad-church manner, make a case for Labor’s many successes and its proven record of progressiveness. He has the charisma and rhetorical skill to change the narrative and bring the public debate back to questions of policy, where those opposite will be found seriously wanting. More importantly, however, he also has the moral high-ground. This might sound ludicrous in the light of his deceitful “white-anting” of Gillard’s prime ministership, yet the public, in truth, don’t give a stuff about that, because they have always hailed him as a martyr. Kevin Rudd was wronged, the people were wronged, and now that has again been made right – that is the dominant public narrative which will trump perceptions that he has behaved deceitfully. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, and Kevin Rudd is seen to be the latter.

I’m aware of how unfashionable it is to support Kevin Rudd in my own circles. I understand all the reservations and disappointments of many of my friends and peers, most of whom are good lefties with a strong social conscience, and many of whom are women who feel understandably disgusted by how Julia Gillard was treated. I too feel some discomfort about Kevin Rudd’s so-called “humility” and his at times insufferable smugness. But it was Rudd who won the great victory in 2007, it was Rudd who made the apology to the Stolen Generation, it was Rudd who got us through the GFC and it was Rudd who deserved a chance to lead the Labor party to election in 2010. I can hardly blame him for retaining his ambition – he was cut off far too soon and deserved more of a fair go himself. He should have been disciplined from within, warned that his style was alienating people and making internal enemies, not summarily dumped in a midnight coup.

I also genuinely believe that Kevin Rudd will make a good prime minister. There are expectations that he will strengthen the mining tax and make changes to carbon pricing to make it more effective in the long-term, and he has made clear his support for same-sex marriage. Otherwise, what we have is continuity in regards to most other Labor policy, which I broadly support, with some serious exceptions. The difference is that, whilst Rudd has one of the longest shots at winning election in political history, in his case, it is actually possible, whereas in Julia Gillard’s – dream all you like – it most certainly was not. If Kevin Rudd can keep the Liberals out of power, or at least check the degree of power they have upon entering office and save the Labor party from political annihilation, then that is enough for me to endorse him.

Yes, this all sorta stinks, and despite having voted Green for years now, the Labor party is the only credible chance the left have of governing in Australia, which means they have my tacit support. I was for many years a strong believer in the Labor party and though they have disappointed me many times, they will always be my preferred choice in our rather limiting, two-party preferred system. At least now I have some hope, both for their future, and, though it sounds overly dramatic, for ours. And so I say, Go Kevin! And now, can we at last drop all the bullshit and have a real policy debate…

Read Full Post »

This article was published on Al Jazeera’s website on 31 Jan, 2009. I must confess I was rather pleased to see it on the front page ; ) Unfortunately, however, I accidentally sent the wrong draft, which lacked a few minor changes and additions. The correct draft appears below.

Hope for Realpolitik?

The seductive powers of Barack Obama’s rhetoric are well noted. Throughout the primary contest and presidential campaign his stirring speeches captivated millions, both inside and outside of America. Yet, what made his core message of hope and change so entrancing, was not merely the skill of his rhetoric, but the growing perception that behind this message lay a great pragmatism, common sense, and an inspiring work ethic. For all his uplifting talk, Barack Obama comes across as a practitioner of realpolitik.

The Oxford English dictionary defines realpolitik as “politics based on realities and material needs, rather than morals or ideas.” President Obama’s cabinet choices reflect this. Whereas George W. Bush largely surrounded himself with Neo-con ideologues, (or rather, it might be said, they put forward Bush as their spokesman) Obama has selected a capable team of qualified people. The message is clear – the problems faced by the United States and the world are huge and Obama is serious about finding solutions.

It is unfortunate that the same cannot be said of the situation in Israel and Palestine. Rarely, in recent years, has realpolitik had a look-in. To the outside observer, there seems only one viable option – the two-state solution born of a land-for-peace deal, including East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital. The occupation which began in 1967 is a ceaseless source of resentment amongst Palestinians, and a powerful spur to violent resistance. The ending of this occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state will not solve all the region’s problems, but it is a clear pre-requisite for peace. This is the practical solution; it is realpolitik.

With an election on February 10, Israel seems poised to place its trust once again in the right, in the form of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party. Both are in favour of a land for peace settlement, but reject Palestinian demands for East Jerusalem as capital of a Palestinian state. Sadly, it is unlikely that any process will move forward without this issue on the agenda.

In an interview in Yedioth Ahronoth last September, outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert admitted that Israel must accept a land for peace deal. “We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories.” Olmert also acknowledged that Israel must consider relinquishing parts of East Jerusalem. Whilst Kadima party head, Tzipi Livni and Labor Party chairman, Ehud Barak have suggested they are amenable to a two-state solution with Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, both are unlikely to wield much influence in the aftermath of the election.

Whatever the case, such sentiments have not translated into action in recent years. Far from it. The West Bank holds no less than 149 Israeli settlements, with an estimated population of 460,000. New construction is underway in 88 settlements, in which population growth is thrice that of Israel proper. More than 38 per cent of the West Bank is now occupied by settlements, roadblocks, outposts, military compounds, nature reserves and settler roads closed to Palestinian traffic. This is an ever-present source of humiliation; an open sore for the Palestinians.

Strategically, Israel’s policy can only have one purpose: to make a more compelling case for the retention of as much land as possible in any final settlement. Indeed, this strategy has a name – “facts on the ground”, and the policy is facilitated by cheap and easy loans from the Israeli government for those wishing to settle. Were Israel at all serious about relinquishing this territory in a peace deal, then one might expect a reversal of settler expansion – if only to avert the internal upheaval the dismantling of even a minority of these settlements would entail. Instead, however, colonisation of the West Bank continues apace. Even were the Obama administration to cut US $1 Billion in loan guarantees to Israel, in accordance with pre-conditions that the money not be invested in settlements, as has been recently speculated, it seems unlikely that Israel will reverse its current policy. This is not a viable road to peace.

It goes without saying that the Palestinians, too, must make concessions; they too must practice realpolitik. Firstly, Hamas must recognise Israel – an Israel bounded by its pre-1967 perimeter. Not to do so is pure intransigence, and utterly impractical. Israel is there to stay – the only remaining questions regard its size and shape. There is no questioning the folly, and, in many ways, the counterproductive, almost counter-intuitive provocation of Israel by Hamas militants. Like a punch-drunk boxer desperate to salvage some pride and a last paycheck, Hamas has not acted in its best interests. Hamas must rein in its militants and dismantle its infrastructure of violence; it must walk the path of the IRA; strengthening its political arm, whilst discouraging violent resistance.

UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard concluded in his January 2008 report, that Palestinian terrorism is the “inevitable consequence” of Israeli occupation. While Palestinian terrorist acts are deplorable, “they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation.” Power brings responsibility. The more powerful a state, the greater the consequences when it acts. To consider that there is any equivalence between the actions of Hamas militants and the IDF is ludicrous. Israel must act first by accepting its illegal appropriation of Palestinian land is the principal obstacle. “In other situations, for example Namibia, peace has been achieved by the ending of occupation, without setting the end of resistance as a precondition.”

Israel is an occupying power and to act contrary to this truth is not to play realpolitik. The Northern Island peace process was a victory for and because of realpolitik. It was successful because all major players made the compromises that had to be made. It survived through the admirable restraint shown by all sides in the face of intransigence. In the Occupied Territories, land is the principal grievance. At the price of short to medium-term political upheaval, Israel can guarantee a long-term peace and viable local economy for both Israelis and Palestinians.

It doesn’t matter that this is no easy solution. The status quo is far harder, far less agreeable. One shudders to think of the scale of disadvantage faced by children growing up in Gaza now; of the young men and women whose education and social development has been retarded by ceaseless deprivation, fear and anxiety. No child, Palestinian or Israeli, should be subject to gunfire, sonic booms, rocket attacks, nor should they have their doors kicked in and their few possessions destroyed. Yet, it is mostly Palestinians who do the suffering; the hapless victims of colonialism, apartheid, disproportionate military aggression, and, one must add, poor leadership and administration. These people need jobs, food, housing and most of all, hope.

How Obama will choose to engage with Israel, and whether or not he will be willing to engage with Hamas, with, or without conditions, remains to be seen. In the meantime we can only hope the ceasefire holds and wait for new initiatives, for a new Israeli government. Pragmatism must overcome ideology. Now is the time for realpolitik.

http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/A_hope_for_realpolitik.html

Read Full Post »

Elections can be rather polarising affairs across all spectra – at a social and personal level. I tend to become rather short-tempered during campaigns, responding with at times intense emotion to the events as they unfold, generally through fear of a conservative victory. Without any true party of the left in Australia, however, every election seems to be a conservative victory, irrespective of whether or not the Liberal or Labor Party wins. That said, there is little point in disguising my hatred and contempt for everything the Liberal Party stands for, and it is the prospect of their being elected that frightens me the most.

All this makes it difficult to remain level-headed, especially when living in the Paddington / Woollahra area, which is overdosed with conservative prats. Their smug, carefree and occasionally disgusting affluence flies in the face of any hopes one might harbour for a sustainable future where personal greed and indulgence are marginalised in favour of the greater good. But what really upset me most of all last Saturday night, was the awful blandness and barbarism of many present in this electorate.

I needed to get out, somewhere, anywhere, “where there’s music and people and they’re young and alive.” With a loose arrangement to meet a friend on Queen Street, I thought it best to stay within the vicinity, so I wandered into the Light Brigade Hotel on Oxford Street. I should have known better, having been there many times in the past on account of its proximity. It was early evening but the place was entirely packed. Australia was playing New Zealand in the rugby, about which I would have been happy to remain ignorant. Rugby is a tiresome, messy game, which people continually tell me is tactically more sophisticated than Rugby League. Empirical observation however, has shown it to be merely a bunch of violent boofheads jumping on each other, then kicking the ball first chance they get. Where exactly the skill or tactics reside in this dreadfully boring mess is a mystery to me.

The crowd was not unlike the usual collection of dullards, however, on this occasion, multiplied by a significant factor. A most moribund collection of collared shirts, tucked-in! and that most awful type of person – the man who wears a suit on a Saturday WHEN HE DOESN’T HAVE TO. I have never really understood this phenomenon, with the exception of say, a fine-quality three-piece retro number or something in blue velvet. But this was like a real-estate agents’ convention. Pretty well everyone else was attired in striped-shirts, with the effect that, were an alien observer to take this random sample, they might conclude that the human species generated offspring through a process of cloning.

I pushed my way through to the bar thinking, hell, I’m here now – one beer then out. I figured I could lean against a wall, sipping away, and at least not feel as lonely as I had done prior to entering. Indeed, my initial response was more positive than the above paragraph would suggest. Yes, here were people and plenty of them. What harm could it do to warm up for the evening in a warm atmosphere?

It was surprisingly easy to get served, after which I found a great spot to lean against the wall. This vacancy was ensured by the fact that, from this vantage point, it was not possible to see any of the two-hundred odd screens with the rugby on. I surveyed the crowd, noting here and there the rare individual who had made some effort, albeit a conservative one, to appear to be an individual. It struck me immediately that from this bunch, the Liberal Party was getting a big fat number 1 on the ballot paper come August 21. The true awfulness of the people, however, was yet to reveal itself!

This was the eye of the storm. I had entered during the half-time break, and once that whistle blew time on, all hell broke loose. The loud chorus of banter now began to show more uniform emotional responses. Approval or disapproval erupted in bursts of emotion, in accordance with the fortunes of the shaved apes on the screen. Yet, there was something very disturbing about it all – both the positive and negative shouts seemed  fuelled by anger and invective. One rather frightening-looking fellow, standing a mere four feet from me, was swearing his head off. “Fuck you” this and “Fuck you” that, apparently oblivious to the presence of a civilised human-being within his earshot. Indeed, it occurred to me after a time that he thought this sort of behaviour might earn approval from those around him – something even more frightening to consider.

The game was not going well for Australia, or so I gathered, and my delight at this grew with every angry shout from these hideous barbarians around me. And why not let the New Zealanders have it? It seems to mean a whole lot more to them anyway. Clearly some of the fools in the pub needed a good dose of humility. Anyone who finds it necessary to shout “Die, you cunts!” at a rugby game, has their priorities wrong. I could understand if John Howard had appeared on the screen, though of course, amidst this crowd they would be far more likely to applaud.

It wasn’t long before I’d had enough. I had come here to feel less lonely, but now I felt more lonely than ever. These people really sucked balls, to put it mildly, and they were, with each passing moment of Labor’s fumbled election campaign, moving ever closer to an insufferable joy at the victory of that Catholic misogynist Tony Abbott. The idea was so dreadful that I simply had to get out, and so I did.

I freely admit that it had been a gross error of judgement to go into the pub in the first place, yet to then follow it up by walking down to the Woollahra hotel, borders on the criminally insane. I have long known that this is a haunt of the worst kind of toffs imaginable, and yet, still awaiting contact from my old friend, who was somewhere in the locale, it seemed to make tactical sense to remain hereabouts.

I walked down Queen Street, enjoying the cool air. I was free for now, and some levity returned to my mood. Indeed, I felt as though my loneliness were beginning to vanish on the back of a wave of self-appreciation. There wasn’t a great deal to appreciate, with the exception of the fact that I was not one of those people I had left behind. Negativity is rarely a good starting point for positivity, yet for now it was working.

The Woollahra Hotel was at least blissfully quiet. The rugby was on too, sure, but it wasn’t overwhelmingly loud and the crowd was comparatively thin. It was, however, equally unpromising. Not only were the same clones present as had been in attendance up the road, but the suit count here was even higher, and despite the apparently higher socio-economic status of the clientele, the taste on display was, to put it mildly, extremely disappointing. Suits and ties on a Saturday, with no discernible motive are bad enough, but sloppy, ill-fitting suits on sloppy, under-exercised men are positively revolting. Bad suits, bad ties, bad vibes. And, ye gods, the few ladies present were, to quote René Artois from ‘Allo ‘allo, “dressed-up like the dinner of a dog.” Perhaps it is unfair to judge people by their appearance, but when they have spent a lot of money on rubbish, thus displaying extremely questionable taste, and are likely to vote Liberal, it’s very very hard to like them.

What on earth was I doing here? I was in the heartland of the enemy; the very people who want to turn this country into a gauche playground for the mega-rich, while all artistic sensibility was crushed beneath the weight of their four-wheel drives. They glanced at me occasionally as though I were some odd curiosity; clearly out of place for not wearing the regulation uniform of the rich and dull. I sank into a chair, again, lonely and persecuted, only now, angry and a little exhausted. I knew there was only one thing to do, and I should have done it long before. Finish up and get the hell out of the eastern suburbs. Surry Hills was calling, and, a few minutes later, off I went!

Read Full Post »

So here it is at last, the election that has obsessed me for so many months. Tomorrow morning, just one sleep away!, I shall arise at seven to begin watching the election results coming in from Australia. I have waited eleven and a half years for this moment, the first federal election since 1993 where it looks as though Labor will actually win. The polls have been indicating a Labor landslide all year, though in the last two days the results seem to have narrowed considerably. Still, a Labor victory seems the most likely result at this stage, and that is certainly where the money is going with the betting agencies.

The recent Galaxy and Newspoll figures indicated a breakdown of 52/48 to Labor in the two-party preferred vote – this ought still to be enough to get Labor over the line, but it has produced a great deal of angst amongst those who have dared to believe that the end of Howard’s government could really be about to happen. I’m particularly enthusiastic to see this happen. Not out of any great sense of belief in the rather pissweak and watered down version of the Labor party on offer at this election, but because my dislike of the conservative Liberal/National coalition is so intense. Some years ago I would have been satisfied with any victory, just to get them out of power, but as the dangerous legacy of the years of misrule becomes ever more apparent, I’ve come to feel that only a complete massacre will be satisfying. The Liberal party has moved further right than at any point in its history since the war, and only a complete change of personnel or its collapse altogether as an organisation can be good for the Australian political landscape.

That said, considering the immensity of the task that was before Kevin Rudd when he assumed the leadership, even a narrow victory to Labor would be an incredible feat. It has been said that this would be the first time that a government had been thrown out in the middle of an economic boom, though, it could be said that really the economic boom commenced in the years immediately after the last recession and was well underway when Keating was defeated. Either way, considering his success at the last election, his general popularity (which I have always found utterly mystifying) and the well-known fact that Howard is as cunning as a shithouse rat, defeating the man Keating once dubbed “Lazarus with a triple bypass” would be a Herculean task.

Three years ago, when Howard defeated Latham with an increased majority, I had already given up hope of a change of government at this election. So convinced was I that we might have entered another Menzies era, I wrote a novel titled “Advance Australia Farewell,” set thirty years from now, in a future in which everything, inevitably, had gone to the dogs. It was designed to be a worst-case scenario forecast, to the point of being slightly farcical, sarcastic, sardonic and mordant; a story about a seventeen year-old boy who joins a group of professional beggars and eventually escapes as a refugee to New Zealand. By the time I finished the novel in June of last year, I realised that I had lost all hope of a positive future of Australia; that it was destined to become increasingly conservative, Christian, vapid, greedy, materialistic, anti-intellectual, intolerant and assertively nationalistic; that it was heading for environmental collapse. It was an extrapolation of the effects of a continuity of current policy and attitude; an extrapolation from a belief that conservative rule would not only continue, but would become more extreme.

With this forecast in mind, it seems remarkable that I am sitting here, the night before an Australia federal election, looking forward to a shift back towards the centre. It seems even more remarkable, after the devastating loss of the last election, that I am sitting here feeling a deep sense of disappointment, not that Labor might not win, but rather, that they might not win by a landslide.

There are good reasons, however, for desiring a significant majority, the most obvious of this is that a government with a secure mandate can afford to take more risks. What has been most disappointing about this Labor opposition is how risk-averse its entire strategy has been from the moment Kevin Rudd became opposition leader. Who would ever have imagined a Labor leader stating calmly and clearly that he was an economic conservative? It is certainly understandable considering the generally benevolent economic climate and the low level of unemployment that an opposition leader would need to reassure the public that this one positive to which the government laid claim could be sustained. Yet this cannot excuse the Tasmanian pulp mill, or the matching of government tax cuts, or, indeed, the entire Labor tax package. Howard made hay with Peter Garrett’s slip up, in which it was suggested that once Labor got into power they would “change it all”, but many Labor supporters, myself included, hope that Garrett was telling the truth. As Ross Gittins pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald several weeks ago, the sad truth with Kevin Rudd is that what you see is what you get.[1]

At least, however, this would suggest we might have a new prime minister who was honest and genuine and who was outspoken about the fact that the key to the future was education and acting sooner rather than later on climate change. In a recent article urging Australians to drive a stake “through the dark heart of Howard’s reactionary government,” the man Howard replaced, former Prime Minister Paul Keating, argued that this election was “a chance to rebuild after a decade of moral erosion.”

Keating writes:

“He (Howard) has turned out to be the most divisive prime minister in our history. Not simply a conservative maintaining the status quo, but a militant reactionary bent upon turning the clock back. Turning it back against social inclusion, cooperation at the workplace, the alignment of our foreign policies towards Asia, providing a truthful and honourable basis for our reconciliation, accepting the notion that all prime ministers since Menzies had: Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and me: that our ethnic diversity had made us better and stronger and the nation’s leitmotif was tolerance. Howard has trodden those values into the ground.”

Keating is correct when he states that “Cynicism and deceitfulness have been the defining characteristics of John Howard and his Government.”[2] Personally I think the worst aspect of this government has its aggressive, insular, nationalism and parochialism. The Cronulla riots were a direct and very obvious consequence of this, but I could list countless other, smaller, everyday examples of aggressive nationalism. By way of an example, an old friend, an Australian of German Jewish descent, when visiting Bondi Beach was asked “How did you find the water mate?” When he replied, “It was okay,” the response that was thrown back at him was “well I bet it’s bloody better than wherever you’re from,” which was odd, considering he was from Bondi Junction.

I left Australia because I no longer felt comfortable amongst Australians. The rampant parochialism made it feel further away from the rest of the world than ever before. In a time when growing connectivity ought to have been increasing tolerance, it seemed as though xenophobia, which had so easily re-asserted itself under Howard’s first government thanks to his lukewarm condemnations of Pauline Hanson and which was later augmented by the Howard government’s fear-mongering hypocrisy on terrorism, was becoming more firmly rooted in Australian society. I can only hope, should Rudd win tomorrow, that a change of government will lead to a significant change of tone; less bombastic rhetoric, and a renewed drive for tolerance and social inclusion.

Last weekend, in a desperate need for some popcorn entertainment, I went to see the film “Beowulf ”. When Beowulf first arrives on the shores of Denmark, he makes the bold statement that “I’m here to kill your monster.” I sincerely hope that Kevin Rudd, like Beowulf, can kill the monster tomorrow, before much more harm is done. One more sleep!

It only remains for me to make a prediction. Taking into account all the polls and the analysis of various psephologists, and putting aside my fear of BoBos (Bohemian Bourgeoisie who make a noise in the polls, then turn up and vote conservative) I’m plumping for a Labor win, somewhat narrower than hoped: c. 81 seats to 67. I’m also hoping for a significant increase in the Green vote and, ideally, the addition of as many as six Greens to the Senate. I’ll happily take five, or even four, so long as they hold the balance of power. This can only exert a positive influence, in my mind. Mark Latham might have called this a “Seinfeld election” about nothing, but the truth is that a very great deal is really at stake. The very fact that we are still talking about Kyoto, without having moved beyond it, is indicative of how far behind Australia has fallen. A change of government might provide the momentum needed to catch up fast.

Bring it on!

Read Full Post »