All Politics Is Local That’s the adage, coined by Tip O’Neil, but the interpretation can be misleading. Yes, you as a candidate rely on the locality in which you run, to be recognised, to have the support necessary, and you build this on your actions. But when you get to the federal level, you’re delivering for the nation much more than for your own district. Spending will be directed down to a local level, but the municipality and the state will have greater local effects than federal spending programs. High-speed trains between Sydney and wherever, a long-held fantasy project, will have local effects, but spread across the cities at the anchor points and in between. So Tony Abbott can point to his record and proudly claim historic site preservation spending on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, but that’s not just Warringah, and Warringah knows it. (And whatever happened to the spending he promised years ago, well before his time as PM, to upgrade Brookvale Oval? Never happened. Other local promises? Anyone remember? Thought not.) And he can deride independents as “Labor candidates in disguise”, but that’s disingenuous. Such candidates run on policy, and the latest such to rise up and challenge is putting forth a national agenda. Zali Steggall has cited climate change – something Abbott has categorically stated he doesn’t believe in – as a key issue, a policy that was integral to Kerryn Phelps taking Wentworth off the deposed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. That’s the kind of leadership we want in Canberra. But it’s going to be tough for an independent to drive policy, or a bloc of them, if the LNP or Labor can form government in their own right, which seems increasingly likely for the latter party, given the defections and retirements the former has experienced lately. So vote for the local candidate, but vote for the own who can help get the agenda set. That might not be someone socially progressive and fiscally conservative.

PM5 Malcolm Turnbull has successfully toppled Tony Abbott to be Australia's fifth Prime Minister in the last five years. There is hope for this kind of churn to now stop, but less for the country to be effectively governed. The next election is, after all, sometime next year, so Turnbull will have little time to get the Liberal house in order and has already set a substantial portion of his side of the House on edge: the Nationals portion of the Coalition is already disgruntled, resentful of Turnbull's action in challenging for the leadership, regarding the move as sidelining and expressing disregard for their role. (Not that they have much role, being effectively the rural rump of the Liberal Party anyway, rather than an effective political force in their own right.) There will be those front-bench ministers dismissed or resigning from their portfolios and the back-benchers who stayed loyal to Abbott, all lined up to help Labor give Turnbull some knocks. Possibly the independent Senators will be more open to Turnbull's overtures, but what actual policy changes can we expect? Will Turnbull's Treasurer, whomever that turns out to be (not Hockey, of course, whose statement of support for Abbott prior to the Party room vote was an exemplar of bullying and a threat of non-cooperation), produce a budget that doesn't direct all its cost-savings at the poor and all its revenue-raising at the middle class? I'm betting not. As Hockey pointed out, Turnbull raised none of his objections in the Party room or in Cabinet previously, so any claims he makes to manage the economy better than Abbott are hollow, as we can anticipate his persuasions to be honeyed attempts to mask bitter pills. Remember: Malcolm Turnbull is a Liberal. He's also of that delusional ilk among Liberals that believes government is a business. He will govern - or attempt to - accordingly. But at least we're rid of that troublesome failed monk, Tony Abbott.

Stateless The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is putting forward, at the behest of the most extreme right-wing of his party, a proposal to remove Australian citizenship from dual citizens found to have engaged in terrorist acts, most particularly of going to the Middle East to join ISIS, but without a judicial hearing. The Immigration Minister would be able to judge whatever evidence or allegation and strip such persons of citizenship, effectively removing them from access to the legal system and any hope of redress. Worse, the fascists are proposing that birthright citizens should also be subject to the removal of citizenship, rendering them stateless. I don’t use the term “fascists” lightly. This is exactly how they have positioned themselves politically, making citizens servants of the state, rather than the other way around. This is a bad plan, all up. There is no value in removing people from the rule of law. It makes much more sense to expand the rule of law, if such was necessary (and it isn’t; the law we need are already in place), to embrace them, and hold them accountable properly. It is cowardice, pure and simple. Hysterical fear-mongering cloaked in the flag, and pandering to racists. Andrew Nikolic must be the stupidest man in Parliament.

The System Reading the latest New Yorker (the latest I’ve received to date, delivery being somewhat more delayed than it would be if I were still a local), I encountered an article by Adam Kirsch, ”The System”, reviewing two new books on the Nazi concentration camps, both of which sounding quite excellent and quite terrifying. I was struck by the final paragraph, in a more contemporary context: Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers. ”The impulse to separate some groups of people from the category of the human is, however, a universal one. The enemies we kill in war, the convicted prisoners we lock up for life, even the distant workers who manufacture our clothes and toys – how could any society function if the full humanity of all these were taken into account? In a decent society, there are laws to resist such dehumanisation , and institutional and moral forces to protest it. When guards at Rikers Isalnd beat a prisoner to death, or when workers in China making iPhones begin to commit suicide out of despair, we regard these as intolerable evils that must be cured. It is when a society decides that some people deserve to be treated this way – that it is not just inevitable but right to deprive whole categories of people of their humanity that a crime on the scale of the [concentration camp] ecomes a possibility. It is a crime that has been repeated too many times, in too many places, for us to dismiss it with the simple promise of never again. Australia, it seems, has decided, and we deserve every condemnation for it.

Dear Tony Do you have any of those fridge magnets left that prevent terrorism? I lost mine and now there's women in burqas everywhere!

The Nanny State Becomes the Police State When the USA Patriot Act went up, we knew it was a bad job. Sure, mostly because John Ashcroft was part of it . . . o.k., not mostly, but don’t discount the influence of evil. But bad. The whole NSA scandal came straight out of the this act, among other things. And now Australia, the ten-years-later me-too nation, is headed into the same error. Laws passed today, without significant dissent, will allow the Federal Attorney General to issue warrants for Australian police and spy agencies to tap phones, internet usage, and conduct searches, without judicial oversight or even, effectively probably cause. These police will be exempt from prosecution for any misdeeds – except, incredibly, torture, by the specific concern on one Liberal Party member at the concession of the AG, as if the rest of what abuses may occur are irrelevant. Why? Because some Syrian blowhard recommended killing, among others, Australians, on behalf of the so-called Islamic State. Naturally, some weak-minded moron proceeded to attempt exactly that, was shot and killed for his efforts, and the whole nation is in an uproar of fear and loathing. It’s gone so far that there are police with assault rifles patrolling the halls of Parliament House and more weak-minded morons saying Ban the Burqa (as if wearing a veil was a common tool of suicide bombers even in those countries where it’s commonly worn, among which Australia is not). “Less freedom for some for the protection of the rest” is the mantra we’re being conned with. More freedom reduces risk, especially if it can be grown in those countries where freedom is severely restricted , but it isn’t really about suicide bombers, beheadings, or what threat IS actually poses here or abroad to anyone, let alone Australians. It’s about power. And as we saw in the States, once power is gained it is not easily relinquished, even by those professing more high-minded ideals. Obama has not closed Guantanamo. He has not curtailed warrantless wiretapping. He has stepped up the use of assassination-by-drone, including against US citizens. The powers Bush established for himself and his administration have not been ceded by Obama, and any expectation that he would do so was always delusional. Why should he? Especially if, in doing so, he armed his opposition with tools to use against him? The same is true here. Howard instituted laws following the 2002 Bali bombings that were a USA Patriot Act lite. Rudd and Gillard, achieving government in 2007 did nothing to dismantle them, and while the spying on Indonesia is likely to have commenced under Howard, it was certainly escalated under Rudd/Gillard, to the point of tapping the Indonesian president’s wife’s phone. Abbott caught the flak on that one, but he didn’t back off it. And now we have more laws, more extensive spying, domestic and international, with plenty of exemptions to keep the spies from answering to any abuses they inflict, either procedural or physical. They may stop short of torture, but we know from the Bush Justice Department how easy it is to redefine torture. These laws are wrong, but they’re never going away. What a mess.

Believers Yesterday was the People's Climate Mobilisation, and around the world, people gathered to let their politicians know the time for action is now, not later. BBC coverage includes the gathering in Glebe, where we formed a "human sign": Beyond Coal & Gas". Now that China has reduced its imports of our brown coal, we can hope they will make further progress towards emissions reductions, but also that our Prime Denialist, Tony Abbott, will take renewable energy production seriously, regardless of whether Treasurer Joe Hockey finds wind turbines objectionable intrusions on his aesthetic sense while driving between Sydney and Canberra, or not. (What did we do to deserve these lunatics as our government?)

End of Life Planning So our Federal Treasurer thinks we should work until we die, because life ends at retirement. No, Mr. Hockey, you bullying creep, life does not end at 65 or 70 or at whatever age we retire. Work does not define life. The economy is not society. We are not your serfs. Who voted for these jackasses?

Anachronism What I like about repeal day is that this is an exercise every new government should undertake. Getting outdated laws off the books is very sensible, even though my ex-father-in-law once successfully defended a charge of public urination on the basis of one such, wherein a specific exemption was provided for if the act was performed, as I recall the story, against the wheel of a gentleman’s carriage, and since he was pissing on a car tire, well, there you go. Still, here we are, new government well into its first year, and what have we gotten? Most of the revisions are typographical, dropping or adding punctuation. Not much substance, even if a comma here or there can indeed change the meaning and the use of or over and even more so. But the “red tape” repeals the LNP really wants are getting set aside or watered down, thank goodness. The idea that financial planners should be free from restrictions specifying that they act in the best interests of their clients, for example, which is, in reality, a means for banks to allow their staff to sell dodgy products their clients don’t need and won’t benefit from. Removing provisions in the anti-discrimination act to allow offense, intimidation, and humiliation and exempting any words or images “in public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, or scientific matter” is extraordinarily broad, and, as the Attorney General himself has stated, accords everyone not only the “right to be a bigot” but full protection from acting like one, too. I guess if I tell everyone your taste in ties is the worst of anyone’s that might fall afoul of the proposed change, except it’s social. Or is it fashion? Is that artistic? I give up. What is this government on about? Is it all just repealing whatever Labor did for the sake of it and “stopping the boats”? (Have the boats actually “stopped”? Seems not, although they are getting turned back, the ones they allow us to know about.) Come July, when the balance in the Senate changes, Abbott will have quite a romp, if he wants it, or can think of what to do with it, which latter I rather doubt, as he’s shown no capacity for actual ideas so far. While he was leader of the opposition, he was very good at attacking. It seems as though as leader of the government he doesn’t know how to lead but still expects everyone to follow. Unfortunately there’s no evidence of anyone among the LNP, front bench or back, with the capacity to do any better. It’s going to be a long three years. Let’s hope it doesn’t get any longer.

Royalist Pain Tony Abbott wants to name Knights and Dames as higher honors than otherwise accorded by the Order of Australia, but will they be supplementary or in replacement of any such honors conferred by his monarch, QEII? Does he get to whack them with a sword? What is it with this buffoon? A republic can't come soon enough.

Medical Care, If You Can Pay for It In case you weren't listening in the lead-up to last year's September election, Tony Abbott promised no fundamental changes to, among other things, Medicare. In case you were dropped on your head as a child, Tony Abbott was lying. Today we have proof. Health Minister Peter Dutton, one of John Howard's henchmen prior to the 2007 election that saw the exit of the Liberals from government, has announced: "one important job of the Abbott Government is to grow the opportunity for those Australians who can afford to do so to contribute to their own healthcare costs." No, really, he said "grow the opportunity." What he means, of course, is that Medicare is not going to be universal health care in Australia anymore. It will be user-pays. Now, keep in mind that we already all pay a tax levy to fund Medicare, and that this levy, in the last, Labor, goverment, became means-tested (so that those "who can afford to do so" are already paying more to fund heathcare costs - not just for themselves, but for the whole country; and that, under Howard, it became compulsory to hold private health care insurance, the premiums for which are regularly approved for substantial increases. But we're going to "grow the opportunity" to pay more - not for the country overall, but for our "own healthcare costs." I do not object to paying taxes. Taxes are a public good and the price of living in a society. The society I joined has an admirable universal healthcare provision and a healthcare system that is second to none. But user-pays is the US model, pre-Obamacare (and post, pending refinements I'm sure a vast number of Americans are looking forward to under next-President Clinton), and it is the very model of unsustainable. If healthcare costs are indeed rising at unsustainable rates for Medicare, it's not Medicare that's the problem: it's the healthcare system. We need better, smarter care, not just more and paying more for it. In this latest example, Abbott and his ministers yet again prove they have no idea of the role of government, no vision, and nothing but their own pre-formed opinions on which to develop policy. We have a great opportunity to model significant advances in healthcare, but all they can think to do is to gut the system. Howard wanted an end to Medicare as much as he wanted an end of labor unions. He couldn't get it done. Abbott is well on his way to reducing the power of workers in favour of employers, and now he's proposed to complete the job of eliminating Medicare. Australia will never be the same if we let this happen.

Ahoy Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has told us that Australian naval vessels have inadvertently breached Indonesian boundaries at sea on multiple occasions when turning back refugees travelling by sea attempting to access Australia and claim asylum. Leaving aside the cruelty and hard-heartedness of the anti-refugee policy of the Abbott government, one wonders at the competence of our navy that they cannot operate so much as a GPS, let alone all the other equipment they have available to judge their position. No, actually, one does not so wonder. Because they were acting on orders, obviously. Nevertheless our PM, Tony Abbott, persists in the lie, claiming the sailors were distracted by wind or tide or other operational complexities. Such as playing Angry Birds on their phones, maybe (but that would mean access to equipment with GPS capabilities, so it’s unlikely). What kind of vessels are they operating? Is “Operation Sovereign Borders” being conducted on First Fleet replicas? Given Education Minister Christopher Pyne’s obsession with Australia’s glorious British past (more usually with how wonderful our boys were at Gallipoli), perhaps this is a revision to the naval college’s curriculum. What a government. There are two kinds of lies: those they tell and not telling us anything. Is this the best we can expect? Will “Stop the Boats” become “Stop the Tides”? Tony “Canute” Abbott needs to step up his game.

The Poor You Will Have with You Always Especially if you can make sure they stay that way. Liberal Party policy seems intent on punishing the poor for being poor. The latest float: a co-pay for doctor visits. This doesn’t seem so controversial at first glance, but when you consider it in the overall context it demonstrates just how far market-based economics reaches into LNP policy. This is a political party that believes all the wrong lessons Tony Abbott has learned from the Jesuits: To him who has, more shall be given, for example. Along with the approved rate rise in private medical insurance cover, the highest in seven years, it’s clear that this government, like the Howard government before it, is intent on the elimination of Medicare. Private cover is, effectively, mandatory. If you don’t have private cover, you pay a tax surcharge, on top of the Medicare tax itself, and the longer you wait to take out private cover, the higher the penalty and premiums. Effectively, even though we have Medicare, everyone has to pay additional. And private cover, like in the US, pays out very little on claims, especially on anything that can be deemed elective, such as doctor visits. This year’s rate increase is already sending people to their insurance providers to adjust their deductibles, which means an increase in out-of-pocket costs. Meanwhile, the number of doctors who bulk-bill has and continues to shrink, which means that poor people already have less access to health care, and this would only be exacerbated by requiring even a small co-pay. The Liberals hate Medicare. They use it. They benefit from it. They hate it. They hate it because it was, by far, the most successful Labor policy initiative of all time. They hate it because it means that they have to pay for someone else’s benefit. They hate it because it helps the poor. They won’t say it, but it’s true. They’ll say: “personal responsibility,” as if getting sick was a character flaw, and they’ll say that until it’s them that’s ill and needs help. Of course, if they do get sick, they’ll go to their doctor and pay for it, go to the hospital and get a private room and jump the public queue and pay for it – if they can. The irony is that many of the public who support the LNP are, in fact, poor and middle class and will struggle or be unable to meet the expenses of private cover. They will, in fact, go to bulk-billing doctors and be admitted to public hospitals. What drives their thinking is merely selfishness and delusion.

It’s the Stupid Economy

When politicians here talk about how they’re going to be all about the economy, they mean inflation and they mean interest rates and they’re blowing smoke.

I don’t care what Tony Abbott thinks the unemployment rate is about
because he isn’t really going to do anything about it, at least not anything I want from government.
I want Medicare and I want major infrastructure builds, including the National Broadband Network (even though my internet speeds are fine, thanks), because these things help people and that’s what government is for.

Government isn’t just about the economy, and when that’s the focus all kinds of people get hurt, especially the most vulnerable of us. Cracking down on dole bludgers was a great gimmick for Reagan and Howard and Thatcher, but it hurt people and had absolutely no net effect for the rest of us.

Are interest rates too high? Where? Greece? Not here, so why are house prices so crazy? That’s not unemployment and it’s not government spending. It’s a lack of oversight.

Labor reneged on its budget surplus promise? I never wanted them to make that commitment, especially not when they were trying to keep us out of the GFC, which they managed well. Deficits are not evil in themselves and don’t represent mismanagement. It’s amazing that there are still people who think it’s like a credit card.

Every government spends money. I know how I want them to spend it, and vote for the party with the policies that spends accordingly. Promising to not spend is not going to win my vote.