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.

May We Do Better May is still a long ways off, but maybe not long enough to not start thinking about the prospective federal election. Double-dissolution, maybe? Morrison and the LNP don’t have the numbers to get anything much through the Senate, but they’re also a minority government after losing the Wentworth by-election, so perhaps they’ll focus on actually forming government and hope to firm up the Senate later. But their collective goose is cooked, by all accounts and analyses, which means it’s Labor’s election to lose. Or is it? Labor sucks, face it. They are just the LNP-lite. Sure, they’re capable of governing, just, but aside from some small tweaks to social programs, we can’t expect them to do anything truly forward-facing. So that leaves the Greens as the only minor major party available. Except they suck worse the Labor, especially at the federal level, where their entire strategy is on doing deals with Liberal or Labor as it suits them to best get in the news, all the while engaging in ridiculous power struggles that are all that actually gets them any notice and make them look like children. They’ve largely abandoned any pretence at policy other than in sound bites. So independents. Oh, God help us all. Sure, there are minor parties, but they’re effectively just disaffected Liberals or Nationals or independents tarting themselves up as something more than single-issue candidates. And the actual independent independents are usually single-issue pollies, and usually just disaffected Liberals or Nationals tarting themselves up as populists. Luckily, we’ve got preferences. Now the trick with preferences is that when you vote, you’ve got to take into account where candidates and parties are directing theirs. If you’ve got an independent that seems like anything better than the LNP and can put a complex sentence together even if just in printed policy positions, then preference that one, so long as their preferences aren’t going to the LNP. If it is, go Greens, as their preferences usually go to Labor. Then down the line accordingly until the LNP is dead last in your selection barring One Nation. It’s the only way to send a message to either the LNP or Labor: we hate you all and will turn on you if you don’t get your acts together and we’ll always hate the LNP anyway.

Guns In 1996, following the mass shooting at Port Arthur, Tasmania, John Howard, the Prime Minister, was successful in forcing the states to adopt new gun restrictions and in running a buy-back program in which individuals turned in their weapons during a year-long process. There have been no mass shootings as at Port Arthur since. In fact, murders and suicides using guns have also fallen overall. Australia is often looked to following mass shootings in the US as a model for what could be accomplished to reduce such incidents. It is the single most universally acclaimed accomplishment in Australia attributed to Howard. So now, with all that’s happening in the US and receiving global news coverage, is Liberal Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton seeking changes to permit gun manufacturers and distributors input to the government’s policies on gun regulation? Is it anything to do with the fact that he’s an ex-cop? And don’t pretend the police aren’t a problem when it comes to gun violence, in Australia or anywhere else. Is it because he’s an authoritarian and front-bench far-right faction leader? Is it because he formerly had oversight of the immigration portfolio and continues to demonise immigrants? Is it because, down in Tasmania, at the recent state election, the Liberal government that got back into office did so in spite of only revealing their intention to soften gun restrictions after the polls closed? In Tasmania, where Port Arthur is, the flashpoint for Liberal government coming to its senses on the issue of gun violence! It’s got to stop. Hunting continues. Farmers continue to control pests. Guns remain in use. But semi-automatic weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians and handguns exist only for murder. Dutton needs to be slapped down. Malcolm Turnbull needs to be the one who does it. But Turnbull is a coward in the face of the far right of his party and will do nothing.

Dear Prime Minister Re: National Broadband Network Dear Prime Minister: How did you know: http://www.revk.uk/2017/12/its-official-adsl-works-over-wet-string.html. You're a visionary.

The Hollow Arguments Against Full Equality Now that the public has voiced their support for marriage equality in Australia, it’s time for the politicians to do their jobs and fix the inequality they previously legislated in the Marriage Act, led by that recalcitrant bigot, John Howard, and with the full knowledge that other bigots among the LNP have been marginalised, most especially Howard’s protégé, Tony Abbott, whose electorate returned one of the largest margins in favor of equality. But arguments are still being put forward in an attempt to reduce any bill’s effect on achieving equality, empty, disingenuous arguments, such as the need to “recognise the religious freedom of commercial service suppliers.” Rot. Commercial service suppliers are free to practice their religion in Australia. They are not, however, free to pretend that their commercial services are the practice of their religion. If you are baking cakes for a living, bake them, sell them, and then go to whatever church you favor and pray to whatever god you worship howsoever you please on whatever topic you choose. You can even pray for the cake to turn to ashes in the mouths of the same-sex couples who bought it to share with their friends and families. “[A] guarantee to the rights of expression [and] association” is similarly vacuous. Exclusions regarding “threatening or harassing speech” notwithstanding, allowing same-sex couples to marry does not preclude anyone from speech in opposition to the practice or preventing them from excluding LGBTIQ persons from their social circles. You don’t have to talk to the gay couple or have them in your home just because society lets them marry. Go ahead, ignore them. They’ll more likely be grateful not to have to listen to you or associate with you than not. There is, indeed, a “right to be a bigot,” it’s just that it’s the social equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face. You do more harm to yourself than anyone else. But don’t think that if you make your behavior public you can’t be called out for it. Employment decision exclusions are just discriminatory. Period. You do not get to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. The days when you could legally discriminate on the basis of marital status are long past, and that’s where they should stay. That’s it. Church officials don’t have to marry anyone, gay or straight, but if they want to pretend there’s something different because their invisible sky friend tells them so, they can take their medieval trappings and fade into history.

Omnibus Obamacare repeal down again, but don’t be fooled. The Senate Republicans will keep trying, because if they can’t undo everything Obama ever did, their donors will reckon them as failures and give the money to someone else. Until then, the House will continue to prioritize legislating against women’s health, because they’re already proven what losers they are, notably in regard to over 200 failed votes to repeal the ACA. Trump’s bankrupt golf course in Puerto Rico leads him to revenge himself on the island by pretending it’s so remote as to make even the US Navy helpless, plus of course he would: Puerto Ricans aren’t white enough are they even part of America? Build a wall! Watch for a Ten Commandments monument on the Washington Mall, now that we have one more crazed religious zealot in the Senate. Seriously, how does this man keep going? Fuelled on hate like Trump, but couldn’t even get Comrade Oompa-Loompa’s endorsement. Just because you don’t like what someone says, Jeff, doesn’t mean it isn’t legitimate or anything less than the same free speech you’d be applauding if you agreed with it. And if you really want to stand up for freedom of speech, you might want to try facing up to it, instead of hiding in your own echo chamber. Animal cruelty isn’t art. You want to comment on animal cruelty, o.k., or whatever your statement is intended to be, but being cruel yourself just makes you a monster, not an artist. If no prosecutions arise from the actions of Equifax executives in the lead-up to the revelation they’d been massively hacked, the system isn’t working. Yes, Comrade President, your fight with the NFL is over race alone. Australians will bet on anything. We are a gambling-crazy nation. Meanwhile, there is no valid argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry. Freedom of speech? No, shut up. I mean, no, you can say what you want, but you cannot deny someone the same rights you have because you don’t have the same sexual preference. Family and children? What about older couples, infertile couples, couples who choose not to have children, or to adopt? Would you legislate against them marrying? Then you can’t legislate against same-sex couples marrying. “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”? That’s not an argument; it’s a slogan. Tradition? Tradition used to involve marrying children. We’re not doing that anymore. Tradition changes. But their sex is yucky? All sex is yucky. Grow up. Enough. Whew.\

Trumpian The Guardian had a piece wondering if Australia had already been through its Trumpian political phase, but the answer is no: It’s only just begun. Immigrants, whether they pass the stringent requirements to enter the country as residents at all, or as refugees (especially), cannot be expected to have university-level English. That may not be a requirement for the jobs they take up even for native-born Australians. But now, in order to vote, we expect them to be able to compose an essay suitable for academic credit? This is just the usual Liberal hate and fear of brown people. They would end all immigration from everywhere but white Britain if they could, and probably those whinging Poms, too, except that “real” Australians aren’t having enough babies. The rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation didn’t coincide with Tony Abbott becoming Prime Minister. He hated them. Mostly, he hated them because they took votes from the Liberal-National coalition, reducing their power to impose their race-hate on the country. No, One Nation rose because Abbott’s star fell, replaced by the smiling face of Malcolm Turnbull. But Turnbull kept the far-right on the front bench, like Peter Dutton, whose brainchild the new citizenship test is sold as. Don’t be fooled. Turnbull and the LNP today aren’t centre-right. They’re virulent extremists and always have been. Turnbull’s pleasant façade of reasonableness is the cover they give to controlling the population through hate and fear, causing internal divisions among us, the better to eliminate the middle class and create the new feudalism they believe is their right. They mean to rule, not govern, and to do that there must be Lords and Serfs. They know which group they belong to, and which group the rest of us are in. We’re the only ones fooling ourselves, continuing to vote against our own best interests, as the US did electing Trump and keeping the Republicans in power. Our “Trump moment” isn’t past, it’s prologue.

Their Way Is Only the Highway Traffic in Sydney is bad, and anyone can see it. But Liberal promises to fix it rely on more and bigger highways from the west into the CBD. Problem is, that isn’t the problem. The current project underway, Westconnex, aims to expand and extend the M4 and M5, but in the end dump the increased volume of traffic into the inner west, along already the already highly congested King Street and Parramatta Road. Worse, this project will use “spaghetti junctions” at these interchange points, and the junction at St Peters will take up newly transformed green space, the only parkland of any significant size for kilometres. In addition, many kilometres of tunnels will be required, not a bad thing in themselves, but you have to consider the 35-metre tall exhaust stacks, concentrating particulate pollution and sending it out and across the city. The planning for Westconnex, a pet project of current NSW Premier Mike Baird, but supported by NSW Labor as well as the Federal Liberal and Labor parties, actually shows the project won’t achieve its stated goals. The new roads will reach capacity within eight years and the overall reduction of time spent in traffic will be a grand total of five minutes. The Liberal government in Canberra, under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, stated that public transport was not an option at all anywhere ever. This policy continues under Malcolm Turnbull. Labor’s official position is also in support of Westconnex, even though they have the example of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, who canned the East-West link the previous government had planned, so that better mass transit could be implemented instead, even in the face of the Abbott government withdrawing co-funding. Mass transit won’t be improved by Westconnex. It will be the same limited trains and busses serving the same routes – and at the same volume and level of service. But new rail links, service improvements, better capacity, would improve traffic congestion, and air quality, along with emissions reductions. Bigger transport projects, such as the long-proposed and postponed heavy rail link from Brisbane through Sydney to Melbourne, would do their part, removing freight by trucking. But we get no traction. Urban planning is hard, but there are lots of examples of getting it right, all around the world. A new tram service, currently under construction in Sydney, will link the Eastern Suburbs with the CBD; and the existing lightrail, extended out to Haberfield, has already achieved its utilisation goals, despite naysaying from the state government. London has more bicycle usage, and bike-share projects are popping up all over, opening city centres in ways not seen in decades. We don’t need Robert Moses-style projects, projects designed to destroy neighbourhoods. No Westconnex!

All Politics Is Local, II What is wrong with the Republicans in the US? And what is wrong with Barack Obama? Republican governors and the GOP nominees for the 2016 Presidential election are seeking to stop accepting refugees from Syria – refugees from a conflict essentially grown up from the failed and illegal war George W. Bush initiated in Iraq, where Daesh was born – and to go back to another ground war in the Middle East. Even the Republican candidates who have been on the record as relatively moderate have now swung into full-on xenophobic hate. It seems to have started with Trump, the most ludicrous of the candidates, and one of the least qualified on any subject (other than himself, and even that’s questionable), forcing each one after the next to attempt to match or exceed Trump’s vitriol. Meanwhile, Obama, who, as President, has the executive authority to ignore or override the governors now actively rejecting the settlement of refugees – women, children, and infants – has commenced only a campaign of rhetoric, strongly worded as it may be. Time for more Executive Orders, Mr. President. This is Federal, not State’s Rights. I see too many people I once thought reasonable bowing to fear and embracing hate, conflating all Muslims as terrorists (“it only takes one!”) and refusing to listen. Don’t you know anyone from the Middle East, any Muslims? I do. They are just as appalled by Daesh and the actions of terrorists abroad as anyone else. Have you never met a Christian extremist or seen them in the news? I have: Atlanta Olympics bombings, anti-abortion assassins of doctors, Westboro Baptist Church. But the vast, vast majority of people identifying as Christian are just as appalled as anyone else at the actions of these hateful loons. We need to get a sense of proportion. The survivors and family of those killed by the terrorist Dylann Roof, at Emmanuel African Methodist Church, in Charleston, South Carolina, could each stand up in court and offer their forgiveness to that criminal, from their faith, but also their knowledge that he isn’t the whole of whatever social segment he might have been chosen to represent – whites, Southern whites – and we, too know better than to say those fleeing Syria are the same as those from whom they flee. We know better and need to act accordingly, or we give up the same humanity we otherwise deny to them.

All Politics Is Local As Tip O’Neill famously said, and it’s no less true when we consider Daesh, despite Paris, Beirut, Libya, Egypt, etc. The Daesh leadership are politically motivated: they seek to establish themselves as a state. They cloak their ambition in religious justifications, millenarianist claims that their “caliphate” will bring about Armageddon and the return of the Mahdi, the Islamic “second coming” and the kingdom of heaven on earth. There are indications that this philosophical justification is increasingly central to their ambitions, which must be seen, as it is in all apocalyptic cults, as evidence of insanity. Madmen with tanks, guns, bombs, and internet outreach. It’s still political, and they use political tools to promote their claims to legitimacy and to recruit new members. Even the terrible acts of violence they commit are political messages. So, too, are the West’s acts of violence and oppression, especially when we turn on those Daesh’s recruitment pool and those in fear or in opposition to them. The Grand Mufti of Australia, for example, has repeatedly condemned the Paris attacks, as he has other Daesh atrocities, yet the right-wing Murdoch media continually misrepresent or ignore his statements, so as to characterise Australian Muslims as “sleeper cells” waiting to strike. That we have had three violent incidents and can point to a not-insignificant number of young men who have sought to or accomplished travel to Syria to join the criminals there hasn’t helped the moderate Muslims get their viewpoint out or accepted by a large part of Australian society (but there are at least a few of us listening). The Abbott government’s demonization of refugees has also been highly effective among the ignorant and cowardly: all asylum-seekers now appear as potential terrorists, infiltrators and invaders. Labor’s me-too policies on immigration just entrench the problem. Tens of thousands of refugees fleeing Syria, as well as the various conflicts in North Africa, in Afghanistan, continuing in Iraq, along with all the rest of the world’s oppressed who seek a better, peaceful life, are affected by the hateful, political, rhetoric of both Daesh and our own politicians, whether in Australia, Europe, or the US. Daesh would kill or convert them, but succeed in co-opting them as proxies with the complicity of Western populations and politicians willing to let fear trump sense, or doing so in their own pursuit of power. We give too much legitimacy to Daesh by giving them too much air. While Daesh need to be stopped in Syria and Iraq, where they seek to establish their state, they also need to be stopped elsewhere, but that won’t be as easily accomplished with guns and bombs. We need to show that we are not cowards, not fascistic power-hungry ideologues willing to sacrifice a minority to our fears and desires. We can do that by reaching out to our Muslim neighbors, accepting difference, offering tolerance, and by making an honest effort to take in the refugees. We can do more to end terrorism by requiring more from ourselves, and from those we do business with or treat as allies and equals, but it starts at home. If we hold ourselves to a higher standard, we have the right to hold others to the same standard.

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.

The Funeral of Kings A state funeral has been conducted for a horse trainer. Why? Because he made a few rich people rich by training horses for races. The wealthy owners then made heaps of money in prizes, funded by all the punters gambling their hard-earned dosh and getting little or nothing in return, unless you count whatever pleasure can be obtained from watching animals being abused. Horse racing, dog racing, it's all just like bull fighting: despicable practices. And for this, politicians and "dignitaries" have turned out, abasing themselves, right along with the "horse racing identities", who will include people with too much money but who won't spend it on helping people, gangsters, and social parasites. No mention will be made of however many horses this animal abuser condemned to early death.

The Changing Society, the Changing Economy Ever read "The Grapes of Wrath"? Probably the closest would be you've seen the movie, but here's a passage I think appropriate to the current crisis of refugees in Europe and disgrace in Australia: ". . . repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. . . . The money was spent for arms, for gas to protect great holdings, and spies were sent to catch the murmuring of revolt so that it might be stamped out. The changing economy was ignored, plans for the change ignored; and only means to destroy revolt were considered, while the causes of revolt went on." What's sad is how hopeful of revolt Steinbeck was, and how little and paltry the response required at the time to eradicate its potential, and how cruel the response is today. They've got the guns, the power, and the hate. The rest can only hope to reach a place of sufficient safety to be exploited and denigrated as subhuman. And us in the middle? We're the ones who let our politicians make them subhuman. We're the cowards waiting for our turn and hoping it never comes. And all it takes is a bad bout of ill health, a few extra weeks of unemployment. We're lucky, until we aren't, so we'll dehumanize whom we can and pretend otherwise. Take note especially of the phrase "The changing economy", equating even then society and the economy. It's well past time we stopped that conflation of terms.

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.

Misleadership The Liberal Party of Australia hates Medicare. They hate it purely on the basis that it was introduced by the Australian Labor Party and has been a great, transformative success; and that it is a benefit to the poor. Opposition to Labor is ingrained in this mob. They preference the big end of town on the basis that it from this source that they derive their legitimacy. Therefore any success by Labor must be rolled back. That Medicare has been so successful and so popular presents a challenge to them, however, so they must be duplicitous in how they reverse the program. Deep-seated resentment of the poor in a philosophical matter: like puritanical conservatives of the American Republican party, they believe the poor deserve their condition, that it is a moral failing. This extends to the elderly and sick. Wealth and good health are the rewards of providence for virtue and the evidence of it. So when the current Minister for Health, Sussan Ley, announces a review of Medicare, this would be a welcome development, from any other set of politicians. The review will include all procedures, tests and treatments, on the basis that there is a need to reduce “inappropriate tests and procedures”, because, primarily, many are no longer used. Of course, a test, treatment, or procedure that is no longer used isn’t costing anything, but that’s not the point. The point is to simply to stop spending money on health care. The review will also examine new ways of paying GPs, which is fine, potentially working towards a better system of managed care, to reduce the need for more complex procedures and interventions such as now inevitably arise from the lack of management of conditions such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Early intervention and management over the longer term means fewer people needing emergency and more costly interventions later. This, of course, costs money now, but reduces spending overall. Don’t expect this to be an outcome of the review. Instead, expect GP care to become part of private medical insurance coverage, shifting the cost from Medicare to the consumer and killing off bulk-billing as effectively as the previously mooted co-pay and rebate reductions. New rules are expected to be implemented to address the issue of Medicare cheats. But it’s actually doctors rorting the system more so than it is patients, and you would be foolish to believe that’s going to be the focus of the review. Instead, the “Medicare cheating” to be addressed will be rules to make it more difficult for the poor and middle class to access Medicare on the basis they are accustomed to, requiring more out-of-pocket expenditures and a reduction in services. The Australian Medical Association and Consumers Health Forum may welcome the review, but they should be cautious in their embrace of it, like the farmer and the viper. We know who these Liberals are, and their nature.

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.

Rules of the Road The first rule of cycling in the city: they don't see you. Melbourne is a cycling-intensive city, more so than Sydney, but both cities haven't got the infrastructure or the culture to keep their cyclists safe. What that means is that it's up to the cyclists, so today's rally is important. I commend Sydney's mayor, Clover Moore, for her efforts to establish bicycle lanes, and condemn both Labor and Liberal state governments for their efforts to rid themselves of both her and cycleways. Cities are not for cars, they're for people. That has to be balanced. And bicycles are better for the environment than cars. It isn't just about how many cars can be funneled into the CBD, but that seems to be the motivation of most of our politicians, and, unfortunately, the short-sighted, narrow-minded perspective of many citizens. This, too, is part of how someone can be killed riding a bike, and it needs to change.

Health Care & Aged Care Our illustrious Treasurer, Joe Hockey, is trying to sell the nation on the idea that we have to have a co-pay for visiting a doctor, or that the payments to doctors for short appointments needs to be reduced, because somewhere in the world today a child may be born who will live to 150 years of age. Of course, if he can't afford health care because, after he's paid his Medicare levy etc. he can't afford the co-pay, or doctors no longer bulk-bill so they can make up the shortfall imposed by government, he won't live so long and certainly not well. Hockey also relates the story of only having to pay $40 for the treatment of his son's broken foot. He says that was "inherently wrong", because he could afford to have paid more. No, Joe, that doesn't make it wrong. You - and the rest of us - pay the Medicare levy so that we can access health care. That's what it's for. We may need to raise the levy. The levy may only be raising half the annual cost. But there are other initiatives that can be taken and that would make sense to improve health care delivery and maintain access for everyone. You only need to read a newspaper to find out about them, or talk to actual health care professionals. It might mean more money spent now and less - significantly less - later, but it puts the program on a progressive track, taking advantage of new technologies, new techniques, new and better practices. But that's not what this government wants to do. At best their ideological commitment to "small government", something they never fail to fail to achieve, demonstrates a complete misapprehension that government is the one organisation that can apply the leverage needed to make things better. At worst it's simply that they hate Medicare. They hate the very idea of someone else getting something they think they're not getting - even when they are. Good Catholic boys who heard "the poor you will have with you always" and learned the wrong lesson from the story, they've somehow adopted the mindset that being poor or ill is a moral failing. Joe Hockey, Tony Abbott, our current and former health ministers, they are lying. Medicare is not "unsustainable", and we do not need to inflict "price signals" on health care.

Moral Compass: Lacking Here we have the true measure of the current Attorney General of Australia and the Liberal Party's commitment to the rule of law: Because David Hicks has been labelled a terrorist, torture is o.k. Without the courage to face his questioner, George Brandis dismisses the torture of David Hicks by the CIA, with the apparent knowledge and complicity of a government of which he was a member, and scuttles away from actually answering to the charge. As much as it pains me whenever Dick Cheney rears his hideous mien to pontificate on terrorism and justify his crimes, it is worse to bring such men as this back into power and pretend that it's a good thing. Brandis, you toad, answer the question.

Paying for It The Liberals are abandoning their proposed $7 co-pay for doctor visits: good. It was a bad policy. The policy proposed adding this out-of-pocket tax to pay for a so-called “medical research future fund”, but the purpose was quite simply to drive people away from doctors, based on the claim that too many were going too often for too little. Are there people turning up at their bulk-billing physician’s office or clinic at the least sign of a sniffle or just because they’re lonely? Probably, but that doesn’t make Medicare “unsustainable”, as is so often claimed to be its status. In fact, Medicare is eminently sustainable, but health care itself does need work. I read a lot about various efforts being undertaken to improve health care delivery in the US and elsewhere. These may involve larger initial outlays, but the outcomes produced provide significant reductions in long-term costs well-beyond what’s spent at the beginning, and overall patient health is similarly improved. That’s big, as big, in its way, as antibiotics. It’s also smart, much smarter than driving people away from doctors or increasing the tax used to pay for health care. The supporters of the tax call it “structural reform”, but it isn’t a reform, unless you think abandoning universal health care is a reform, and it isn’t structural, as it doesn’t address health care itself. Pushing people away from health care is only going to make it more expensive as more people end up with worse health an earlier intervention could have prevented. Pushing health care into the private sector will not only increase costs, it will make it unavailable to the poor and burden the middle class, but that’s the idea, really. Liberals hate the poor. They regard poverty and illness as moral failings that should be punished. They despise the middle class for being aspirational and sucking up money that belongs to the wealthy. This is an ideological driver for the party and for the policies they seek to enact. That and the fact that Medicare was a successful Labor Party initiative for the last forty years, and nothing Labor has ever done can be tolerated. The Liberals have decided on a practice of extreme opposition, even in government, and this is one of the worst actions they’ve yet undertaken. Don’t count on the “co-pay” tax being gone forever. The Liberals are nothing if not persistent. Update: Absent the ability to put through their tax, the Liberals now propose to effectively stop paying doctors what they're owed for providing health care under Medicare. This is a despicable abrogation of their responsibility to the public and a slap in the face to doctors.