Category Archives: Rudd Labor Government

Waleed Aly on “national identity”

Posted on by
4

Yesterday evening I attended a fundraising dinner for Lindsay Tanner held by the Melbourne FEA, held in a function room at the Moonee Valley Racecourse. The decision to attend was easy; I consider Tanner to be among the ALP’s best parliamentary performers and amongst all the current members of parliament, I think it’s a fair bet that his views align with my own as closely as anyone’s.

Lindsay spoke mainly to acknowledge the support of people involved in the evening; the keynote speech for the evening was provided by Melbourne academic and writer Waleed Aly. Aly, author of the book People Like Us: How arrogance is dividing Islam and the West, is perhaps uniquely positioned to offer an insightful commentary on the so-called “clash of civilisations” that is vexing politicians with respect to multiculturalism today. Through his utterly cross-cultural life, one could say that Aly personifies the reasons why the “clash” that hawks are touting does not really need to be a ”clash” at all.

Aly spoke for around fifteen minutes and touched on several interesting points during his speech, which in some ways was a bit of a riff on the ideas expressed in this article for The Monthly. Possibly the most profound idea he raised related to “national identity” and how different nations conceptualise their national identity. In Europe, people generally are bound together in a rich national history of architecture, religion, and struggle: culture provides the cornerstone of people’s national identity. The United States, however, is different. Consider this excerpt from the Monthly article:

To travel, as I recently did, from Miami to Tulsa is to experience culture shock. About 60% of Miami’s inhabitants count Spanish as their first language and you can easily go for hours without hearing English. I had extraordinary difficulty getting my order taken at a Pizza Hut because I was ordering in English. Miami lives up to its occasional nickname of ‘North Latin America’. Tulsa, by contrast, offers confirmation of every small-town-America stereotype. It is where a Wal-Mart employee told me that he thought Australia was Europe’s most unique country. Beyond the ever-present flags and cable televisions, it was difficult to tell that the two cities were part of the same country.

As Aly goes on to argue, the cornerstone of national identity in the United States is not so much cultural as it is civil. Americans are united in their love for their country and its values, despite their often vast differences. It’s worthwhile contrasting this, as Aly does, with the recent Australian experience in relation to “national identity”:

In Australia, we were urged to remember that ours is a nation built essentially on the Judeo-Christian tradition, that ours is a culture derived essentially from Britain, and that we are an English-speaking nation. For John Howard, integration meant “learning as rapidly as you can the English language”. Learning English is a good idea, of course, if only for pragmatic reasons. It is something altogether different, however, for the prime minister to make it a hallmark of Australian-ness. Miami, according to this logic, is not a symbol of glamour and success, but an abomination of national fracture.

This is something more like the European conceptualisation of “national identity”; a conceptualisation that is arguably faring less well than the open-minded, open-ended modern American version. It does make one consider that Australia is perhaps quite far from being the “world leading” multicultural society that many of us would like to think that it is. Are we trying to force our multicultural citizenry into a monoculture that it is quite simply impossible to force them into?

Electoral Reform Green Paper – Strengthening Australia’s Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

As previously mentioned, the government has released a second Electoral Reform Green Paper for public comment. Chapter 15 of the document lists out a series of eighty issues in the form of questions that the government is inviting responses to in particular from the republic. The state of our democracy is a particular bugbear topic for me, so I have this evening managed to finally get my act together and complete my submission, focusing on 19 of the questions raised.

Public submissions are open for just over three more weeks until Friday 27th November 2009. An online discussion on the document will be held from next Monday 9th November 2009 until Friday 13th November 2009.

My submission in all its unadulterated prolixity is over the fold.

Continue reading →

Exit Peter Costello, enter … Clive Hamilton?

Posted on by
3

The Greens look set to do something in Peter Costello’s old seat of Higgins that they have often been unable to do: field a high-profile candidate with genuine crossover appeal. Clive Hamilton is certainly not everybody’s cup of tea, but he does have a certain amount of street cred amongst the broader left and the environmental movement. He will also be running against a party in the doldrums both federally and in Victoria, and a Federal Opposition that has a self-destructively schizophrenic position on climate change. The candidate selected by the Liberal Party, former staffer Kelly O’Dwyer, is arguably a sufficiently bland a candidate as to encourage an upset result. One would think that all of these circumstances could conceivably create a situation where even a safe seat like Higgins could become something of a contest. If I were a betting man, I would predict that the result will be closer than the Liberal Party would like, but that they will get over the line.

Federal Labor have elected to do the pragmatic tactical thing and not field a candidate in Higgins – a practice I don’t agree with, but admit makes a certain amount of brutal sense. With another federal election due late next year anyway, and the likelihood of a Labor win relatively low, the potential benefits that might flow from Labor contesting the seat are outweighed by the costs, particularly with a strong Greens candidate now in the mix. Labor have never won the seat of Higgins since its creation sixty years ago.

It’s all a bit incestuous when you think about it. The Greens famously courted Peter Garrett on numerous occasions before his controversial decision during the (pre-explosion) Latham era to join the Labor Party. In years past, high-profile players within the Labor Party organisation seriously entertained the idea of Malcolm Turnbull joining the ALP’s ranks. One does wonder whether Clive Hamilton would be considered an asset as a candidate by the Labor Party. Clearly his strong views on the nature of modern capitalism, climate change and stringent opposition to nuclear power paint him as more of a natural Greens candidate. Leaving aside the much debated travails of Peter Garrett for a moment, just what sort of impact could a few high-profile leftish intellectuals have on the parliamentary Labor party?

The boatpeople furphy re-emerges

Posted on by
7

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to gain some traction, the Opposition has elected to excavate Philip Ruddock from his here-to-fore dormant state on the backbench in order to remind everyone what a ring-a-ding job the Howard Government did on asylum seeker issues. Ruddock’s opinion piece in The Australian today is a blast from the past in tone, and I’m not sure that it can fairly be considered to be a remotely relevant blast. According to Ruddock, the Rudd Government’s actions on border security since November 2007 are “forcing people into the hands of people-smugglers”, and “a fundamental rethink” is required by the government in order to “bring this insidious people smuggling activity to an end.”

The Opposition seems desperately keen to contrast its own historical rhetoric on asylum seeker issues with the slightly softer, more humane approach being taken by the Rudd Government. Forgetting for a moment the rather ugly and sometimes disturbing human rights issues raised by the previous government’s mandatory and indefinite scheme of detention, the Opposition wants to remind us that they were “tough” on boatpeople when in government, and that Labor is “not so tough”. In concert with this mode of attack, every rickety boat that happens to depart Colombo or elsewhere on its way to Australia apparently represents a failure of Rudd Government policy in comparison with the Howard Government’s illustrious record.

It should be apparent to everyone that there is no single activity or series of activities that any government can implement to stop people-smugglers or asylum seekers from trying to come to Australia. It is unrealistic to expect governments to be able to stop people-smugglers from plying their trade altogether. Australia is, without doubt, a desirable destination for people seeking a new life beyond their own borders, particularly for those living in war or strife-torn countries. Regardless of the punitive or draconian penalties Australia might elect to impose upon people-smugglers or indeed the asylum seekers themselves, some will still try to make the journey. The complex causes that drive people to set off from their homelands on boats bound for illegal landing in Australia can not be explained away as being a function of Australian government policy – inconveniently for the Coalition. It is a fair bet that the vast majority of people smugglers do not peruse Australian immigration or asylum-seeker policy before taking money from folk eager to try and make the journey and launching their boats. In short, people-smugglers are unlikely to be cheered by Rudd Labor any more or any less than they were by the Howard Government over the last decade, and “insidious people smuggling activity” can no more be completely eradicated by the policies of the government of the day than any other social ill we might care to consider.

Injecting some nutrition into the GST

Posted on by
13

Like many of us, I suspect, I have a strong disposition towards eating significant quantities of chocolate on a regular basis, so I do have some vested interest in the so-called “fatty food tax” that is being bandied about as an option in the war on obesity. The Obesity Policy Coalition, which consists of Cancer Council Victoria, the Victorian branch of Diabetes Australia, VicHealth, and the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention at Deakin University, proposes that an annual nutritional survey be introduced, and that the data gathered from this survey be used to drive the particular foods that the tax would target.

While conservatives are sure to baulk in quick time at the prospect of another tax being introduced and the government sticking its grubby nose into our shopping trolleys, I really do think that a tax-neutral scheme could work, work well, and better yet for the poll junkies in the Rudd Government, be sold effectively to a sceptical public. Tax-neutral, you ask? As Jane Martin suggests in the article linked above, what I believe would work best is for healthy foods (e.g. particularly fruit and vegetables, wholegrain-based foods, lean meats, etc.) to be subsidised by the government through a reduction in the rate of GST for those items, with tax reductions funded through corresponding increases in the rate of taxation on unhealthy foods (e.g. alcohol, sweets, high-fat snacks, soft drinks, energy drinks, etc.). Such a scheme would inject two powerful incentives into the market for people to think more carefully about the choices they make at the supermarket, and the sorts of food that they should be eating a lot of.

Making the scheme tax neutral cuts through a lot of the “tax rubbishing” that is sure to be done by the sorts of one-eyed ideologues who would be happy to drive their expensive cars through the undergrowth before they will contribute to a public roads system, or are happy to see the less well-off attend substandard schools and be treated as substandard hospitals because they don’t believe in public education or health systems. In short, such people are selfish mugs, and normally shouldn’t be given the time of day. However, they also shouldn’t be allowed to let their prejudices taint the perspective of everyday folk who just want the best for their families. Presumably there will also be costs to the economy involved in instantiating such a scheme, but I’m fairly certain that modelling of the scheme would produce long-term health benefits for the nation that dwarf the initial costs of its introduction.

This issue could be a quick win for public health; all that is needed is some analysis as suggested, what is likely to be some fairly gentle tuning of an existing tax measure, and the job is practically done. Mr. Rudd? Ms. Roxon?

Electoral reform, green papers, consultation

Posted on by
1

The Rudd Government has just released a second so-called “green paper” on electoral reform, entitled Strengthening Australia’s Democracy [PDF/DOC/RTF]. Public submissions on the weighty document, which runs to a meaty 251 pages, are open until Friday 27th November 2009, and an online discussion on the document will be held from Monday 9th November 2009 until Friday 13th November 2009.

Personally I think it is very good that the federal government is taking an interest in matters concerning Australia’s democracy. I have not had a chance to take the document in as yet, but will certainly endeavour to do so and to make a submission. The book I am currently trying (failing?) to write is squarely focused on the health of Australia’s democracy in the twenty-first century, so this green paper should certainly prove topical.

It is a little disheartening that this document is so difficult to engage with. All Australians have a stake in the health of their electoral system, but it’s a fair bet that very, very, very few value their stake to such an extent that they will be willing to digest a dry, book-sized document and to make a contribution to the associated consultation process over the next couple of months. The online discussion forum scheduled for early November is a reasonable idea, but there is only so much that a week-long online discussion forum can do. Once again the participants are almost certainly going to be that fraction of a percent of the population who have a strong or vested interest in electoral reform.

What are some other ways that the federal government could engage? Let’s just kick around a few ideas here. The government could post out a succinct survey that asks questions on the gist of the green paper to 10,000 households, and invite participants to both respond to the survey and to participate in a conference on the topic. Engage programs like Insight and Q&A to host shows specifically focusing on the content of the green paper. Offer financial rewards for meaningful contributions by members of the public. Work with high schools and universities to make formulation of a response to the green paper a mandatory part of the syllabus, or a “bonus” task for bright sparks trying to go above and beyond.

More than ever, we need better, more incentivised methods of encouraging people to participate in their democracy. We don’t need to talk about rocket science here. We just need to talk to people about their democracy in a way in which they can relate, and just as importantly, respond.

When wanting the best equals plagiarism

Posted on by
Reply

I think Kevin Donnelly probably has a point when he suggests in The Australian today that Rudd Labor is borrowing a bit from Blair Labour on education (not sure this is necessarily a bad thing anyway). This point, however, is just a bit silly:

Even the rhetoric is the same.

Just compare Blair’s exhortation, “Our goal: to make Britain the best-educated and skilled country in the world education, education, education”, to Kevin Rudd’s statement: “We need to lift our vision and start to imagine an Australia where we turn ourselves into the most educated economy, the most educated society in the Western world.”

Frankly I would be much more concerned if a political party was not interested in making their nation’s education system the best humanly possible, than about any supposed plagiarisation of rhetoric. Of course, Donnelly seems averse to any education agenda that involves the state providing solutions to problems, so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the Rudd Government’s agenda has stuck in his craw. To the wolves, public school students; to the wolves.

Stimulus watching

Posted on by
Reply

Even by its own arguably compromised standards of impartiality, The Australian has outdone itself with its Stimulus Watch series of articles. Scrolling down, one finds an interminable list of almost single-mindedly negative contributions, many provided by the usual suspects with a conservative bias, such as Imre Salusinszky, David Uren, Pia Akerman (daughter of Piers) and Christian Kerr. Even despite its reputation for going tough on Labor and the broader left, I find it amazing that a publication of the stature of this newspaper can get away with such a one-eyed hatchet-job on the Rudd Government’s response to the GFC. Where is the balance? Where is the measured reporting of successes and failures – or the consideration of alternate points of view? Non-existent. Cut adrift from its ties to power since the demise of the Howard Government, Australia’s only national rag is increasingly looking like a bloated, low-brow version of Quadrant.

The increasingly tedious onslaught continues in today’s edition of the paper, with a rambling column from Malcolm Colless which takes aim at the public sector jobs created by the government’s stimulus spending. Upon reading, it becomes obvious that the premise of the column is driven in large part by the author’s hatred of government bureaucracy, itself likely driven by the author’s hatred of having to pay tax, characteristic of both the average Liberal voter and, utterly coincidentally, the average contributor to The Australian. A few ragged news threads regarding developments on the national broadband network are thrown together with a weary attack on the Rees Government in New South Wales to provide a strange, dove-tailing anti-Labor rant that provides precious little insight into the real state of affairs.

I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that the only people who could possibly enjoy reading such a relentless stream of one-eyed diatribes are diehard conservative readers, already committed to voting either Liberal, National, or worse. Everyone else, from the traditional Labor or Green voter to the swinging voter, is likely to be turned off in a big way, and I don’t think that is good for either the conservative side of politics, journalistic standards, or indeed the health of democracy in this country.

If people stop respecting an outlet, its content degrades in value and reach, regardless of whether or not some of the content is actually quality journalism. I don’t see how it is possible for any person interested in reading balanced political journalism to respect The Australian anymore.

‘Utegate’ and related codswallop

Posted on by
Reply

The embarrassingly named “Utegate” saga rolls on, and the mainstream media has been getting itself into a right lather about it all. On Sunday the papers were suggesting that one of Wayne Swan, Kevin Rudd or Malcolm Turnbull were destined to have their position fatally undermined by the saga, depending on precisely how events unfolded over the coming days. The News Limited stable has been particularly vehement about the matter, making best efforts to turn what is realistically a molehill for the government into a mountain. I honestly can’t see it happening. If a head does roll out of this, it will be the head of a subordinate, and for the time being at least this is the most extreme consequence that seems justified.

Thanks to the introduction of the AFP, the matter with the email has become the real deal as far as political backlash from ‘Utegate’ is concerned; any accusations levelled at Wayne Swan regarding favoritism or cronyism are neither here nor there and were quite frankly drawing a long bow to begin with. Politicians of all stripes make representations on behalf of their constituents every day, some of whom, perish the thought, they may actually know. I don’t think there is anything untoward about this. There is no allegation that John Grant has benefited from the Treasurer’s or indeed the Prime Minister’s attention, at least not to a greater extent than any other constituent has. Big, fat, hairy deal.

In any case, now that it has emerged that the email at the centre of the scandal is a “fraud”, it only remains to be seen just who composed the email, if this indeed can be determined by the AFP. It seems to me that there are only really three plausible motives for the hoax:

1) The “email” was produced by someone with ties to (or sympathy for) the Government who hoped to trick the Opposition into taking the bait and overextending its reach.

2) The “email” was produced by someone with ties to (or sympathy for) the Opposition who hoped to generate a scandal from the affair.

3) The “email” was produced as a joke or by someone in a somewhat lighthearted vain and the Opposition and the media have caught wind of it and run with it.

I find it difficult to believe that either Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan or indeed Malcolm Turnbull would have implicated themselves in such an implausible and easily detectable hoax. Therefore one must suspect that a minor functionary with links to the Labor or Liberal Party within the Treasury is responsible for the email, and has acted generally independently on it. Idle speculation perhaps, but I suspect we will know a lot more about just which party will have egg on its face within the next 24 to 48 hours.

As time ticks by, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the position of any of the three political figures implicated in the scandal is at serious risk. The mainstream media might even have to start considering policy issues again sometime in the near future. Crikey.

Cutting him loose

Posted on by
2

There’s quite a lot ado about parliamentary expenses at the moment, a little bit locally, but to paraphrase the Prime Minister, there’s a whole shitstorm going on in the United Kingdom right now. Even as Kevin Rudd clings gingerly to repeat-offender Joel Fitzgibbon like one does with a somewhat disliked cousin, it is beginning to look as though the ever-escalating UK expenses scandal might be the straw that finally breaks the back of the Brown Labour Government.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is reportedly set to resign from Cabinet, and Communities Secretary Hazel Blears resigned in a shock announcement today. Now backbenchers are threatening to push a petition letter throughout the partyroom calling for Gordon Brown to abdicate, and the Guardian has taken the extraordinary step of calling for the Prime Minister’s resignation in an editorial:

All must agree that the die is cast and a hard judgment made. Otherwise progressive politics will be dragged down at a general election in May 2010 that could lead to a much bigger defeat than Labour suffered in 1979. That might bring a chance for other parties to take it forward, as the Liberal Democrats are trying to do in this election. But they are not placed to enter government. Labour has a year left before an election; its current leader would waste it. It is time to cut him loose.

It’s a little unfair that Gordon Brown should be made to pay a price for the current expenses drama, a drama in which every sitting member of parliament has a stake. The Guardian editorial is nevertheless spot on. Gordon Brown has been given a good run, but he and his government remain on an express train to electoral irrelevance at the polls next year unless something drastically, and changes very soon indeed.

Roll on David Miliband as a fresh alternative to Gordon Brown, and a man of more substance than David Cameron.