Rudd as local member...

I Spent Christmas jumping between the in laws and home, catching up with friends and family on both the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. My father - in - law was telling me of his experiences with Kevin Rudd. Rudd used to drop in regularly to my father-in-law's service station on a Saturday and spend up to two hours talking, with his 'mobile office' parked across the road. It made me reflect on what a successful local member Rudd has proven to be.

In the 2004 election, Rudd secured 58.63% of the vote - representing roughly a 3% swing to Labor at each election since 1998. He has managed to do this despite being Shadow Foreign Minister since November 2001 - a job which had taken him overseas significantly more than the average Labor politician. His 'mobile office' has been a regular feature around South Brisbane, and Rudd gained favour and profile in his lobbying against increased aircraft traffic over his electorate.

There is no doubt that Rudd has a tenacity and capacity for work that is similar to John Howard. His perceived energy levels are much higher than any of his predecessors - Latham seemed drained, run down - and eventually self-defeating, Beazley was overweight and therefore 'lazy'. No one has been able to match 'little' Johnny and his daily power walks - but Rudd and incessant media tarting and 'listen tours' definitely matches Howard for drive and desire.

What will be most interesting is to see how Rudd deals with adversity - when the media that has for so long been Rudd's personal 'champion' turns against him, when the political fist fight starts to leave him worse for wear. We all know how Howard has risen up against adversity, beating the odds and all political commentators courtesy of a Lazarus triple bypass - but does Rudd have that same ability? Time will tell....

A painful way to learn the wrongs of drink driving...

A relative of Carla Zampatti's wraps his $300,000 month old Ferrari around a pole (in a rather public location on a Sunday afternoon) and then blows three times over the legal limit... priceless! Photo and full details from the SMH here...

You wouldn't read about it would you?!?

News today that another NSW Labor MP is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons - Iemma must be taking years off his life at the moment with these stress levels. The MP has had assault charges level against him, after what he claims was a domestic split going very wrong;

"Steven Chaytor, the member for Macquarie Fields, says he is innocent of the charge, and that he was only trying to stop his partner from killing herself after he had tried to end their relationship." SMH 20/12/06

But what about the location - Macquarie Fields - if you ever wanted to build on a stereotype, Chaytor has managed to do it. Let's just hope the neighbours didn't try to lynch the police when they arrived to sort this domestic dispute on steroids.

Still, you have to feel sorry for NSW Labor - and shake your head at the calibre of candidates and MPs that state governments turn up. Mind you my favourite Labor family still has to be the Molloys - you know, Ivan 'milat' Molloy of 2004 infamy, and his lovely wife Cate. If you know Queensland politics, you would recognise Cate Molloy as the former Labor MP for Noosa who couldn't quite make a decision on whether to stick to her convictions about the Traverston Dam (which is not in her electorate of Noosa). In the end, after appearing to have a split personality disorder, she listened to the voices in her head and stormed out of the QLD Labor Conference in 2006, and was shortly after dumped as Labor candidate.

Dr Ivan Molloy was national news during the 2004 election campaign for his colourful past - a photo op with a machine gun while learning about 'political groups' in the early 80's quickly saw him dubbed Ivan 'Milat' by Mark Latham - including in a press conference.

The couple was also suspended from the Noosa SLSC and QLD SLSC after a heated battle with Noosa 'Clubbies' about a nude painting being hung in a Noosa surf club. The dispute saw Molloy face allegations of intimidation of Noosa suf club members, as well as some blatant media 'slutting' that Peter Beattie would be proud of. At least these two never struggled to keep the media interested; with bikini photo ops, nude sunbathing habits. Like watching a train wreck I guess....

It's called a conflict of interest, Combet!

News today that three union bosses, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten and Doug Cameron have run into an ethical situation. As trustees of the board of Australian Super, these three men are legally required make decisions that deliver the best return to their members. Guess which current Australian icon Australian Super has around $80 million worth of shares in .... Qantas. Guess which union bosses have been making loud protests against the sale of Qantas due to fears of job losses and contracting out services to overseas operators?

Cameron is already on the record saying that he believes it is his duty as a trustee to consider job losses and debt that Qantas may incur - well maybe if his super fund was going to hold onto the shares. It's definitely his duty as national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, who represent the Qantas maintenace engineers that could possibly lose their jobs in the future (not that this wasn't the case with an ASX listed Qantas either). Can anyone say conflict of interest!

If I was a member of Australian Super, I'd be asking why the board of trustees had three members who will so obviously have major conflicts of interest when it comes to making decisions that will affect Australian union members, and I'd be asking if the Australian super members would take priority.

The full details are reported in the Australian here....

Rudd's strategic considerations...

Kevin Rudd is an energetic, ambitious and cunning political operative - his short time in the spotlight has confirmed this. What interests me now is what are his long term strategic moves - what decisions he is undertaking with only his inner circle to solidify his leadership position and cut down his rivals.

As many commentators have mentioned, Rudd mounted a successful leadership challenge as part of a team, the 'dream team' pairing of himself and Julia Gillard. Gillard provided valuable support, particularly when rumours abound that Rudd is not well liked by his colleagues and has few close friends on the opposition benches. Gillard herself was in contention when leadership challenges were discussed by the media, but probably realised that she did not have the numbers to match Beazley, or convince Rudd to be the junior partner in the marriage of convenience. However this now leaves Rudd in a difficult place - his strongest rival is now in a high profile shadow ministry of her choosing, facing off against a much less talented member of the Government that in her previous job of health. Rudd must realise that if Labor fails to win the next election, he could face the very real possibility of fending of a leadership challenge from Gillard - something that many of her supporters who voted for Rudd (only because he wasn't Beazley) would welcome.

So how does Rudd subtly undermine Gillard's position in a way that doesn't damage his own leadership position and election chances? Paul Kelly puts forward the idea of backing down from Beazley's IR promises with less drastic changes like re-introducing the no disadvantage test rather than ripping up hundreds of thousands of AWA's (including Rudd's new staff who are all to be employed on AWA's - that's another story). This would sieze the iniative on I.R. from the coalition, who are currently sitting back watching jobs growth and wage increases, preparing to mount one giant counter offensive against Labor and their Union bedfellows. It would also put Gillard in the embarassing position of having to sell the backdown to both the media, Unions and Australian public - after going on record this week stating that no such backdown will occur.

I'm not sure that Rudd possesses the necessary political capital to achieve such a brave and potentially rewarding manouevre. The Unions are dead set on returning their power to levels not seen since the 70's and 80's, not just maintaining their current weak grasp on influence - this election represents perhaps their last chance to do so. Rudd would have to win the next election to have any hope of his leadership lasting - his enemies would be baying for blood even if Labor greatly improved their position but lost the election. Instead I beleive he will rely on Gillard being unable to perform under the pressure of the election - Abbott had her measure easily during her time in the shadow health portfolio, and I suspect many on the opposition benches think her opportunities have fallen into her lap simply because of profile and sex, rather than merit.

Julia Gillard faces a challenging scenario - win the election and she will be hailed a success... and then will face a long wait as PM Rudd seeks to become the longest serving Labor PM in history. Lose the election and the Unions will seek to blame her for being unable to shield them from the vicious blow of Work Choices. I'm sure Rudd realises this - he is most likely growing in comfort as his own proflie rises at a higher rate than Gillards. This makes specualtion of Rudd building a shadow cabinet without space that can be vacated for little Billy Shorten interesting. It points to Rudd already considering the longer term - planning to keep another potential messiah on the backbench for a little longer, buying his own leadership further time.

Now we have the opportunity to sit back and watch a very interesting stage in ALP history unfold....

Counting the cost of conservation...

The bushfire season is upon us. This years fires are shaping up as some of the most devestating in recent history, particularly in Tasmania and Victoria. It is undeniable that the extended drought has left bushland parched, but one of the major contributors to the severity of the fires is the massive amount of fuel for the fires to burn. State governments have failed to adequetly reduce fuel in national parks and state forests, leaving them fuel ladened and increasing the inensity of fires that engulf these areas. Despite state government inquiries clearly pointing to the need to reduce fuel, little has been done. Once again Australia faces devestating bushfires, and CFA members are forced to fight fires in conservation areas as well as trying to save homes and towns in regional areas.

Another factor to consider is the massive release of carbon and other pollution into the atmosphere. The environmental cost is particularly high - I want to see an comparison to Australia's annual carbon levels once the fire season has ended. It is particularly important given we seem to be on a path to a carbon tax - what good is reducing carbon emissions on one hand, while persuing a conservation policy that guaruntees huge carbon emissions every bushfire season on the other?

Asa Wahlquist has written on the topic in today's Australian, but overall this is an issue that the media seem to be missing. If we are so worried about carbon emissions, we should be addressing man made and natural carbon emissions, particularly bushfires.

The state and federal governments need to lead on this issue, ignoring the bleats of conservation groups and listening to the fire management experts.

Compassionate conservatism...

I've settled on a politicial 'label' that most aptly describes my beliefs - compassionate conservatism. Myron Magnet gives an excellent outline of the basic beliefs of a com-con, an ideology that fits my beliefs almost perfectly. Magnet sums up compassion for the poor in a brilliant fashion:

"Compassionate conservatives ... offer a new way of thinking about the poor. They know that telling the poor that they are mere passive victims, whether of racism or of vast economic forces, is not only false but also destructive, paralyzing the poor with thoughts of their own helplessness and inadequacy. The poor need the larger society's moral support; they need to hear the message of personal responsibility and self-reliance, the optimistic assurance that if they try —as they must —they will make it. They need to know, too, that they can't blame "the system" for their own wrongdoing."

This passage could so easily be applied to my own beliefs on what should be the driving thought behind welfare programs in Australia. Aboriginal Australians would benefit greatly from a com-con driven agenda to revolutionise the way we do welfare and service programs.

"The problem with welfare, they believe, is that instead of helping needy mothers raise sturdy children who go on to succeed in life, it perpetuates weak families, stuck in dependency for generations. As a way of life —which is what it has become —welfare degrades rather than uplifts too many of its supposed beneficiaries.
Work, by contrast, makes an individual responsible for herself and her family and thereby provides a road to self-respect and equal citizenship. So far, former welfare recipients forced out into the work force, even those who work very low-level jobs, tell reporters that they are finding it (does) just that."

I'll attempt to outline how compassionate conservatism applies to foreign affairs and security issues in future posts... I'm just thrilled to find an idealogy that I can champion so easily.

Rudd steals a march on.... Costello !?!?!?

I was reading the Australian article today on Rudd stealing from Howard's education agenda. It suddenly struck me that the Liberal politician who should be most worried at the moment is not Howard, but Costello. Rudd's 'Howard lite' approach would have Costello wondering who handed his playbook over to the Labor party! Rudd is definelty coming to the centre - take away I.R. and industrial policy, and you have an almost carbon copy of ideas that Costello has been trying to establish as his own agenda. Particularly in the earlier stages of the year when Costello was seen to trying to emerge from under Howard's shadow, he has shown a keen interest in fixing federalism. 'A bridge to far' could almost sum up Costello's approach to correcting the Liberal party path when he finally does take over from Howard. He will steer the ship back toward a slightly more little 'l' liberal direction, softening some of those hard right edges of the Howard years.
Costello has got to be worried - how on earth does he differentiate between himself and Rudd apart from I.R. and some other labor movement specials? Could be an interesting election sometime in 2010!!

What not to do - lessons from Labor

What will the coaliton do when the inevitable occurs and they return to the dreaded opposition benches? I hope for their sake they do not choose to follow in the footsteps of the Australian Labor Party, that is for sure!

The biggest single mistake that Labor has made in opposition is not to take advantage of the opportunities it allows. The opportunity to correct the corruption that will inevitably creep into any party that is Government for a lengthy period. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - so with the loss of power the coalition must quickly eliminate moral and ethical weaknesses and corruption.

Secondly is learning from defeat - studying what went wrong for the Coalition, and what Labor did right to defeat the incumbent Government. Appreciating their 'enemies' strengths will allow the Coalition to learn from their enemy, and plan more effecitvely for the next election. Underestimating the victors is inviting a long stint in opposition - take Labor's lack of appreciation of their own failings and inability to appreciate Howard's strengths and successes, particularly in the 1998 and 2001 elections.

Finally that disunity is death - limiting the necessary blood letting and purging that must take place after the inevitable loss is paramount. Then the coalition must quickly settle on new leadership and shadow cabinet / frontbench team - and stick by them! Internal fighting that can so easily flare up after the comforts of the Government benches are left behind must be avoided at all costs - just look at Labor's last five years!

If economic / environment / security disaster does not cut short the Government's reign, I'd expect that the inevitable defeat would occur after Costello's first election victory. Howard will hand over in about 2008, Costello will win in 2010 before losing in 2013....

7.30 Report gets a little fiesty...

Kerry O'Brien and Amanda Vanstone squared off tonight on the 7.30 report. The interview didn't even start on a civil note when Kerry led into the interview with a very damning spin on reports released by the Commonwealth Ombudsman today.

Vanstone started by posing an alternative lead in - to which Kerry snappily replied that she should answer the question because they didn't have much time. I haven't seen Vanstone on the 7.30 report before, but there has to be a history of fiery encounters for Kerry to respond so angrily - he was like an attack dog that wouldn't let go. Essentialy Kerry wanted an admission from Vanstone that she or Phillip Ruddock was responsible for the frequent mistakes that have plagued the department over recent times. Vanstone was particularly poor in her rebuttal to Kerry's ongoing demands that she state her responsibility for the errors. Probably a reason why so many are calling for her head in the name of fresh talent moving to the frontbench.

It made me stop and think - where do we draw the line of demanding 'responsibility' from our Ministers for errors / mistakes within their department? How on earth is Vanstone actually responsible for each of these mishandlings and mistakes in her department which occured at the coal face of the department, often in distant geographical locations to Canberra or her electorate.

How is Brendon Nelson actually 'responsible' for the many stuff ups in the handling of the Kovko saga? Too often in recent times have the media scrum bayed for blood of a minister when mistakes are made from a very junior level within their departments. I see the responsibility of a Minister once a mistake or error has been brought to their attention is to investigate, take advice and then act to ensure the problem is fixed. I do not see it as their responsibility to put their head on the chopping block when a platoon seargent fails to see the body of his soldier home, or when military police badly handle an investigation.

We want our leaders to be responsible, but that doesn't mean being the target for all criticism and abuse. Micromanagement is not something that encourages efficiency and good results within a Government department. A minister cannot be everywhere at once, and so the media has no right to expect them to be omnipresent, all knowing, responsible for every action or inaction of their department. Maybe we need to re-draft the expectations of our Ministers and the way they run their departments to accurately reflect realistic expectations....

Rudd is off to a shakey start...

Kim Beazley's woeful Labor legacy is surely on its last legs. Surely he will spare the party and more of his mediocre performances that have left a legacy of loss upon the party. After losing the leadership ballot, Beazley secured a legacy he'd rather forget - he has lost every contested leadership ballot he stood for, and every election as Labor leader. Perhaps his infamous 'roosters' will also have their talons loosened from the party's 'neck' to allow for some much needed reform.
I caught the last thirty minutes of question time today, courtesy of an early knock off at work. Rudd was looking very out of depth coming up against John Howard. Straight away you see that Rudd is going to have to sharpen up his image and presence within the parliament - he was coming across as a meek and mild, quietly spoken and lacking in aggression. There was no conviction in his questions to the Prime Minister, no emotion to show how 'outraged' and 'convinced' he is in the policies he represents. Rudd failed to land a punch on Howard while dancing around throwing weak jabs on Industrial Relations and climate change. Some of the loudest cheers in months were delivered from the Coalition benches as Howard replied will deft upper cuts, displaying a decisive, convincing demeanour. It was as if the Coalition could sense the beginning of a long route - a 'Waterloo' moment that begins a long offensive ending in victory in the polls in 2007.
One of the most telling comments in question time was delivered by Howard when addressing Kevin Rudd. He told the new leader that until the Labor Party ended the disproportionate control by the trade union movement, Labor would continue to decline in its ability to relate to Australia. He's right, and many Labor politicians would know it. The courage to face the bloody and painful 'divorce' of the union movement and Labor party is not yet present within any of the current or potential future leaders.

Whoever wins, Labor loses.

Peter Hartcher and the SMH have got their hands on polling information that indicates Labor under Beazley would secure a 41% primary vote, with Rudd at 48%. This is wishful thinking - the electorate as a whole is not going to reward Labor for either delivering them another 'risky' option in Rudd or tired (and lacking in support from his own party)old Beazley once again.
The only winner out of the ongoing leadership dramas is Howard and the Coalition. The problem that Labor faces is trying to get quality politicians out of its union powerbrokers - faction controlled party system. Union lackeys and career Laborites rather than community / business leaders are what Federal Labor has been recieving for years. Add to this the factor that they have to tempt recruits away from all - conquering state Labor governments to the hard yards of federal opposition. It is a difficult situation, and a situation that sees a weak shadow cabinet and weak opposition leader when compared to the Coalition.
I cannot see how Labor will be able to improve to an election winning situation by the 2007 election. Beazley has been mortally wounded, so even if he wins his chances of pulling off a surprise victory in his third attempt have greatly deterioted. Rudd will surely be targeted as a 'risky option' - with plenty of reminders of Latham, Labor's last 'risky option'. He is also yoked with the same dodgy policies and unhelpful situation - IR fading fast, AWB a non-issue and the economy still firing.
The unavoidable truth for Labor is that either leader will be heading to yet another Labor election defeat. The only question will be how this leadership battle and 2007 election loss will affect Labor in the medium to long term...

An inconvenient truth about AWB...

Greg Sheridan has highlighted what Australia's media has virtually ignored in the AWB 'scandal' and Cole Inquiry commentary. No better quote from the article than this;
"Let's get a few basic facts clear. The UN Volcker inquiry into the oil-for-food program found that 2250 companies from 66 countries paid commissions to Saddam Hussein's government as part of the program."

Why on earth has this level of detail on the real environment in which AWB paid commission to Iraq been ignored by the blanket media coverage until now? Shock jock Allan Jones was lauding Sheridan's comments on the Today Show yesterday, and I'm inclined to agree. We have levelled immense criticism and greatly weakened an important Australian company for simply competing on a level playing field where paying commissions were an unfortunate fact of life.

The criticism would be fair if AWB was the only or at least one of a small number of offenders. When 2250 companies are found to have paid commissions, the finger needs to be pointed in the direction of those responsible for the oil for food program, not the 2250 companies. The UN set up and was responsible for an imperfect program that encouraged corruption and delivered significant funds into Saddam's coffers.

This has been a self - defeating effort that has seen a strategically important (and internationally successful) Australian company almost destroyed, and Australian interests harmed. I am interested to see how many of the 2249 companies from the other 65 nations have been subjected to the same 'witch hunt' that we have seen in the Australian media and Cole report...

The real culprit here is the UN - which could have chosen to act as the middle man between companies and Iraq, but instead set up and presided over a greatly corrupted system that propped up a dictator.

The ghosts of the past return to haunt Beazley

Yesterday saw the inevitable occur - Beazley finally receiving notice that Rudd wanted his job. Beazley responded with what many tacticians may label a master stroke if he retains his position after Monday's party room vote; for the first time in recent years all front bench positions will be put to the vote. This would have sent the factions into hyper drive, and is of course designed to deflect some of the focus off the leadership challenge onto shadow cabinet ministers scrambling to retain their positions.

There are some inevitable positives for Labor out of this shadow cabinet party room vote. For once the factional powerbrokers do not wield all the power in deciding the position holders. Current Deputy Jenny Macklin will surely be dumped after years of non-existent influence in the parliament and public opinion. Peter Garret will surely be accommodated in a position where his public recognition and political potential can be harnessed. Despite these positives, Beazley's decision is destined to greatly undermine the shadow cabinet's performance in the lead up to the next election.

Beazley has all but guaranteed that if Rudd loses, he will also move from his current shadow foreign minister role, one that he has performed so strongly for Labor in recent times. If Beazley wins, his best performer in the last 12 months will then be licking his wounds rather than applying pressure in parliament and the press to the Coalition.

Whatever the result on Monday, the new leader will be yoked with an unstable shadow cabinet made up of competing interests and potentially destabilising rivalries. One of the most significant weaknesses within the Labor party is the inability of the Labor leader to choose their own shadow cabinet, forcing them to work with a less than preferred leadership team.

My own prediction is that Kevin Rudd will be successful in his leadership challenge. Rudd would not have acted without being confident of succeeding - his scheming ambition and conniving manner would not have allowed the possibility of a pre-emptive leadership challenge that derails his rise through the ranks. Labor will once again be the the loser in this leadership tussle - regardless of the result, the obvious weaknesses (soon to be increased in party room blood - letting ) of the opposition will once again set up another Howard - Costello victory in 2007.

Poetic justice to be served?

Finally finished an overseas stint with work, back home and back in touch with Australia once again. I was reading the Latham Diaries as I struggled to sleep somewhere over the Indian ocean early this morning. Latham serves up many damning observations about Beazley, particularly in the way he is a leader the 'machine men' can control (hence IR policy taking Australia back to the bad old days when the unions governed the nation through proxy). He also provides plenty of examples of how Beazley is not the 'all round nice bloke' that his image consultants have crafted over the years. Despite being a Liberal supporter, I could still appreciate the betrayl of Crean by Beazley as one of the true gutter moments of political power plays in the 21st century.

Wouldn't it be sweet poetic justice to see Beazley turfed out of the leadership before he gets the chance to contest his 3rd election? It would also be wonderful to see a premature run by 'Heavy Kevvie' that burns him out as a leader too early - a great thing for both the Labor party and Australia as a whole to see those two on parliamentary pensions. Latham's personal views on Rudd agree with my own and growing numbers in the electorate. He is a media tart, uninspiring leadership material that would sell his own mother to get ahead in the political game. It would not surprise me one iota to find out that his 'christian convictions' were nothing but a ruse to comment on a wide range of issues without being seen to overtly undermine his leader....

For the record I think Beazley will survive to be defeated for a third (and please God, final) time and further delay the necessary reformation that Labor must undergo to stay relevant to a decreasingly de-unionised electorate. Rudd is a good point scorer in parliament, but as a leader / manager myself, doesn't strike me as a potential leader.

Fair Pay Commission lives up to its name...

The first wage case judged by the Fair Pay Commission has seen a sizeable increase in the minimum wage for Australia. While business groups might be licking their wounds, the Coalition is celebrating what will surely be yet another valuable weapon in their arsenal to combat Labor in the Industrial Relations battlefield.

I personally believe that we should fix the minimum wage as it currently stands, and then adjust for inflation annually. The Government should then focus on programs that enable minimum wage workers to up skill and improve their earning capabilities - the minimum wage should be a stepping stone, not a plateau. Full time workers on the minimum wage with a family to support should be particularly focused upon - especially if they are the primary wage earner. A low minimum wage would allow business to create jobs easily, providing young Australians and students the unskilled casual and part time employment that suits their life style and commitment. Full time minimum wage earners should be provided with added incentive to move beyond the initial stepping stone of minimum wage unskilled labour.

What is most interesting about this development is that it further degrades the Labor and Union scare campaign about Industrial Relations. The election is still at least six months away, and if jobs continue increasing the average Australian is going to be a lot more sceptical about buying the Labor scare campaign. It is difficult to convince the electorate that this legislation is so bad when all the signs are so good. No mass sackings, no decreased wages - instead increasing wages, increasing job opportunities and few legitimate scandals. Labor may even find itself defending its scare campaign in the light of nothing but positive results from Work Choices.

Death comes calling for the Democrats...

Today Natasha Stott Despoja announced that she would not stand for re-election in the next election. With this development, it appears extrememly unlikely that the Democrats will return a single senator to the federal parliament after the next election. There will be many theories as to why the Democrat demise occured - most would stem from backing the GST and leadership battles. One I believe to be the most accurate is the fact that the Democrats have slowly but surely traveled from the centre of spectrum to the left, to the point where they resemble more closely the Greens and Labor's Left. Once their new 'identity' was assumed, it became very clear that voters prefered the Greens as an alternate Left wing voice. The rise in votes gained by the Greens mirrored a slow but steady decline in the Democrats. When policy mistakes (such as the GST) and cut throat leadership battles raged, the Democrats began to resemble some of the worst aspects of the bastards that they had pledged to keep honest.

The new political stage is an interesting one - an increasingly powerful and popular far left Green Party, and a supposed far right Family First Party. Somehow I think that both Labor and the Coalition will be much more inclined to work with Family First - and this fledgling 'pentecostal christian' party will find itself increasingly powerful in the Senate.

Fairfax's bias against Hillsong...

A short article today reminded me of a campaign by several media outlets in Australia to make Hillsong out to be some sort of cult. Alex Mitchell could bairly disguise his bias against Australia's largest church in his article in today's Sydney Morning Herald. He tried very hard to remove the christianity from the story - no where in the article did he let the reader know that Hillsong was in fact a church - and with the reference to Hillsong's church buildings as 'stadiums', you would be forgiven to come away from the article thinking Hillsong was some sort of sporting team. Many left leaning commentators have their sites trained on this church - in the past few years, I have noticed an increasing tendency to attempt to liken it to a cult or a far right dangerous fundamentalist organisation.

Heavens forbid that Australia's largest church should actually want to build churches that can cater for the several thousand christians that attend each week. $23 million might seem like a lot for a church to own in property and facilities... until you take a look at our older denominations. The catholic, anglican and uniting church organisations hold hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars worth of property and facilites throughout Australia. Hillsong, a church of some 15,000 christians, should expect to be able build churches that can accomodate and cater for its worshippers without cheap criticism from the likes of Mitchell.

Mitchell is yet another journalist that also ignores the fact that Hillsong is but one church of the Assemblies of God (AOG) - an Australian born and bred pentecostal denomination. This isn't a 'lone cult', but the largest of thousands of AOG churches that are in every corner of our nation. Pentecostal churches have more worshippers each Sunday than any other denomination bar the Catholics.

It really is another case of the left being so keen to paint pentecostal and evangelical christians in Australia as a religious right. Family First has been branded a far right political party, despite its support for refugee rights and disapproval of Howard's industrial relations reforms. The left is keen on beating up on a religious right that just does not exist. Hillsong, AOG and Family First all adhere to christian values and beliefs - a belief structure that can neither be pigeon holed in either the right, centre or left areas of politics.

North Korea joins the Nuclear Club

Confirmation today that one of the world's most dangerous rogue states has joined the nuclear club. Despite depending on world aid several times in the last decade to save its people from starvation, North Korea has found the resources to develop a nuclear capability. Unfortunately it also shows the inability of the international community to control nuclear ambitions of sovereign states. Do we really expect to succeed in Iran where we have failed in North Korea? Is it a realistic expecation that further tightening the sanctions against this rouge state won't see their new found nuclear capability on the market for other states and even non-state actors?

Today's development delivers a raft of questions - questions that have seen markets tumble in both Japan and South Korea. For the first time, a true rogue state has attained nuclear capability. North Korea is ruled by a regime that is happy to put its own interests above the lives and welfare of their own people - the road to nuclear capability was carved on the backs of millions that died of starvation and disease. These commoners paid the ultimate price for Kim Jong Il's nuclear ambitions.

We will soon see a international strategic situation where 'Pax Americana' is no more. The days are numbered where powerful nations can influence middle and small powers without fear of ramification. Middle and small powers who are nuclear capable will command a disproportionate influence, one that will encourage many other nations to also pursue this freedom of action in the form of nuclear capability.

Rudd's real reason for speaking out...

In the analysis of 'Faith in Politics' - Rudd's essay in the Monthly calling for more christian support of Labor, a few things have become clear. One of the best reviews of the essay came from the Australian's Christopher Pearson in his article 'Play for God and Country'. This quote, in particular the section in bold sums up best what worries me about Rudd:

There are other matters on which Rudd should be taken to task. I'd have thought it incumbent on his party's spokesman on foreign affairs, when deploring Australia's record on foreign aid, at least to have the grace to mention in passing that its forward funding commitment has more than doubled during the past four years. But that would be to misread Faith in Politics as a serious invitation to debate. Instead, I think it has to be seen as a vehicle for its author to assume a range of positions outside his portfolio in the arena of domestic politics, when his leader is registering a net disapproval rating of 16 percentage points and seems to be the main obstacle to a Labor victory at the next federal election.

Rudd most definitely seems to be seizing the 'Labor's Christian' mantle in order to establish himself in the media and allow leeway to comment on a wide array of issues without being seen as undermining Beazley's leadership. If I was Kim Beazley, Kevin Rudd is one man I would never turn my back to - Christian or not, he seems to be waiting in the shadows for his moment of opportunity.

Rudd's approach to 'Christian' politics

Kevin Rudd has for some time now been actively establishing himself as Labor's Christian spokesman. His essay has called for Christians to avoid becoming like the religious right in the US - seen as staunch Republicans, and therefore powerless to truly influence either party. A short quote from his essay below;

What, for example, is a Christian view on the impact of the Americanisation of our industrial relations system on family living standards and family life? What is a Christian view of global climate change, given Christian teachings on the proper stewardship of creation? And what is a Christian view of asylum seekers in the tradition of the parable of the Good Samaritan?

Rudd has raised some good points here - but unfortunately has ignored some other points that interest christian voters greatly - what is for example, the Christian view on abortion? what is a Christian view on Gay Marriage? What is a Christian view on Theraputic Cloning and Stem Cell Research? It is all well and good for a Christian politician to take a stand on social justice issues, but Christian voters expect people like Rudd to also take a stance on the issues I have just metioned, despite the political cost. Tony Abbott would no doubt be aware that his Catholic values cost him dearly, perhaps even to the point of missing a potential leadership opportunity. He still spoke up from a Christian perspective in the RU486 debate, despite the ridicule in attracted from both sides of parliament. Rudd seems ruthlessly opportunistic in his forays into the realm of Christian politics.

Rudd also has to examine his own party's approach to dealing with Christians, particularly Pentecostal Christians. Hillsong Church, the largest of the Assemblies of God churches ( An Australian born Pentecostal Denomination ) has been the target of several assaults from Labor politicians, most notibly Ian West in NSW. Penetecostal Christians are taunted as 'fundamentalists' - comparing them to extremist Muslims. Victorian Labor's Victorian Racial & Religious Tolerance Act has seen two Pentecostal pastors treated as criminals for 'daring' to criticise Islam (whilst Christianity seems to be fair game from all sides). This has forced the two pastors to fight a very costly legal battle in higher courts that is continuing to this day. Labor's close links with both the Greens and Democrats is also of a concern, given the anti-christian platforms that both parties represent. Much is to be done by the ALP to build themselves as a credible alternative to Christians, and Pentecostal Christians in particular (the fastest growing denominations in Australia, and second only to the Catholics in Church attendance).

The welfare trap...

Noel Pearson wrote an excellent op-ed piece in the Australian about the dangers of absolving those on welfare of their resonsibilities, both to their children and the community as a whole. While Pearson focuses primarily on the damage being done to Aboriginals because of the welfare trap , this is an issue that is just as much of a concern to Australians as a whole. We are lucky enough to live in a nation that provides welfare and services to the poor and disadvantaged, but as Noel points out, the method in which we currently do that may well be counter - productive.

Providing welfare that creates a situation where parents feel absolved from their parental responsibilities is something that we must correct. Welfare payments should definetly be linked to issues such as school attendance, school readiness (which Pearson describes as children being fed, clean and well rested for the school day), maintenance of the condition of government housing and other such issues.

This is most definetly not just an Aboriginal issue - a break down in a sense of responsibility also gives rise to a sense of entitlement and decrease in motivation ('why do it for yourself when you can have it done for you' mentality). Pearson continues to prove to be one of the most significant leaders in the Aboriginal community. He offers more hope and drive towards a better life for Aboriginal Australians, and offers solutions to the problems - not just criticism.

Turnbull continues to rise...

Malcolm Turnbull has chosen an excellent issue to rise through the ranks with in water. Given the serious problems around the nation with water usage, Howard created the Office of Water Resources this week and an expected new Junior Minister position that Turnbull will fill. It gives Turnbull the opportunity to gain further press coverage on a national stage - the issue of water usage will increase as the drought continues. Turnbull continues in his role as Parliamentary Secretary to Howard, and arrangement that seems to suit both men well. There has been speculation in both the Fairfax and News press that Turnbull is being used by Howard as a pawn in his chess game with Peter Costello. The longer Howard stays as Prime Minister, and Turnbull continues rising through the ranks, the more the whispers will grow of his potential as an alternate leader to Costello...

An unfortunate turn of events

Being overseas at the moment, I'd missed the fact that Lawrence Springborg had resigned at QLD Coalition and Nationals leader. This has to be one of the biggest steps backwards for conservative forces in the state in recent times. Springborg was a good leader - he was well respected and trusted throughout QLD, and was a premier in waiting - waiting for his Liberal Party counterparts to finally get it right. In Springborg, the Nationals had their last chance of another Nationals Premier of Queensland. They will never have a better chance than they did with Springborg. The status quo in Queensland will remain until the Liberal Party puts aside factional fighting and puts forwards some talented and promising politicians. A credible alternative premier will now need to be sourced from the Liberal Party - and none is forthcoming until the next election.

My prediction is that Anna Bligh will now claim succession to the role of Premier within the next term, and Beattie will retire as one of the most popular, but incompetent Premiers of all time. His legacy is not one that Anna Bligh should be looking forwards to inheriting, by any means! Unless a saviour figure emerges from the Coalition within the next term, will we see another 5 - 6 years of Labor government in Queensland.

Now if only Springborg had the will to fight it out as Opposition leader for another term....

Religion by the sword....

I have had several arguments lately with non-christian co-workers who do not believe Christians have the right to point fingers over violence and war justified by religious doctrine. The Pope's use of a medievel quote criticising spreading Islam by the sword has been the catalyst for violence and demonstrating by fundamentalist Muslims around the world. In a way, the violent rhetoric and actions by these fundamentalists strengthened the Pope's arguement that war and violence is not justified by God. Not having studied the Koran and Islamic texts enough to form a decisive opinion, I had until now been reduced to defending Christian theology. The New Testament sets a new covenant and Jesus Christ clearly outlines God's expectations of Christians - non violence is a key component.

I came across an excellent piece by Mark Durie, Creed of the sword,In the Weekend Australian. This article raises several questions that the Islamic world needs to ask itself. Muslims are taught that Mohammed is the last in the line of prophets that extend from Abraham to Jesus. Jesus is reduced to just a prophet, and not the son of God. Mohammed and the Koran is the last 'definitive guide' - much as Christians consider the New Testament as the definitive text over the Old Testament, or Torah. To me a lot of the Islamic teaching seems to be closer to Old Testament convenants, stepping away from the personal, non violent message of Jesus Christ. Read the article and see what you think...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html

Another excellent piece on the failure of Australian Islamic leaders to address the key issues raised in the recent debate, this time by Paul Kelly....

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460113-601,00.html

Turnbull's views on Hezbollah

"Hezbollah, like all effective terrorist organisations, embeds itself in the community, their fighters seeking to be, in Mao’s words, fish swimming in the sea of the people.
Civilian casualties are a terrorist objective. When Hezbollah fires missiles from a Lebanese village or locates its headquarters in a crowded suburb it does so in the expectation that retaliation will likely result in civilian casualties and pictures of wounded women and children on the evening news. Their calculation is that these civilian casualties will inflame global opinion against Israel and reinforce the local population’s hatred for Israel and support for Hezbollah."

Malcolm Turnbull has a well written arguement on the subject of the recent Lebanese conflict - see the full post at the url below...

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/news/article.aspx?ID=521

Goward gets her ticket

After a sometimes bitter campaign to parachute into the blue ribbon Sydney seat of Epping (despite living in Yass), it appears that Pru Goward will finally get her ticket. Greg Smith (who lives in the seat), a highly credentialed candidate, was dogged throughout the campaign because he was the Right's choice - and everyone knows the NSW Liberal Right is evil (well according to Fairfax and the ABC anyway). Despite being a model candidate for preselection, his ties to David Smith doomed him to weeks of bad press and a grubby attack on his record as the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in NSW upon winning preselection.

NSW definetly seems to be a little different to the other Eastern states at the moment - high profile candidates are fighting for pre-selection at a state level. This is a very positive sign for the future of the NSW Liberal Party, one that is not being seen in either Queensland or Victoria. Where as the majority of talent is still flowing to Federal seats in all other states, the fortunes of NSW Liberals definetly seem to be improving.

Hezbollah - the party of God ?

Hezbollah - the 'freedom fighting' organisation that so many from the left have championed and called for removal from Australia's terrorist organisation list. Hezbollah - also the same organisation that according to Forbes magazine is involved in international criminal operations to build its funds for the ultimate destruction of Israel.

"Like the Mafia of old, Hezbollah also gets its hands dirty with drug trafficking, some of it here in the U.S. The Drug Enforcement Administration busted a pseudoephedrine ring in 2002, claiming that it funneled cash to Hezbollah... Last year Rady Zaiter, a Lebanese citizen, was arrested in Colombia for allegedly heading a cocaine smuggling outfit in Ecuador that sent most of its profits to Hezbollah. The Party of God gets $10 million a year from the area where Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina meet, says a U.S. Naval War College report...

One lucky nab: Assad Barakat, a Hezbollah treasurer known for extracting protection money from Lebanese shopkeepers in South America hoping to keep their relatives back home safe from harm. Barakat was sentenced to six and a half years in a Paraguay jail." -Hezbollah's Hoard Nathan Vardi, Forbes Magazine 08.14.06

Drug trafficking, smuggling, extortion and standover tactics - oh but they are giving $15,000 to each Lebanese family whose house was destroyed by the conflict with Israel (instigated after Hezbollah attacked a border station in Israel, killed several soldiers and kidnapped two others). Just a shame that $15,000 is being funded by the $100 million (also from Forbes) the Iranian regime contributes to Hezbollah. Hezbollah has a win win situation - increased funding from extemists after instigating conflict with Israel, coming off as the good guy (rather than the parasite they are) when they give the homeless money (homes destroyed as a result of Hezbollah's actions and insistence on using houses as 'shields for military infrastructure and bases) and getting the Left to attack Israel and the US, supporting Hezbollah instead.

Just if you didn't know, Hezbollah was formed as an Iranian proxy in Lebanon in 1982. Its three aims were the eradication of Western imperialism in Lebanon, the transformation of Lebanon's multi-faith state into an Islamic state (Hezbollah has since distanced itself from this policy, which is a relief im sure to the sizeable minority of Lebanese Christians), and the complete destruction of the state of Israel. The final aim hasn't changed... it is a little hard to claim to be a legitimate resistance movement whilst maintaining a goal that is inherrently offensive (do you think Israel will just capitulate because Hezbollah defends Lebanon? Offensive action by Hezbollah against Israel is clearly required)....

I find little to justify an organisation that uses criminal activites, drug trafficking, extortion and promotes the killing of innocent Israeli civilians (women and children included) being called a party of God.

Election fallout continues...

"Queensland goes to the polls tomorrow with voters facing a clear choice. They can vote for more of a Beattie Labor government with proven failings, or a stumbling Coalition that has failed to prove anything" - Editorial, The Australian 08 Sept 2006

Rob Borbidge emerged from the land of political failures to heap praise upon the QLD Labor party, labelling it as the most effective political machine in the country. Nothing could be further from the truth - as the quote from the The Australian states, this victory had more to do with the lack of a credible alternative than brilliant performance and campaigning from Labor. The QLD Coalition went into this election with heavy media coverage of two major issues: the failure of a National - Liberal merger, and the Liberal party dumping its leader Bob Quinn days before the next election was to be called. Springborg and Flegg once again failed to demonstrate credibility and capability in the form of an alternative government. When there is no alternative, you stick with what you've got - it is as simple as that. The small changes in vote percentages could be attributed with the capitulation of the One Nation vote and redistribution of its former supporters to the other parties. Without this change, the percentages would have been almost exactly the same as the last election.

"What I think went wrong is that the Opposition parties, the Coalition parties, made themselves the issue...what has happened here is that we took the focus off the Labor Party and made ourselves the issue, and of course the people of Queensland reacted accordingly."

- QLD Senator Santo Santoro

Several papers, including the Sunday Mail, are feeding speculation that Springborg may be dumped as Nationals and Coalition leader. Bruce Flegg is only safe because leadership aspirant Michael Caltabiano was given his marching orders after an ingloriously short time in Parliament. The problem for future campaigns for the Coaliton is now the fact that they have failed to captialse on such bad performance by the Beattie Government - a lot of soul searching and reinstigating confidence in both Coalition parties is needed.

QLD 2006 - the fall out begins...

We always knew that Catalbiano had a fight on his hands with a well known former channel nine identity up against him. Chris Bombalas has sent one of the key powerbrokers in the Queensland Liberals back to the private sector, and has sured up Bruce Flegg's leadership at the same time. Beattie's crulest blow has most definetly been robbing the Liberals of one of their future hopes - unless Flegg blossoms with experience, the Liberal resurgence has been put back several years.

Gaven just showed how stupid it is to install National Party candidates as coalition choices in metropolitan seats. The Liberal party is the key to metropolitan seats in South East Queensland - I cannot see a time where the National Party will ever hold more than 20 seats in Queensland again (particularly if compulsory preferencing was introduced).

So in the wash up, has this been another spectacular Beattie victory, driven by a high performing incumbent government? In my view, this could not be further from the truth. This election campaign highlighted how bad the current Queensland Government is, and what is worse, what a poor alternative the voters have been presented in the Springborg - Flegg coalition. Voters are waiting to dump Beattie in a landslide - and given a credible alternative government, the 'baseball bats' will come out....

QLD 2006: Predictions

Much to my disgust, I have been disenfranchised for the 2006 QLD State Election - ahhh the price of being on Operations! The cut off for postal votes was Tuesday - right about the time I was happily handing excess water bottles out to Iraqi kids in a nice little rural desert town, Busayyah (See my Iraqi Letters link for that side of my life).

I've had little time to analyse the campaigns for both sides, but here goes. Labor will be returned - it might drop a seat or two, but it will be returned comfortably. The protest vote against some of the worst Governance Queensland has ever seen will be almost completely cancelled out by a protest vote against one of the most ordinary Coalitions Queensland has ever seen. Bruce Flegg has sustained some deep wounds throughout the campaign - his inexperience has been used by media and Labor alike. I am understanding now my Michael Caltabiano was so ready to seemingly leave his leadership aspirations alone and support Bruce Flegg as the new Liberal leader - the timing was not at all right.

It is my opinion that the next Coalition government of QLD will have to be one of a Liberal majority. The Coalition will stay in opposition as long as the Nationals maintain the balance of power, simply because this will mean that the vast majority of metropolitan seats will be in Labor's hands.

I'll be keenly crunching the numbers and fall out after the Labor victory tomorrow....

Increases to the Army: Movement in the right direction

So 3 RAR is now moving to Townsville, giving a 3rd infantry battalion to the city! This will increase employment and deliver flow on effects to the local economy, a welcome plus for North Queensland. 8/9 RAR will be re-raised in Brisbane, allowing 7 Brigade to become more than the toothless tiger it has become. 5/7 RAR will be split, with 7 RAR remaining in Darwin, and 5 RAR moving to Adelaide - again increasing employment and delivering flow on effects to the SA economy (much needed given its manufacturing sector woes).

This decision allows the ADF, and the Army in particular, to contribute to the many international security situations that arise, as well as having the ability to respond at short notice to situations in our own region. For too long the Army has been held back due to the percieved need to keep something in reserve for the region. Timor and the Solomon Islands type conflicts require a short term Army presence before a handover to the Australian Federal Police. The Army should not be kept in 'the garage' for low level conflict such as this. As the defence minister said, Australia is a country that likes to play its part in the world - not sit back in our own backyard and shirk responsibility. Australia is affected by international events far from our shores, so we should be prepared to contribute to international security - it is after all, in our best interests.

The Army will be able to maintain the current tempo ( even at its highest, with Iraq, Timor and Afghanistan occuring at once ) easily with this increase to manning. Our Army is becoming combat experienced, and all the more better for it. Australia is playing its part in international security and should continue to do so. I cringe at the thought of returning to a 'defence of mainland Australia' attitude that was so prevelant under the Labor governments.

Will the UN 'peacekeeping' force make a difference in Lebanon?

I'm so very dissapointed by the distance that the international community, particularly Europe, seems to be placing between themselves and the Lebanese issue. The greatest tragedy of the last few weeks of conflict will be if the international community fails to fix the issue of non-state actors within Lebanon for the second time. My feeling is that the best the UN will be able to muster is a half - assed peacekeeping force that will not disarm Hezbollah - once again they operate as a shield from behind which Hezbollah and their allies will regather and prepare for their next assault upon their sworn enemies. Only when Israel no longer exists will you see these parties pleased with the state of affairs within the Middle East.

Hezbollah has played a large sector of the Western media so scarily well that it makes me fear for the future of warfare. How does a terrorist organistation operating with the goal of inflicting maximum casualties upon Israeli civilians and actively abusing and using the Laws of Armed Conflict (Geneva and Hague conventions) come out looking like an oppressed legitimate political party in majority of the Western media? Time and time again the media has printed and screen Hezbollah propaganda of the worst kind - photo and video opportunities choreograhed by Hezbollah for the maximum effect. Damaging false stories and photos that affect public opinion, images that cannot be fixed with a retraction or trying to pass on the truth - negativity sells much better after all.

Only time will tell weather any action of significance is carried out by the UN or its peacekeeping force. Somehow I don't think the same reporters who heavily criticised Israel will be holding the Lebanese government or the UN to their responsibilites of disarming Hezbollah.

Comments from abroad...

Due to hectic work commitments the frequency of my posts may drop off a little. I'm now overseas for work, but am still monitoring Australian politics from afar. Beattie calling the election on the day I flew out will see me vote as a registered overseas voter for the first time - it will be an interesting election. QLD politics is slowly approaching a change of government - I don't think the Coalition will succeed this time around, but in 3 years it should be another story. My tip is for the balance of power within the Coalition to begin to change for the first time. The Liberals will win more seats from Labor than the Nationals will - the next time the Coalition is in power, it will be because the Liberals control Brisbane. The next Coalition leader will be a Liberal, not a National.

This week also saw Howard forced to withdraw his controversial border protection legislation. Steve Fielding did what I hoped he would, and made a decision based on Christian fundamentals that Family First lays claim to standing for. I would have feared to see the reaction if Family First had backed the new laws - this was a decision that Fielding had to make, and he gained good exposure because of the issue. Some commentators on the Left may soon realise that Australia's 'fundamentalist' christians are significantly different to the U.S. religious right that the Fairfax media seems so keen to compare them to. Family First will prove to be a lot more central than right on issues that play on Christian values.

Stem Cell research will be another issue that will dominate the headlines. As a christian, I do not have a problem with allowing stem cell research that does not use a true embryo. What I would like to see is amendments to legislation made to allow this, but at the same time blanket banning research using embryos for good. The ethical line in the sand must be drawn - I find it amazing that some sectors would jump up and down about animal testing for research purposes, but not testing on human embryos. I guess the pro-choice lobby has worked so hard to ensure embryos are not considered to be 'alive', and stem cell research is seeking to take advantage of this viewpoint. Only time will tell if proponents of the amendments can get a movement similar to RU486 occuring in parliament.

Ahh... Queensland politics.

Today saw the QLD Liberal party leader rolled in a party room meeting. Bob Quinn has never been inspiring, and has more often than not under-whelmed the electorate. His replacement Dr Bruce Flegg has scored some strong points on the Beattie government throughout the unfolding health scandals. Caloundra's own Mark McArdle takes the deputy leadership - continuing my hometown's contribution to State politics (Premier Mike Ahern, Deputy Premier Joan Sheldon). I must admit I was a little surprised - I had suspected that if anyone would take the reigns from Quinn it would be up and coming Michael Caltabiano. Having only been in parliament a matter of months after his by-election win, I suspect that this leadership topple occured far too early for Caltabiano's liking. Impressive to see the QLD Liberal Party site has replaced Quinn's photos and biography with Flegg in a matter of hours... makes you wonder if the coup was expected in Liberal circles.

From the government's point of view, it has been a hard week for Beattie. Water has arrived as a second large issue that could be a vote changer at the next election. Suprisingly, Beattie has decided to take this responsibility into his ever growing portfolio. His attempts to deflect criticism from the State Government to Local Government resulted in a unified retort from at a joint media conference from most of South East Queensland's mayors, and past mayor of Brisbane Jim Soorley. This is not an issue that will go away - and 'dealing' (throwing money) at the problem will ensure fiscal issues for a budget that did not allocate a cent to the two new dams or any other major water infrastructure projects. If only the Coaliton could make an intelligent contribution to the debate, and leave scare tactics like sex-changing fish out of it.

Howard realigns for the upcoming campaign

John Howard has begun to unveil the makings of the campaign tactics for the 2007 election. This week Howard has been apologising for both the interest rate rise and petrol prices - and letting voters know there hasn't been too much he can do about either. I see Howard crafting a simple campaign - both Costello and Howard have been talking up concerns within the economy - their tactic will be to convince voters the economy is to delicate to risk changing management and giving an unproven Labor treasury team the reigns.

This fear will target Beazley's plans to rip up AWAs, abolish foreign skilled workers (seriously increasing the skills shortage in the short term, despite what Labor policy incentives he promises in the medium to long term) and increase spending on capital infrastructure (increasing strains on skills and capital, putting pressure on the economy again).

One of the most interesting points that have come out of the interest rate rise this week is the realisation that it is the number two issues for households around Australia. Petrol pinches the weekly budget far more significantly - and it affects all Australians, not just those with morgatges. This is also an issue that the average Australian realises is not the fault of the Government - in fact, after Howard ensured the tax was on litres of petrol, not percentage of the price, petrol won't be an issue that will stick to Howard.

It will be interesting to see this week Labor attempt to begin establishing their economic credentials - putting forward alternative policy perhaps? (not likely)....

Parliament resumes after one of the most turbulant winter breaks in recent times - leadership dramas, middle east conflict to name some of the issues. Let the games begin!

UN ineffectiveness problematic in Lebanese conflict...

Kofi Annan's claims of 'apparent delibrate targeting' of a known UN observer post ignored one of the problems of the confict. Since the withdrawl of Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon in 2000, the UN has maintained an force of Observers throughout Israel and Southern Lebanon. In their midst, Hezbollah did not only fail to obey the UN Security Council resolution in which they were to disarm and disband their militia, it actually did the opposite. The UN has been recieving a running commentary from its observers of the preparations of Hezbollah military infrastructure and movement of weapons throughout the region.

This is a prime example of the UN as a toothless tiger - impotent and pathetic. Not only was their resolution disobeyed, but they have presided over the biggest arms build up of Hezbollah's history. The UN actually has a fair element of the blame for Hezbollah arming its infrastructure and forces with countless rocket artillery assets - Israel was expecting after withdrawing from Lebanon that the UN would police and ensure their resolution was carried out. Instead the UN stood by and watched Hezbollah prepare for their opportunity to launch their new found arsenal into Israel - not at invading troops but at civilians and civilian infrastruce indiscriminatly.

Annan lashed out at Israel for the killing of UN Observers by IDF bombing - Australia's media lapped it up, damning the Israeli's for their inhumane act... both ignored the fact that Hezbollah has openly moved forces to close vicinity of UN Observer posts, civilan infrastructure and to civilians themselves. Hezbollah understands the propaganda gains it makes when it forces Israel to use area weapons close to civilian and neutral infrastructure. Hezbollah gains in strenght everytime children are killed because of the combatants in their midst, when Hospitals and homes alike are destroyed due to rockets being fired in close proximity.

I just wish the Western media would stop feeding the Hezbollah propaganda machine and start looking at the tactics that are causing the collateral damage, and lay the deserving criticism and blame upon the terrorist Hezbollah forces.

Beattie's defecits keep coming....

News this week of Beattie's ad-hoc commitment to a water recylcing program to the tune of $334 million dollars - bringing the total of un-funded projects to $2 .334 billion dollars. Remember that the last state budget was released in June - a month later and Beattie has already racked up $2.334 billion in unfunded projects . Effectively Beattie has tried to bluff his way with the voters, claiming he was running the budget at a surplus, and then trying to slip the fact that $2.334 billion of funding were not included in Budget estimates shortly after. The $245 million budget operating surplus has well and truly gone, and factor in that Beattie is borrowing a substantial amount to fund the $10 billion infrastructure program he announced with great fanfare.

This dangerously negligent cowboy needs to go - Queensland will hurt from the legacy of Beattie's period of power.

Lebanon: Hezbollah is a parasite, not a freedom fighting movement!

I was extremely dissapointed with Dr Abraham Constantin, spokesman for the Lebanese Community and Tariq Ali, columnist for the Age and their commentary on the Middle East Conflict. Constantin appeared on Ten's Meet the Press this morning, failing to condem a single action of Hezbollah, and indeed attempting to deflect the Australian Governments view of Hezbollah as a terrorist group. He instead concentrated his criticism on Israel:

From the transcript of Ten's Meet the Press;

STEPHEN SPENCER: But does Hezbollah bear any responsibility for this? Does Hezbollah, launching the rockets, kidnapping the Israelis, and, in short, do you think Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation? ABRAHAM CONSTANTIN: Well, Stephen, this is not the first time skirmishes happened on the border with Israel. Previously on various occasions Hezbollah took Israeli soldiers, Israel took Hezbollah militants. They've always negotiated. Why is it different this time? It gives the Lebanese a view that this is not a reaction, it's not an issue of two soldiers, it's a planned and systematic attack on the sovereignty of the Lebanese nation.

Now I'm not sure if the good Doctor has paid attention to the Israeli reaction to having a soldier taken captive by Hamas leading up the Hezbollah's raid that killed several Israeli soldiers and took two captives. If he thinks this was just 'the norm', he has seriously misread Israel's situation. This was a highly inflammatory act designed to result in Israel attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon, and allow Hezbollah to rebuild its waning support and power base with Lebanon. Hezbollah had seen the reaction to Hamas' operation, and used Israel's need to respond with a show of force as a catalyst to retake the initiative in an increasingly stabilising Lebanon.

As for a planned and systematic attack on the sovereignty of Lebanon, maybe the Doctor should be also applying that statement to Hezbollah - which after all in a non state actor that has operated outside the legitimate government and defence forces. The sovereignty of Lebanon is sevrely undermined by a non-state actor - a terrorist organisation that operates outside of any Laws of Armed conflict and has failed to obey a UN Security Council direction to disarm. This organisation makes decisions that are often contrary to the interests of Lebanon as a whole, and shows more loyalty to their Iranian backers than the legitmate Government of Lebanon.

Tariq Ali in his opinion piece published in the Sunday Age chose to focus again on the actions of Israel and failed to highlight how Hezbollah has greatly undermined the legitimate government of Lebanon (which it is a minor part - kind of like the Greens taking matters into their own hands in Australia). He summed up the current conflict as such;

"The latest Israeli offensive is designed to take the castle. Will it succeed? A protracted colonial war lies ahead, since Hezbollah, like Hamas, has mass support. It cannot be written off as a "terrorist" organisation. The Arab world sees its forces as freedom fighters resisting colonial occupation."

It is as if Israel instiagted this conflict with Lebanon without provocation - and once again, a pro-Arab commentator has failed to criticise Hezbollah - instead trying to relabel the terrorist organisation as freedom fighters resisting colonial occupation. Well Tariq Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 - Hezbollah has for six years continued attacking Israel and has built a massive offensive arsenal. Hezbollah is not a freedom fighting organisation, but rather a terrorist organisation with the goal of destroying the nation of Israel and remaining the dominant player within Lebanon. The action by Hezbollah was actually met with criticism from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations who condemned the actions taken.

Lastly, lets get onto the criticism of Israel breaking Geneva Conventions Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) throughout the dispute. Sadly, Hezbollah has not recieved the same criticism, which is troubling considering the operating procedures actually greatly contribute to collateral damage. Lets now look at some of the LOAC principles also being broken. I have raised the fact that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality at several occasions throughout the conlfict - but the placing of key Hezbollah infrastructure in residential areas close to vital civilian infrastructure has seen collateral damage far greater than would otherwise occur.

As LOAC training we conduct in the Australian Defence Force teaches us, as a commander we must 'weigh the possibility and amount of collateral damage against the advantage gained in targeting a legitimate military objective'. Hezbollah is delibrately placing infrastructure in such a way that each military objective comes with increased collateral damage.

Hezbollah does not follow the principles of identification or distinction - that is, ensuring that combatants and non-combatants (along with infrastructure and equipment) are easily distinguished between. It instead seeks to disguise itself as part of the civilian infrastructure and peoples of Lebanon. As you can quickly see, LOAC quickly becomes a major military impediment when fighting against an enemy that does not adhere to LOAC and seeks to use these principles against you. Civilian and collateral damage is occuring less because Israel is delibrately seek this, and far more the fact that Hezbollah seeks to capitalise on media coverage and gain advantage by fighting in a dangerous way that actually puts civilians and infrastructure in increased risk. After all, Hezbollah 'wins' when Israel accidentaly kills Lebanese children - they win increased support, power and coverage. Hezbollah is more a parasite to Lebanon than a freedom fighting organisation.

Commentators and the international community need to get realistic. Hezbollah and Hamas need to be disarmed and have their militas disbanded to protect the best interests of Lebanon, Palestine and Israel. These extremists parasites are pursuing the interests of Iran and Syria, not their own countrymen - no matter what image they try to portray to sympathetic parties around the world.

Welcome to the wild west... Politics QLD style!!!

Madonna King in today's Courier Mail outlined some of the bigger issues that have come out in past week in estimates committee hearings in Queensland... one of which being the $2 billion bill for new Dams in Queensland not being anywhere in the Budget - Yeah, that's right... just a little omission!?!?!

Welcome to Politics QLD style - ever since the Senate voted themselves out of a job in the depression and optional preferencing become procedure, we have had some absolute garbage go down in Brisbane. The irony is evident when Beattie, a former protestor against 'wild' Sir Joh, becomes one of dodgiest operators QLD has ever had in parliament (and there have been some true gutter trash) ... media tart and owner of one of the most unimpressive records of any Premier Australia has seen.

In Eight years Beattie has run QLD into the ground... playing popular has seen Health and Education slowly head down in the gurgler, Energy and Water not far behind them. He will deliver a legacy wridden with time bombs ticking to his successor - like Carr, his negligence will only become truly clear once he is finally gone. There is no passing the buck when you inherit services that are amongst the best in country, only to see them become the worst within your time in Government.

A few other highlights from the Beattie government included underspending on disabled infrastructure, failing to implement 16 recommendations listed in the Crime and Misconduct Commission report into child abuse, failing to cost extra teacher aide hours for the new 'prep' year starting next year in QLD schools .... the list keeps going.

Fellow Queenslanders, do our state a favour and vote this clown out - he makes us a laughing stock and is the most negligent Government leader the nation has seen in the past decade.

Andrew Bolt vs the rest... Insiders wrap up.

Bolt appearing after some high profile comments during the week about Australians with dual citizenship - nothing on Piers Akerman, whose Blog has gone into meltdown after he bagged the

"new class of dual nationality super-snivellers who believe mere possession of an Australian passport guarantees them security in their “other” homeland". Still, I'm sure there will be plenty of anti-Israel 'ignore terrorist organisations and non-state militias that are the biggest obstacle to the peace process ever succeeding' arguements from the 'left' media present, so Bolt will be in fine form.

More to come after tomorrow's viewing....

I'm so sick and tired of Howard's 'false' unemployment figures

So you think Howard cleans up unemployment figures to give his Government a better 'progpaganda' pitch hey? An assistant statistician from ABS might just be able to set you straight..

As written to Crikey 21 Jul 06
"Merilyn Henden, assistant statistician in Labour Statistics at the Australian Bureau of Statistics, writes: "It's time to end the great unemployment figure rort" (17 July, item 18) accused the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) of presenting misleading unemployment statistics. It is true that some countries only count a person as employed if they worked 15 hours or more in the reference week. However, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada and other countries have interpreted the phrase "some work" included in the internationally accepted definition to mean work for at least one hour. This approach ensures consistency between measures of employment and measures of production of goods and services, as all work (however little) contributing to national production is included in measures of employment. Employment and unemployment statistics in Australia have been produced using these internationally accepted concepts and methods since the monthly national labour force survey commenced in 1978. Each month the ABS conducts the Labour Force Survey (LFS) in around 30,000 households across Australia. The LFS collects information used to produce official estimates of people who are employed, unemployed, and not in the labour force. The information collected relates to the labour force activity in the reference week of the respondent. This approach is widely accepted, both in Australia and internationally, as the best method of achieving reliable information on the level of unemployment. Apart from the key measures of employment and unemployment, the LFS also collects information about the hours worked by respondents and their desire for more hours. In addition, the LFS collects more detailed information on a specific topic or group of people each month. One such group is "Persons not in the Labour Force". This additional information is collected annually to assist those who wish to undertake further analysis of people classified as not in the labour force. Comparisons between the unemployment rate produced from the LFS and various government benefits can be difficult because they are not measuring the same thing. For example, estimates of the number of Australians on unemployment benefits can include people who are working. They can also be affected by administrative procedures and any changes made to them. Hopefully the points above will help Crikey readers better understand ABS labour force statistics."

So lets stop this wingeing about Howard's spin doctoring the best unemployment rates in 30 years... nothing has changed since 1978, and this method has been used by subsequent Liberal AND Labor governments.

Enough said.

Israel / Arab - whichever side you are on, you must agree with this!

Despite where you stand on the conflict that is unfolding within the Middle East, one thing is universal. The militias of Hamas and Hezbollah must be disbanded and disarmed for the Peace process to ever have a chance of success. No ifs, no buts, no blaming Israel, the US or the international community. The biggest impediment to peace is two non state forces that operate outside the control of their respective governments.

Let's examine the situation by using an example we can all understand....

Australia and New Zealand have been involved in on-going conflicts for the past 50 so years. During this time New Zealand invaded Australia - in response to the Australian Defence Force's inability to defeat N.Z. , the Labor Party raised a militia to fight our invaders. New Zealand withdrew, and we signed a cease fire and peace agreement. The Labor militia, seeing that its powerbase and popularity would wane in times of peace, sought to win popularity by attacking the still hated New Zealanders with frequent rocket barrages and taking their soldiers hostage....

Do you really think New Zealand would stand for this action and maintain its ceasefire and peace agreement? Is this reasonable - do we not hold Australia accountable for a militia operating within its borders and part of its government?

What needs to be done is this - Hamas and Hezbollah need to disband and disarm their militias - Hezbollah is already required to do this by a UN Security Council agreement. Once their militias are disarmed and vigilante activity stopped, the UN and International Community needs to guarantee their security from Israel. The Palestinian and Lebanese Defence Forces need to be enhanced and become to sole actors in Defence in their respective nations.

Only when this is achieved can the peace process get back on track. How can we expect a cease fire to occur when you have non-state militias running around with their own agenda and no accountability to their government? Once the militias are no more, state can negotiate with state - as it should be!

Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organisations at the moment - as long as they maintain vigilante militias, they always will be. Both have a responsibility as a political force to ensure they protect and build upon their nations sovereignty, not tear it down.

It should never have been Israel's responsibility to disarm Hamas and Hezbollah - their respective Governments have that responsibility, and if that fails, international groups such as the Arab League and United Nations must step in.

Israel is not obeying the Law of Armed Conflict principle of proportionality in this conflict - something that needs to be addressed. But disarming the militias is far more critical - after all, disproportionate conflict only occurs after vigilante militias force the Israeli government to retalliate.

But we wouldn't want to 'steal' you..

"Significant numbers of Aboriginal children were removed, or stolen, from their families. And such practices were enshrined in the policies of the time and endorsed by government. The legacy of these policies and practices has been devastating for my people. This legacy continues to impact on each successive generation, causing immeasurable grief and trauma and loss of culture. tude is killing our children." -Professor Lowitja O'Donoghue, Aboriginal Activist.

The stigma placed upon community services and religious groups due to the stolen generation is having a nasty flow on effect for 21st century children in danger. After a decade of preaching of the damage done when children are removed from their parents, children are now suffering in the hands of negligent parents around Australia. This is not just happening within our troubled Aboriginal communities in remote Australia - The William Thomas Clare case saw a 3 year old boy raped and murdered, his six year old sister also raped. Their mother entrusted Clare with baby sitting her children after meeting him at a train station, and continued to let him look after her children after her daughter told her he was looking at her genitals. The 3 year old boy died after being raped and electrocuted with exposed wires shortly after.

Some of the ongoing concerns with Aboriginal children's living conditions were highlighted earlier this year.

"According to West Australian Health Department statistics, 708 children under 14 had been infected with the diseases since 2001. And almost 80 per cent of the victims were Aboriginal.
Of those, 19 were toddlers and preschoolers under the age of four. In the Kimberley region in the state's far northwest, four children aged under four had been infected with chlamydia or gonorrhoea last year." From 'STDs rife in indigenous children' by Ashleigh Wilson and Tony Barrass in the Australian June 23, 2006.

Now let us examine the rights of a child that Australia has signed up to:

From UNICEFs the Convention of Rights of a Child:

Article 3: “In all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Article 19: Children must be protected from “… injury or abuse … including sexual abuse, while in the care of parents … or any other person….”

The right for children to remain in the care of their parents if it is there choice is also a right that has been ratified by Australia. The problem is that this right seems to be used above all others in determining how state community services deal with children in dangerous and disadvantaged situations. Australian children are suffering terrible abuse because community service now believes that 'stealing' a child is a greater sin than allowing one to remain in suffering and abuse. When do we realise again that in some extreme cases, taking a child away from their parents - yes stealing that child - is in the best interets of that child!

The proponents of the 'never again' viewpoint after the stolen generation debates have a lot to answer for. I believe that the children's rights should come before an adult - if we have to steal a child from an adult to ensure that child lives a healthy and happy life, so be it.