letters from the back bench

Fast forward to 2050...

2007-04-02T19:10:00.000+10:00

The year is now 2050. What do you think will have had a bigger impact on the world - climate change or population ageing and decrease in the developed world? The coming crisis is already dawning on Japan - in Europe, the signs are there to be read.

Regardless of weather the world decides to inflict draconian carbon reduction measures upon itself, the age 'shock' will still hit Europe and most of the developed world in the middle decades of this century.

Post - Christian society is by its own definition rapidly heading towards extinction. We are on the cusp on witnessing self - inflicted civilisation collapse - a phenomena not seen since perhaps the Mayans or Easter Islanders 'euthanized' their civilisation. This is an occurrence that is not observed in any other species - a self determined slide into extinction. Post - Christian Europe is declining at a rate that means that recovery is not possible in most European nations without huge injections of immigrants (and that those immigrants do not adopt the characteristics of their host nation).

Peter Costello released his second Inter generational Report today. The Coalition government has made significant inroads from the state of the nation inherited from the Keating government. Building on superannuation, Costello has engineered a future fund to provide funds for Government superannuation liabilities, paid off Labor Government debt and delivered policies that have seen the birth rate rise from 1.7 to 1.8 per woman. This is still below the necessary 2.1 rate that would enable Australia's current standard of living to be maintained with a stable working population. The challenge for federal government is to devise policy to encourage an increase in birth rate that will truly see 'Advance Australia Fair'.

Campbell quites cabinet...

2007-03-03T17:51:00.000+10:00

Those three words guarantee Rudd the toughest week yet of his fledgling leadership. In a move almost certainly engineered to throw momentum back behind the Government in the pursuit of Rudd, Campbell has resigned from cabinet. I'm sure we'll see a return to cabinet in the future, or favour granted to Campbell for 'taking it for the team', just as we'll see a growing storm of media intensity come Monday. The Government has set the bar for dealing with Brian Burke - a bar too high for Rudd. Instead of dulling the relentless attacks in parliament we saw Rudd endure on Friday, the Government now has the ability to shift the attack up a gear.

This next week will be all about Rudd being on the back foot - desperately trying to regain the friendly media environment of his honeymoon, vainly trying to set the focus on his agenda, whilst remaining embroiled in the Brian Burke saga.

The honeymoon is over... time for the real 'action' to begin...

2007-03-02T23:19:00.000+10:00

An amazing thing happened today - Kevin Rudd was held accountable, criticised even. It made me remember what normal political commentary is all about - holding both sides of politics accountable. I breathed a sigh of release at the inevitable crash to reality occurring for our fearless new Labor leader - and my didn't he handle it well. Sunrise was priceless - almost as funny as watching an unprepared Kochie take on Andrew Bolt in a global warming debate earlier in the week.

What amuses me about the whole situation is how the media itself declared the honeymoon over - like they officially grant a 3 month waiver or something. 'The honeymoon is over'... now we will actually ask questions that don't pander to the press release. You have to love the 5th estate!

I am thankful for one thing. Finally we are treated to a realistic bout between Howard and Rudd - no longer will we be forced to endure 'both side of the road' Rudd facing up against 'every thing's bad' Howard. Rudd facing up to realistic commentary will be interesting - something tells me that he will not handle it all that well. After all, he is no Howard - Rudd has had a easy road to power when compared to Howard...

Meanwhile Peter Costello continues to build his momentum - both Rudd and Howard will be haunted by the influence and power that he will exert over the next decade!

Bring it you Vichy French little bitches...

2007-02-23T23:27:00.000+10:00

"ACCORDING to my dictionary, the word "ally" comes from the Old French. Very Old French, I'd say. For the New French, the word has a largely postmodern definition of "duplicitous charmer who undermines you at every opportunity".
For the less enthusiastically obstructive NATO members, "ally" means "wealthy country with no military capability that requires years of diplomatic wooing and black-tie banquets in order to agree to a token contribution of 23.08 troops." Incidentally, that 23.08 isn't artistic licence on my part. The 2004 NATO summit in Turkey was presented as a triumph of multilateral co-operation because the 26 members agreed to contribute between them an additional 600 troops and three helicopters to the Afghan mission. That's 23.08 troops and a ninth of a helicopter per ally. In fairness, Turkey chipped in the three helicopters single-handed, though the deal required them to return to Ankara after three months.
And these days troops is something of an elastic term, too. In Norwegian, it means "fighting men who are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, as long as they don't have to do any fighting and there are at least two provinces between their shoulders and the American ones". That's to say, Norway is "participating" in Afghanistan, but, because its troops are "not sufficiently trained to take part in combat", they've been mainly back at the barracks manning the photocopier or staging amateur performances of Peer Gynt for the amusement of US special forces who like nothing better than to unwind with five acts of Ibsen after a hard day hunting the Taliban. "

Conservative and unapologetic about it - I'm sold, America Alone is my first purchase of the weekend as soon as I get into Angus and Roberston (t-ville has no borders, let alone a Myer).
Quit whingeing about Hicks and get a life.....

Hey and why don't you demand your right to disrupt the traffic of hundreds of thousands to parade your bigoted anti-American opinions down main street Sydney with your all of two hundred turn out... leftist wankers...

Was the age opinion editor on holidays?

2007-02-20T17:36:00.000+10:00

How did a story like this get printed over yet another David Hicks / Climate Change / John Howard is the devil op-ed piece? One of the most interesting, yet unrealised attribute of the liberal left in recent times has been the alliance with extremist Muslim interest groups. A short glance at the 2006 Israel - Hezbollah conflict, Iraq and even Iran - all situations where the Left has chosen the side of extremists with ideologies diametrically opposed in every way except for a common hatred of the USA.

What does it say about the liberal left when they would rather side with dictators, terrorists and those that do not abide by the laws of armed conflict in any way, shape or form than the democratic USA?

When 'bringing home the troops' means leaving 900 indefinitely in Iraq...

2007-02-18T12:09:00.000+10:00

Australian has 1400 troops deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Kevin Rudd has promised to bring them home - in consultation with our allies. In doing so Rudd has won the kudos of the anti-Bush, anti-war in Iraq pundits, while claiming to also protect our relations with our allies in the US and UK.

What the press has failed to seize on, and it is indicative that the honeymoon is still in bloom, is the fact that Rudd is really bringing just 500 troops home. This leaves almost two thirds of the current commitment in Iraq. While professing an ideological belief that we should withdraw our troops, his actions speak much louder than his words - 900 troops remain without a time line for withdrawal. Rudd heavily criticised Howard's lack of stated timeline (although stating a time for withdrawal worked so well for the US in Vietnam and Somalia!!) for withdrawal, while glossing over the fact that he has only announced a plan for Overwatch Battle Group West.

The Overwatch Battlegroup is supporting two provinces already under Iraqi control - being As Samawah and Dhi Qar. Australians provide training, civil-military liaison, engineering and medical support as well as a back up for Iraqi forces in the worst case scenario.

Rudd and Labor claim that a withdrawal would trigger more action by the Iraqi Government to look after its own problem. His policy however, withdraws the only Australian element that is providing invaluable support to provinces only recently handed over to full Iraqi control.

The most glaringly obvious fault in this plan has been shown in Rudd's avoidance of answering questions on what he believes will happen to Iraq should a full withdrawal occur. This is because he knows very well that whatever the level of human suffering Iraq currently has, what will follow a withdrawal will be one of the bloodiest civil wars the world has seen. The civil war would surely drag Iraq's neighbours into a destabilising catastrophe that has the potential to dramatically affect the Middle East, and the world. Terrorist extremists will emerge greatly strengthened, and the US will withdraw to an increasingly isolationist stance that will greatly increase instability in the international environment.

Rudd knows this - that why he can never answer the question when put to him - it clearly shows that he is willing to make poor security decisions to gain popular support. The hard decisions are better left to Howard, someone who doesn't shirk from an unpopular, but necessary decision.

Costello shows Turnbull who really commands the floor...

2007-02-11T11:08:00.000+10:00

There has been some talk of Turnbull's flair and colourful style in the press this week, but the true performer was Costello. In a week where Howard took more punishment than he inflicted, Costello rattled Rudd with some cutting question time performance.

"Labor is drawing inspiration for its economic analysis from a Donald Duck magazine. This is the evolutionary cycle of the Labor Party. We have moved from Mark Latham's roosters to Kevin Rudd's ducks...Managing the Australian economy, which is a $1 trillion economy, takes experience and commitment and you do not get your analysis from Donald Duck comics. It is much more serious than that. That is why only a Coalition government can manage the Australian economy."

Rudd paused - winced perhaps - from his normal routine of studying correspondence in an uninterested manner while the Coalition responded to questions. What is interesting is to think about the future - when Costello shapes up against Rudd as leader of the Coalition. Rudd may think he has the measure of Howard as 'yesterday's man', but in Costello he faces a seasoned veteran who is still quite young in the political world. Costello possesses the trust of many Australians for presiding over a strong economy for over a decade, but would also deliver a fresh purpose and agenda to the Coalition government.

My tip is for this match up to occur shortly after the Howard government is returned with a reduced majority. Howard will bow out, bruised but not beaten, and Costello will finally take the job he has been heir apparent for since the beginnings of the Howard government.

Coal: the 2007 wedge issue?

2007-02-10T17:24:00.000+10:00

Bob Brown and Tim Flannery may just be making Howard's job of retaining office a little easier. The battleground is becoming clear - mounting a credible campaign on global warming, while reassuring the nation that the cost will not be too great is essential for victory. Brown and the green extremists have played their cards - revealing that they wish to destroy the coal industry in the name of climate change. Rudd has been quick to distance himself, but will he really be able to play the environmentally friendly, do deals with the Greens for preferences and still be able to convince coal miners and their dependant communities that Howard wouldn't be a safer bet?

I've always thought that a major commitment to cleaner coal in the short term, and clean coal (sequestration ) in the long term would be a critical component of a realistic response to climate change. Australia's comparative advantage in coal, with plentiful reserves, and our major coal export market means abandoning coal would be a massive cost to bear.

Rudd now needs to straddle the divide - show that he is business and mining friendly enough to protect coal, but at the same time green enough to win critical Greens preferences (and convince the punters that he won't do deals with the Greens if he wins office in the senate). It will be a hard ask - Rudd already has the difficult issue of keeping Peter Garrett's moral convictions in check, and a nuclear debate at the next Labor convention.

It will be interesting to see this wedge unfold... Howard is a master politician and will be likely to employ coal along side nuclear in his arsenal of wedge politics in the lead up to the 2007 federal election.

Malcolm needs to sharpen his message...

2007-02-08T20:09:00.000+10:00

Just watched a rather average 'debate' format unfold on the 7.30 report. Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Garrett faced off in a interview style 'debate' that saw Turnbull normally lead with Garrett following. This led to Turnbull being on the defensive for the majority of the interview, while Garrett was able to stick to his message and mount an offensive interview. Kerry O'Brien's line of questioning did assist Turnbull's poor performance, but there was no excuse for a lacklustre performance from Turnbull.

Malcolm allowed himself to waffle, often using several quotes in a ineffective manner and being unable to stick to his message. This is the second interview I've seen him botch - its time he and his inner circle do a little work to sharpen his interviewing skills.

Peter Garrett was underwhelming - it wasn't a case of Turnbull being outperformed and forced into a poor showing by a superior debater. Turnbull will have no problem head to head with Garrett once the necessary improvements are made. Parliamentary performance is a different matter - Turnbull has been capturing significant media attention in Question Time, and is clearly out performing Garrett. His television performance is the key area that is letting him down...

Republican dilemmas...

2007-02-08T13:28:00.000+10:00

I am watching the US Presidential nomination campaigns with interest. Whilst the Democrats will struggle to choose between Obama, Clinton and Edwards, there would be few members of the party that would complain about a lack of talent in the field. A quick glance over at the Republican side of the house, and there is a far different scenario. Senator John McCain leads a field of nobodies, with his only real challenger at this time deemed to be former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani. Both McCain and Guiliani have little to no support within the traditional Republican voter base - Guiliani is a 'liberal' Republican and McCain's disregard of key Christian leaders is well known.

One big name is yet to enter the field - Newt Gingrich. The once polarising speaker is likely to gain significant support from the Republican base keen to have 'anyone but McCain' but unwilling to put a RINO like Guiliani up for President. Gingrich now has the ability to allow the field to fight each other, before declaring closer to the primaries and gaining the initiative and momentum over 'tired' candidates. Gingrich was always able to capture the nations headlines and attention with his 'contract with America' and other initiatives.

It will be interesting to see if the run eventuates - the biggest issue will be money. Gingrich needs to be able to hold off on declaring for as long as possible, yet still have the money available to run against McCain and Guiliania, who have been fundraising for significantly longer.

The real dream candidate for Republicans won't be throwing his hat in the ring for the 2008 election. Jeb Bush, an immensely popular former Florida Governor with true Republican pedigree and appeal to the base, will need to wait a little while until memories of George W Bush fade a little. Still, nobody should rule out seeing another Bush in the White House - especially with the current crop of potentials...

Parliament resumes ...

2007-02-08T13:24:00.000+10:00

Kevin Rudd: "My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now formally repudiate the industry minister's statement in which he said: I am a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change?"
John Howard: "No, I will not formally repudiate it. People make different statements about different things over a period of time. I seem to remember the Leader of the Opposition a little under two years ago saying that he was not experienced enough to be the leader of the Labor Party. He now thinks that he is experienced enough to be prime minister."

It is going to be an interesting year...

Beattie acts the leader, rather than the populist - for a change!

2007-01-28T19:57:00.000+10:00

It is a rare occasion that I see fit to agree with a decision undertaken by the QLD Labor government. Previous posts on this blog have clearly shown my contempt for one of the worst governments in Australian history - appalling governance and countless failures abound.

But this weekend Beattie has done a rare thing in his political history - taking the choice to lead, as oppossed to just pandering to the popular. In deciding to just make water recycling happen, rather than putting QLD through another referendum that could be hijacked by fear (ala Toowoomba's referendum), Beattie has made the right choice. Recycled drinking water is a reality in international cities such as Singapore - so rural Queensland can most certainly put up with the 'ich' factor. When voters are unwilling to pay more for water, but also unwilling to accept recycled drinking water, a politician needs to step up and make the hard call.

I'll be able to count on one hand the amount of times this will happen, but still, good call by Beattie.

Howard delivers a powerful blow...

2007-01-26T10:23:00.000+10:00

If Howard and Rudd were boxers, yesterday's $10 billion Murray-Darling policy announcement would have been a powerful body blow that left Rudd reeling and on the defensive. After several years of allowing the states to attempt to deal with this issue, Howard has stepped in and made a decisive and popular move that allows him to spend on a issue that will win votes but won't threaten to raise inflation (as a middle-class tax cut / benefit might).

It swept aside Rudd's calls for a water summit - Howard assumes responsibility for the Murray-Darling, simultaneously putting pressure on the states to now manage their residential water supplies. The federal government has pledged $10 billion and assumed responsibility for a major water issue - the burden of supplying water to the cities and suburbs is now squarely on the state's back, as is the blame for failure.

Turnbull appeared on the 7.30 report after the announcement during the day at the National Press Club. On a side issue, Turnbull's interview technique needs a lot of work - he waffled his way through several very 'kind' Kerry O'Brien questions and was given a lot of leeway not normally afforded to politicians by ABC interviewers.

This policy allows Turnbull to start making serious noise nationally about the Governments 'realist' green credentials. The next step is to announce policy that funds the research and development of clean coal technology and guarantees the Australian coal industry's future. Value adding our uranium exports by enriching in country, as well as developing stringent procedures designed to prevent proliferation are another area for the Government to focus upon.

Looking forward to the next blow to the Labor agenda - looks like that honeymoon is starting to waiver. Bet Labor are spitting that their $1 million early advertising campaign just got overshadowed by Howard's policy announcement...

How can Costello best sieze the agenda Post-Howard...

2007-01-24T18:29:00.000+10:00

Costello's op-ed piece in the Australian today gave a glimpse of the Coalition under its next leader. Highlighting the importance of intergrating migrants into the workforce and wider society, Costello alluded to some of his major differences to Howard. Costello, I believe, will quickly move towards the centre once Howard finally bows out of Federal politics. One of the most important things Costello must achieve is to significantly rejuvinate the Coalition's cabinet and frontbench. He must also establish a new agenda that siezes the initative and provides a clear direction that differs to the Howard years.

The 'new' liberal agenda could include a significant focus on climate change, improvement in education on all levels, continued taxation reform (simplifying the tax system by removing all deductions and lowering rates across the board is a reform worth working towards), improving efficiency in the National economy, education, water and energy.

Costello and his inner circle must focus on building a major agenda to agressively pursue upon Howard's retirement - a rejuvinated Coalition with a Costello driven 'new agenda' is critical for election success post Howard.

Game on...

2007-01-23T17:37:00.000+10:00

The reshuffle we all knew was coming delivered the key players to the frontline today. Howard has delivered his 'war' cabinet and front bench for the long run to the polls in 2007. The biggest winner was, unsuprisingly, Malcolm Turnbull. Since his arrival in Canberra Turnbull has been positioning himself as a voice for water conservation issues, and increasingly the enivronment. He has rapidly repaired his relationship with the Prime Minister's office and has mounted an impressive 'charm offensive' to combat any bad blood remaining from his Republican days and Wenworth pre-selection battle. His match up with high profile Labor MP Peter Garrett will prove to be the match up of the 2007 campaign.

Amanda Vanstone was dumped - her performance in the media has been particularly poor lately, and definitely sends the message that Howard is clearing dead wood for the election battle ahead. Greyer than grey Kevin Andrews takes her portfolio, which clears way for a stronger performer in Workplace relations - the Sunrise connection continues to deliver, with Joe Hockey getting a high profile portfolio and match up against Julia Gillard. Kevin Andrews suits Immigration - his softer, controlled, 'machine like' manner will play much better that Vanstone's recent performances on the 7:30 report.

The uncertainty is put to rest with this move - Howard and his team are ready to face off and Kevin Rudd's honeymoon is quickly coming to an end. Let's see how rudely the media returns Rudd to earth...

Religion rising on the national agenda...

2007-01-06T11:11:00.000+10:00

An interesting op-ed piece in SMH by Tim Costello and more religious / political commentary from the Australian's Christoper Pearson have highlighted how religion will again play a significant role in the next election. In fact, with Kevin Rudd keen to sieze the relgious vote back from the Coalition, religion could be artificially high on the agenda....

If you needed any further proof, how about Hillsong blesses Rudd's Labor or Rudd's religion strikes a cord in the Daily Telegraph and the Australian respectively.

The 2004 Election had a religious side - Family First gaining plenty of press and attention from the Coalition to secure preference deals. Labor at the time made little attempt to woo the Christian vote, something that Rudd thought was a mistake and sought to correct prior to winning the leadership. But the issue of religion is set to play a much larger role in the 2007 election - Howard is being challenged by Rudd for the Christian vote. The mainstream Christian vote in particular has slid away from Labor, particularly the Catholic vote - it is this little 'l' liberal Catholic / Anglican / Uniting voter that Rudd is particulalry trying hard to woo.

Rudd seems to be buttering up Family First for a more Labor friendly preferencing deal - after all, these preferences traditionaly flow to the Coalition, and would be a painful loss to Howard. Family First has polled at about 5% in recent elections, and will be hoping to improve on its first Federal showing. Steve Fielding will again become an important figure in the lead up to the next election, with both sides keen to woo Family First preferences with family friendly / christian friendly policies and deals.

This is a postive development for Chrisitans - Christian and family issues will once again be high on the agenda for both major parties in the next election. Several high profile Christian politicians are working hard and performing well in all major parties and Family First.

Brian Houston, Head Pastor of Hillsong Church and head of the Assemblies of God denomination, explained well what I believe about Christian involvement in politics;

"I am of the opinion that it is not the role of the church to be involved in party politics but if individual Christians have a desire to contribute to the community through politics, I would encourage them to do so. I see absolutely no reason why Christians should be the only sector of society excluded from having a voice into the direction of our nation."

A new year begins...

2007-01-02T14:38:00.000+10:00

2007 is barely begun and already Howard has returned nuclear energy to the national agenda. This strategy was planned and executed in a different era - an era where Howard faced the lacklustre Beazley, battling to show the voters that he had the 'ticker' to be Prime Minister. What is interesting is that Howard and his advisers have decided to lead into the new year, in the middle of Rudd's political honeymoon, with the nuclear 'wedge' aimed squarely at Labor. Howard and his team still see value and political gain from pushing the point - it would be interesting to see what they are planning now they have set the scene for the nuclear debate.

Rudd is steadily working on a 'war chest' through favours from Labor's Premiers and Chief Ministers. Federal Labor seeks to make significant savings by making deals with State Labor that Howard has been unable to achieve. While this all sounds good in theory, I can't help wondering if there are a few reservations from poor performing State governments behind closed doors. Who will Beattie blame if Federal Labor is in government? How will the supposed voter desire for a 'check' ( one party for the state, the other for the nation ) work when a Federal Labor Government returns to power? QLD and NSW Labor must be carefully wieghing up their options, attempting not to burn too many bridges with Howard and hedge their bets for next year's election.

I was interested to see the commentary this week on Fraser's decisions in regards to humanitarian immigration for Lebanese during the 1970's. It shows how careful planning and consideration must always be applied to immigration. Poor choices made three decades ago have delivered a community that to this day faces difficulty integrating into the Australian mainstream where others have not. Fraser blames Governments after his for failing to ensure integration support was adequate - and indeed some of the actions taken by Labor were short term focused, designed to curry favour in Western Sydney. What Fraser fails to own up to is the fact that he went against Department advice, and failed to respond to repeated warnings - this is an issue that will haunt Australia and the Lebanese Australian community for some time to come.

So predictions for the new year - NSW Labor returned to office, Howard returned to office, more of the same in Iraq and Israel. I'll be watching senior Liberal figures for clues to how Howard's retirement in 2008 will change the face of the Coalition Government.

Rudd as local member...

2006-12-27T12:02:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-12-21T19:19:00.000+10:00

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?!?

2006-12-20T15:44:00.000+10:00

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!

2006-12-19T10:51:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-12-17T14:22:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-12-16T16:07:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-12-10T13:27:00.000+10:00

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 !?!?!?

2006-12-09T20:14:00.000+10:00

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

2006-12-08T18:23:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-12-06T20:07:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-12-04T15:02:00.000+10:00

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.

2006-12-03T17:32:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-12-02T07:49:00.003+10:00

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

2006-12-02T07:03:00.000+10:00

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?

2006-11-30T16:46:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-10-30T02:36:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-10-23T01:51:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-10-16T01:40:00.000+10:00

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

2006-10-10T02:33:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-10-09T01:26:00.000+10:00

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

2006-10-05T01:41:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-10-03T22:44:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-10-01T02:22:00.000+10:00

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

2006-09-29T00:22:00.000+10:00

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....

2006-09-23T01:41:00.000+10:00

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

2006-09-23T01:37:00.000+10:00

"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

2006-09-22T17:21:00.000+10:00

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 ?

2006-09-10T20:21:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-09-10T15:06:00.000+10:00

"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...

2006-09-10T01:00:00.000+10:00

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

2006-09-09T01:49:00.000+10:00

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

2006-09-01T01:16:00.000+10:00

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?

2006-08-29T01:00:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-08-18T00:20:00.000+10:00

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.

2006-08-07T20:33:00.000+10:00

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

2006-08-06T19:35:00.000+10:00

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...

2006-07-28T14:59:00.000+10:00

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....

2006-07-24T10:53:00.000+10:00

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!

2006-07-23T13:43:00.000+10:00

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!!!

2006-07-22T21:39:00.000+10:00

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.

2006-07-22T21:32:00.000+10:00

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

2006-07-21T14:55:00.000+10:00

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!

2006-07-21T09:53:00.000+10:00

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..

2006-07-20T15:55:00.000+10:00

"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.

Dual citizen Australians in Lebanon...

2006-07-20T15:53:00.000+10:00

25,000 Australian citizens are seeking Australian Government help in evacuting from war stricken Lebanon. Criticism is being leveled at DFAT and Alexander Downer about the slowness of respones. Let's just take a minute to look at the situation - Firstly 25,000 citizens are in a nation that DFAT has had a travel warning current for over a month... you are assuming some risk when you disregard the warning. Secondly, the Australian Government doesn't possess the assets to move 5,000 soldiers as rapidly as some people are expecting 25,000 civilians (dispersed throughout an active war zone). We have no ships nearby - Lebanon is half the world away so is this really surprising, and air is out of the question due to the on going conflict and targeting of airports.

Thirdly, lets look at who else we are competing with to get our citizens out via private shipping and other means; 25,000 US, 20,000 French, 45,000 Canadians, 34,000 Filipino, 90,000 Sri Lankans, 20,000 British. It is obvious that obtaining assets will cost a premium and this is extreme demand in a short supply environment.

I think it is time that the critics take a reality check...

Out of those 25,000 Australians I want to know how many dual citizens there are. One thing this situation definetly raises is in regards to dual citizenship. This evacuation will end up costing the Australian taxpayer significant amounts - so how often do we expect our dual citizens to actually contribute to the Government by paying tax? Should we require a financial year's worth of tax in every decade? Dual citizenship is fine, but when it costs Australia so much to support our offshore citizens, we need some contribution to this nation finacially from them! I wonder how much tax those 25,000 Australians have contributed in the past five years.... enough to cover the costs of chatering six ships for their evacuation?

Bring back Latham?

2006-07-19T17:53:00.000+10:00

Newspoll comparison between Beazley now and Latham as leader;
Decisive & strong: B 57 L 69
Visonary: B 69 L 77
Understands Major Issues: B 70 L 73
Caring: B 82 L 78
Likeable: B 73 L 70
In touch: B 64 L 75
Trustworthy: B 64 L 61

So the voters find Beazley more caring and likeable than a sociopath known for his head kicking ways in parliament. The only other area that Beazley trumps our spiteful ex opposition leader is in trust.... and the public really put a high priority on trust in our politicians today, don't they! I'd hate to be a Labor supporter right now - if only that talent pool wasn't so shallow at the moment....

Why doesn't Beazley tackle the economy?

2006-07-19T10:35:00.000+10:00

The Australian published newspoll results today - no surprises in the results. On which leader the respondents trust with key issues, there wasn't much change. Howard still out in front in security and the economy, Beazley leading the way in Labor's bread and butter issues, health and education.

What really caught me by surprise was how badly Beazley is doing with the economy. Not only does he fail to inspire anywhere near the confidence levels that Howard does, he fails to inspire his own voters in this issue. On no other issue (except for possibly IR - ill check that) do respondents have less confidence in their party's leader than the opposition leader. This is clearly an area that Beazley needs to do some serious work on his policy and approach. The last election was decided on 'who do you trust with interest rates, with the economy', yet Beazley still has a major drama in winning voters over on economic issues.

Labor really seems to be banking on IR being the overwhelmingly decisive issue in the next election. Sure they have been pushing an alternate energy plan, and re-emphasised push on training and education... but those issues don't rate up there with the economy and security.

Keep on ripping up those laws...

4 Corners takes aim...

2006-07-18T16:51:00.000+10:00

The infamous David Clarke was under the spotlight once again, with the public broadcaster firing its latest salvo at the conservative powerbroker. The usual assortment of disgruntled members and has-beens were dragged out to make the case that Clarke is the antichrist.

One thing that amazes me about David Clarke is how someone as powerful as media commentators clearly believe him to be has failed to capitilise on his power. The backbench hardly seems the place that a significant powerbroker within the NSW Liberal party would appear.

The same old smears have once again been dragged out - Urbanchich and his Nazi ties, the John Brogden smear leaks. I don't think Clarke really could have anything to make the Brogden situation worse - that was a capitulation of his own making.

It seems the only truly remarkable thing about David Clarke and his 'group' (not faction) seems to be the fact that David Clarke is involved with Opus Dei. I wonder if he would have even been news worthy had not a summer best seller with evil Opus Dei characters in it have appeared?

The ABC and other media commentators seem to believe that there is nothing more sinister in politics than a politician with links to Opus Dei... or Hillsong.

Howard retakes the initiative...

2006-07-18T14:33:00.000+10:00

Sadly for Labor voters, once again Howard has re-taken the initiative. Focusing on issues such as energy and water addresses interests many Australians would hold. Malcolm Turnbull in particular is benefiting from some of the most severe droughts and water restrictions the East Coast has experienced. In QLD concerns have been enough to ensure normally unpopular decisions - building new dams - have become a viable option.

Howard pushed for state co-operation in the form of water trading and urged recycling of water as necessary. This has the affect of making the Government look like they are pushing for reform, but also enables most of the burden to be placed on State governments - very handy!

Energy was also focused upon - but not the green-friendly renewable types, the fossil types that Australia has abundant supplies of. Australia is the world's biggest supplier of coal, and therefore has an interest in the pursuit of greener coal technology that will alow coal to remain a major energy source. LNG is also another area where Australia can benefit - the PM touched on the fact that as a stable and reliable supplier, Australia will be an increasingly popular option... who would you trust your energy contracts with... Iran or Australia??

Where now for Howard and Costello

2006-07-16T13:16:00.000+10:00

So what's the strategy to regain the initiative? One of the results of the leadership controversy in the last week should be an increase in Howard's approval rating - that's right, an increase. The average Australian would have had a scare this week - actually considering that Howard might not be leading the nation will have made the punter realise how much they approve of the job he is doing.

While in one sense this week has been wonderful for the Labor party - for once it is the Liberal internal squabbles dominating the press, there has been no coverage of anything Labor. IR has been off the public radar for the first time in several weeks, and the momentum behind this issue has been stunted in the leadership hype. COAG sat during the week, with Premiers taking the opportunity to fire pot shots at Costello and his 'new federalism' and appearing unified in support of Howard. That's great, but all they've done is strengthen Howard at the cost of Costello... AND Beazely. Australian's do not like change, and they particularly avoid changing something they percieve as successful - Beazely already has his work cut out in these times of prosperity. The smoothest state - federal relations in years, and a highly productive COAG meeting doesn't motivate voters to oust a highly succesful Coalition government.

Lyn Allison appeared on Ten's 'Meet the Press' this morning trying to convince everyone, including her own party, that they were not headed for the political oblivion at the next election. I agree with the assessment that the Democrats have moved too far to the Left - they are now longer a centre party - they are a Left leaning party that just doesn't do things as well as the Greens. My own views on their future have been made before - they will be as bad, if not worse as the last election - afterall what have the Democrats done since 2003 to improve in the voters' eyes?

I look forward to another week of high drama in federal politics - the Treasurer has his soapbox this week with the meeting of all state and territory treasurers. Let's see how he attempts to restablish his authority as the number 2 and works hard to get back to business.

Masterstroke or blunder?

2006-07-13T16:42:00.000+10:00

The fall out from Costello's 'treason' ( his almost perfect loyalty for Howard until now seems to be have forgotten over night - what loyalty do you owe someone who gives no loyalty in return?) was all over the press today. Most commentators are rigidly focused on the here and now - few seem to focus on the next decade - Howard might be here for another 3 - 5 years, but he will definetly be gone by his mid 70's. Many Howard supporters have been attacking Costello's arrogance and smug smirks - but who do they see as an alternative... the far more arrogant Abbott or the smug fishnet stocking wearing Downer (Do they remember his last stint as Liberal leader)?

Ultimately, Liberal supporters and sitting members must come to terms with one thing. Howard's days are numbered - he is in the twilight of his political career. Costello is the future - Howard walking all over Costello has been undermining the potential for a continuing dynasty for the Coalition for years. Costello might not be as popular as Howard, but compare him to Howard in 1994, when he came to power. Costello has none of the baggage that Howard did, and his stock will greatly improve once his ambition is finally realised - he will rise to the occasion.

What remains to be seen is if the move by Costello will deliver him the initiative or undermine his ability to take the top job. Regardless of the result, I firmly believe we will see a Costello 1 1/2 term government, characterised by instablity created by Howard conservatives. A rejuvinated Labor party will have their best chance at snatching victory in 2010 or 2013 - it may even be Bill Shorten that does the job for them....

The dust settles...

2006-07-11T19:57:00.000+10:00

Tonight the drama that was played out between Howard and Costello over the past few days seems to have finally come to an end. Costello has let Howard know his preference will be to take control of the Coalition prior to the next election. Howard has given no guarantee (at least not which will known to the public) that this will be the case, but has left Costello in the position of Treasurer regardless.

This has been the best outcome possible for Costello, considering that Howard stepping aside was never going to be an option. He has regained ground from when Howard walked all over him in 2003 - Howard's motherhood statement that he 'will stay as long as Australia and the Liberal Party wanted him to' devastated Costello's ambitions. Costello has now returned to a position of power within the leadership picture - Howard now is under pressure to reveal his plans or make a deal with Costello. He know realises he cannot push Costello around without a hostile reaction that will risk damaging his legacy, or even see a disgraceful exit at the hands of a party room vote (unlikely as it may be).

Costello has to be happy with the outcome - he know longer has to beg and plead, and Howard no longer holds all the cards. Tonight Howard will be considering his future, and how he wishes his legacy to conclude. My expectation is that we will see Howard commit to leading the Liberal Party to the next election publicly, and a private commitment to the handover of power to Costello the following year.

The deal...

2006-07-10T17:54:00.000+10:00

The Howard and Costello leadership questions keep coming. Today saw Howard deny that there was ever a deal prior to his return to the Liberal leadership. Shortly afterwards, Costello conducted a media conference in which he concured with what former defence minister Ian MacLachlan had said - that being that Howard had said he would step aside after a term and half as Prime Minister.

I am not surprised that Howard made such a comment in order to secure a peaceful return to the leadership. Times do change, and Howard turned from a weak Prime Minister to one of Australia's most successful and popular politicians. At the start of his leadership, Costello very much was in a position of power, threating to Howard with his ambition and heir-apparant status. Two terms later, Howard ruled the Coalition with an iron fist, while Costello had been reduced, his standing much weakened due to Howard's success.

The interesting element to this story is not that a deal was made, but that Costello has undercut Howard today. Howard now looks to be dishonest, and the Costello camp finally seems to be regaining momentum. I do not believe for a moment that Howard will step aside or be challenged before the next election, but believe Costello is seeking to guaruntee a swift hand over of power shortly after the election.

Establishing an alternate agenda for the future, becoming more Prime Ministerial and less Treasurer - Costello is definetly building the foundation to his platform for the leadership.

The Waiting Game...

2006-07-04T16:52:00.000+10:00

Today's news polls have finally delivered the expected bounce to Labor over its IR stance and joint campaign with the Unions against the Howard Government reforms. After heavy advertising campaigns by the ACTU and lobbying of the press by Beazely, Labor has been rewarded in the polls. With Howard out of the country, and more Union 'horror' stories coming to light, Labor has had a relatively good performance towards an almost 'vacant goal'.

From the Coalitions point of view, I don't think much needs to be done - ride out the momentum, set the agenda for the remainder of the year in parliament, and ready for battle in the next election campaign. Howard does need to have a long period of time concentrated on domestic issues - and needs to clearly show the coaltion that he is preparing for his final election showdown with Beazely.

I do believe that with the resuffle of Mark Vaile from the Trade Portfolio, the Coalition does have the perfect opportunity to put a stronger figure than Kevin Andrews in the Workplace Relations portfolio. Andrews lacks the carisma and character assets to sell and defend the IR reforms to the public - Howard could well benefit from leaving the portfolio in more capable hands so he doesn't need to micromanage so much.

Once again, this is an issue that I expect will not be a key factor in the next election. Labor and the Unions will need to spend countless millions to keep IR on the headlines for another year - after all, is anyone talking about AWB anymore?? Labor will need more core issues than IR to see an end to Coalition rule.

Costello hints at his agenda...

2006-07-03T18:42:00.000+10:00

Interesting to see the future PM Costello openly on display on Nine's 'Sunday' program. He was clear in articulating a reform agenda which he would pursue as the Prime Minister. I enjoyed seeing Costello emerge from Howard's shadows for such a frank discussion about Australia's future.

Costello's points on the commonwealth taking complete control of the economy ring true to me. In an increasingly competitive environment, Australia needs to improve its efficiency and ability to compete - at present there is red tape at the state level in areas such as ports, transport and other areas. This barrier to trade and economic growth would be removed by creating national regulation controlled by the Commonwealth.

I agree also with Costello's assertion that the blame game has to stop - if full control of education and health is handed to the states (but under a federal framework, where states have obligations to meet in accordance to national policy) and the ability to blame the federal parliament for state problems, states are forced to keep themselves honest. Beattie would no longer have any ability to blame the Commonwealth for his self-inflicted health problems, and voters would know who to hold responsible.

Costello needs to work on continuing to set a future agenda, letting Australians know that there will be no lag in progress once Howard passes the baton after the next election.

Unions... no wonder I hate them!

2006-06-28T17:26:00.000+10:00

After a day of protests around Australia, I am reminded once again why I hate the union movement so much. I can understand collective bargaining, representing the workers when otherwise they maybe afraid to speak for themselves. What I don't understand, and hate with a vegence is how Unionists insist on dragging everyday life into their struggles - what idiot thinks shutting down the city of Melbourne for 3 - 4 hrs will endear people to your cause?

Just like strikes that shutdown public transport, impact services the average Australian is depending on, this demonstration just shows why the average Aussie never wants the Unions to return to the giants they once were. I don't care about your rights at work when you cause thousands of Australians to lose half their day so you can make a scene and get publicity!

I have always been employed in my working life - from age 15, and have never been 'the boss' - but it is my belief that a job is a privledge, not a right. I associate Unions with keeping inefficient and overpaid workers safe, forcing their attitudes and beliefs (through the ALP) upon far more Australians than just their members. Nothing reminds me more of why I hate Unions than the waterfront battles of the 90's, where Unions tried to save some of the most inefficient and overpaid workers in the world from having actually do their job well for a fair wage.

Once again I return to the point I made on Beazely's IR gamble - good luck keeping the anger for almost another 12 months. I will be amazed if the Unions and ALP can possibly run with IR as a major, press getting issue all the way to the election. Crowds might be gathering at protests now, but there is a long way to go - and a Nuclear debate - before Beazely gets any sight of the polling booth

Costello as PM...

2006-06-27T18:10:00.000+10:00

Heard an interesting comment made by Pauline Hanson today - she likened Costello's arrogance to that of Paul Keating, and said she didn't think he'd ever be Prime Minister. In a way, she definitely has a point. Peter Costello and John Howard are two very different people - to be fair, Howard did have a lot of time to refine his image before returning to the front bench after some time in the wilderness.

I think that 11 years of expecting to take over the reigns from Howard any minute has kept Costello from making the hard decisions on refining his image - arrogance doesn't travel well with the electorate. It is true that a politician takes on another persona as soon as they are in the leadership of their party. What remains to be seen is if that arrogance and smug smile is swept away when Costello takes over the Coalition.

Much has been made about Howard's ability to appear modest and down to earth - 'little Johnny' has sharpened his image to appeal to his beloved 'middle' Australia. His layman's vocabulary and 'smaller than life' (he is actually a lot taller than you expect) persona are significantly different to Keating, and indeed Costello.

Costello needs to start thinking about his appeal to the electorate and doing some self anaylsis - an investment in an image consultant / personal coach would ensure he sharpens his appeal to the electorate and the backbench.

Democrats doomed...

2006-06-26T17:02:00.000+10:00

Just looking over an old transcript from 'Enough Rope' featuring Natasha Stott-Despoja. It triggered me to think about what the senate will look like after the next election, and how her party will fare. Looking at the AEC figures for the Senate at the 2004 election, I can't see the Democrats returning 4 senators given recent performances.

In QLD alone, the Democrats recieved approximately 40,000 seats - significantly less than Family First and The Greens - both who have enjoyed increasing media profiles since 2004. In QLD we can expect to see Labor and Liberals managing 2 seats each, with the Nationals recieving at least one due to Barnaby Joyce's performance. The leftovers will see either a minor party win, or another Liberal senator.

Given the dramatic loss of public support and media attention, it will be difficult for the Democrats to return any senators apart from Natasha Stott Despoja. The Greens seem to be the biggest benefactor from the Democrat capitulation, and Family First seems to be the most likely source to take over the second minor party tag in the senate...

Time will tell if Steve Fielding has done enough to raise the profile of Family First in conservative QLD to win a senate seat.

Immigration policy

2006-06-25T15:43:00.000+10:00

Australia's ageing population, low birth rates and a need to maintain growth in the economy all point to one thing. Our immigration policy needs to be carefully designed to place us in the best position for the next stage of globalistation - when immigration becomes critical to the 1st world. Throughout the world, developed nations face the same problem as Australia - and are our competition when trying to attract skilled migrants and their families to our shores.

We should be focusing on attracting increasing amounts of skilled and educated migrants from developing nations such as India and China - couple this with increased investment in skills development in Australia and we have the engine for continued growth.

Our economy in general should start taking a middle to long term view of the world economy and start preparing for the emergence of India as an economic superpower. We are catering well to the Chinese, but India's population does not have the ageing issues that China has. India will not get old before it gets rich - China will. Closer political and economic ties built now will deliver benefits when India emerges in 20 - 30 years.

the other battler

2006-06-23T16:55:00.000+10:00

Just caught a repeat of one of those fine current affair television shows (note sarcasm) on teenage girls getting pregnant to get the $3000 baby bonus (soon to increase to $4000). One of the biggest issues that is emerging in Australia is to do with lower class that is becoming entrenched throughout the nation. This demographic needs to be the focus of welfare and taxation reform urgently.

The Howard years have seen great improvement in all areas of Australian society, but it doesn't change the fact the the real battlers (not Howard's aspirational middle class battler) are in need of support. My biggest concern with welfare is the fact that there is such a disadvantage for low income earning mothers to return to the workforce. The next round of tax reform needs to address this - create incentive for mothers to return to the workforce, reduce the disincentive by increasing the lowest tax rate bracket. We also need to start reducing welfare payments as soon as children reach school age, and secondary school age respectively. The end result needs to be that a working single / lower class mother's quality of life is significantly greater than a welfare dependant single / lower class mother.

Reducing disincentives on returning / joining the workforce are critical, particularly with an ageing population.

the long break

2006-06-22T16:54:00.000+10:00

Parliament is packing up for its winter break... will be interesting to see which issues fall off the radar in the 6 weeks away from Canberra. I am particularly interested to see if the everyday Australian will still be interested in Industrial Relations next May. Beazley can definetly score points attacking some of the abuses of work choices by employers around the country - but will the voter care after 11 months of media saturation? Desensitising is bound to occur - the GST was a big issue at first, but a non issue after Australians realised it really didn't affect them that much. Only time will tell...

I was contemplating the future of the Labor party today - post Beazley. This situation would probably occur upon a 3rd defeat at the hands of Howard next year. At the moment Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd would appear to be the heir apparents - but Beazley powerbrokers such as Wayne Swan, Stephen Smith and Stephen Conroy are yet to reveal their post Beazley cards. Gillard comes across as popular with the public, but I would be dubious if that was reciprocated in the party room. Could a leader from Labor's left faction truly appeal to the voters - or simply maintain the faithful voters and labor elites?

Considering Bill Shorten will be entering parliament after the next election, it may be more likely that we see strong support for one of the 'Roosters' or a member from the right leap frog their more high profile counterparts.

Situation... no change

2006-06-21T15:49:00.000+10:00

Once again polls out in the Australian today reveal that Australians trust Howard with the Economy, interest rates and security - three key issues for the upcoming 2007 election. Beazley's policies do nothing to change the current status quo, with Labor leading in education, health and social services. I can't see anything that the opposition is doing that will reclaim ground from the coalition - all they seem to be doing is solidifying their base (and that's not enough to win an election against Howard).

Howard's immigration legislation seems to be on the backburner until he can sort out problems from within the ranks. I can see the rebel MP's points - I don't believe that families should be housed in the same 'prison' style accommodation as singles. Christmas Island is a much better solution than sending illegal immigrants to Narau - maintain a tough stance on illegal immigration, but not at such a high cost to families, particularly children.

Gay marriage / civil unions

2006-06-20T18:53:00.000+10:00

Just listening to a radio national talkback show on gay marriage. This is a flashpoint that won't go away anytime soon... I personally am against gay marriage, but for the current defacto agreement that exists in some states and territories. My personal opinion is one based on my Christian beliefs, in addition to strong beliefs in the protection of children's rights (adoption laws come into the picture straight away when you legislate that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual) and strengthening marriage, not muddying the waters.

Andrew Bolt raised an interesting argument against muddying the waters on the ABC program 'Insiders' this weekend - if the basis of marriage is only love and commitment, as the gay lobby pushes, this same argument can be applied to polygamy - a practice found in Islamic and Mormon communities in some parts of the world. The facts are that you cannot successfully water down the importance of marriage being heterosexual without also watering down being between a couple.

Ultimately, the gay lobby will not be satisfied until laws are in place that prevent discrimination against homosexuals in all areas. This has immeadiate ramifcations upon freedom of religion - Christianity (and other religions) teach homosexuality is a sin, and therefore Christians do not condone homosexuality. I fear for the day vilifaction legal proceedings being brought against Christians for speaking out their beliefs!

Beazley's Gamble

2006-06-20T15:40:00.000+10:00

Interesting to see the latest Newspoll today in the Australian. It appears that Beazley failed to get a bounce out of his high profile policy decision to scrap AWA's. Speculation is growing that while AWA's are an issue that Australians are worried about, the vast majority of Australians don't think their personal situation is any different, or is better post work choices.

I can understand the reason Beazely has decided to make such a policy decision - in the short term it has shored up support for his struggling leadership within his party - for now. With the support of the Unions, Beazely has almost certainly guaranteed that he will contest the next election with the support of his own party. This is a policy decision that converts... the converted. Whilst the unions and traditional base of labor voters will be happy, I suspect that middle Australia will be much more sceptical.

Beazely now looks to be a man controled by the powerful influence of the union movement in his party. Middle Australia is interested with maintaining the current growth in the economy, and fears that Beazley and his union bedfellows will stagnate the economy.

I think once again Labor has made the policy decisions that pander to their base, and fail to win back the middle Australian voters that Howard has built his legacy upon.