Griffith Big Bash By-election is Just Not Cricket

There is a cricket team of candidates for the Griffith By-election on 8 February 2014. Nine of the eleven candidates represent registered political parties, but will electors really have any idea about who or what they are voting for in Kevin Rudd’s old House of Representatives seat?

The 2013 Senate results exposed some of the bizarre idiosyncrasies resulting from our compulsory electoral system: we have to vote and we have to allocate preferences to all candidates. 

The party names will be written on the Griffith ballot paper so that should help, shouldn’t it?

Policy Bazaar

If you choose the Bullet Train Party, you'll know what comedian Anthony Ackroyd will be fighting for if he wins. He may have to give up his impersonations of Kevin Rudd. However, it won’t be hard to take the mickey out of himself since he will be required to abstain from voting on any matters except the train. Now that’s taking a lot of taxpayers’ money for very little jam.

At least Family First’s candidate Christopher Williams could follow the example of former senator Steve Fielding who often made up policy on the run. In the absence of a hung parliament, he’ll have to rely on FF’s South Australian senator-elect Bob Day who doubtless will continue the traditional of backroom deals.

The Secular Party has lots of the policies you might expect: no religion in schools, support for an Aussie Republic. It stands for a carbon tax but against emissions trading schemes. Some voters may be surprised to know that they are pro-abortion and strongly favour Australia participating “in all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, including power generation and waste disposal”. Presumably, these will not be located in Griffith’s backyard.

In order for ‘…new Australian citizens understand that their primary loyalty must be to Australia and its values, not their religion…’ the SPA’s citizenship pledge will be:

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights, liberties and values I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

The list of shared values will be found in an expanded Australian Values Statement. The secularists want “Evidence of compliance with the Australian Values Statement, such as witness statements, …before permanent residence visas and citizenship are granted.’ If you’ve forgotten or never heard about the Statement, you’d better rush to read it before you vote next. It involves ‘a shared identity, a common bond’ that all Aussies accept implicitly, don’t we.

Timothy Lawrence may be regretting the shaky status of his party’s name, which will soon change from the one on the ballot paper to the Sustainable Population Party. The thesaurus doesn’t have them as synonyms. The current name could easily be associated with right-wing anti-immigration parties while ‘sustainable’ has definite green connotations.

Ray Sawyer is wearing the hat for Bob Katter’s Australian Party, having gained only 1.92% as candidate for the seat of Fairfax in 2013. They directed their second preferences to Clive Palmer and his eponymous party, who won that by a nose, but PUP has squibbed this contest.

According to independent Karel Boele, “He supports needs-based education funding and an effective solution to climate instability, for example an ETS. He supports improved discussions and trade with neighbouring countries, and a no offshore processing by Australia policy for refugees.” He is independent. Or is he?  He runs the People Decide platform and will vote on Bills in Parliament directly through the Internet. Now that’s a real pig in a poke. He will vote on each Bill in accordance with the majority of votes. It’s a bit murky as to how he will vote on amendments.

Dealing preferences

The Pirate Party proudly claims to be “the first and only political party in Australia to decide all its candidates and Senate preferences by a party-wide vote”. However, the process in 2013 involved making deals with other parties for preference swaps that were then put to the members for ratification. How many of the party officialdom or membership were aware of the possible ramifications in the Senate is unclear. They responded to a tweet about whether they helped to elect the motoring or sports mob or Palmer's miners to the Senate in 2013:

@Kevin_Rennie if we did, it was unintentional. Motoring at 29, Sports at 25, Palmer at 43. Not exactly high up. :)
— Pirate Party AU (@piratepartyau) January 15, 2014

The Liberal National Party has put its faith in the reverse donkey vote in its preference allocation. Their preferences go from Bill Glasson, bottom to top.

At least one well-known Queensland Lib thinks independent Travis Windsor is worth a look. Could we stand another independent T. Windsor? Could make for some messy googling. He’s splitting his preferences but in each case The Greens are ahead of Labor or the Coalition.

The Greens have Labor ahead of the Coalition but behind five small parties. Anthony Ackroyd is their first choice. That was an easy call, as his party has no other policies to sift through. The Stable Population Party is second. Its policies line up with many of The Greens’ own goals but some commentators have argued that its motives are suspect. Malcolm King is one of them. Last August he argued:

The Stable Population Party (SPP) is using environmental and community groups to 'green wash' its anti-immigration message and split the Greens vote at the Federal election.

Next comes the Pirate Party of Australia, which shares lots of policies with The Greens and their other fancied micro-parties. Nothing illegal of course, PPA’s core business is not piracy, but freeing up copyright. However, they could be labeled copycats on many other issues, as could many of the others. It’s good to see so much agreement with marriage equality, climate change trading schemes, and humane treatment of asylum seekers.

Their other two Greens’ preference choices fit that bill. However, The Greens can’t be jumping for joy over the Secular Party’s nuclear stance. Karel Boele is a policy loose cannon for a different reason, as he’s going to follow direction from voters online. Nevertheless, they’re happy to put him ahead of Labor.

The ALP’s Terri Butler has The Greens second on her how-to-vote card, and then just numbers down the ballot paper. Less informal votes that way. There is no potential controversy as could arise if we had One Nation progeny in this field.

Now if you fancy any of the other candidates, please see what you can discover online. If you don’t know to whom Katter’s mob or any of the others are giving the nod, good luck finding out. Their preferences may well decide the result!  

The policies of the two main contenders are not canvassed here, as the residents of Griffith are no doubt sick of leaflets, phone calls, SMS, and knocks on their doors. There have been suggestions of unethical and perhaps illegal push-polling and anonymous automated calls.

Train travellers are also well serviced by political candidates, if not necessarily by governments. The Bullet Train Party, which is not directing preferences presumably because Thomas the Tank Engine isn’t running, at least has a trainspotting video.

Given the disillusionment with the major parties (including The Greens) and the complexity of the voting system, it’s no wonder that nearly 6% of ballots cast for the House of Representatives in 2013 were informal. In addition, nearly 7% of enrolled voters did not turnout. The Australian Electoral Commission also estimated that more than one million eligible Australians are 'missing' from the electoral roll, approximately 7%. So nearly two in ten did not exercise their right to vote.

So much for compulsion! People are dying around the world for democracy. Some Australians are just lying low.

Presumably, aspiring Members of the House have been visible at the Gabba lately supporting the Brisbane Heat. However, many electors doubtless believe that compulsory, preferential voting is just not cricket.

Sphere: Related Content

Anthony Albanese's Campaign Speech a Bottler

In case you missed it, here's Anthony Albanese's Campaign Speech at the official launch today.

Star quality!

Transcript of Anthony Albanese's Campaign Launch Speech

1 SEPTEMBER 2013

Good morning and welcome to the Australian Labor Party 2013 Federal Campaign Launch.

I would like to welcome Lara Watson and her daughter Shania to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land.

[Lara Watson Acknowledgement of Country]

Thank you Lara.

Please welcome Jessica O'Bryan, who will sing the National Anthem.

[Jessica O'Bryan sings the National Anthem]

Thank you Jessica and it’s great to be here.

Today is Father’s Day.

So I begin with a big shout out to all the fathers in the audience and at home.

And a special shout out to my son and mate Nathan, and of course his wonderful mum Carmel who are here.

Thank you for your support today and every day.

It’s certainly a Father’s Day to remember.

One of the motivations of the labour movement has always been to provide the next generation with a greater quality of life than the current one.

It’s why Labor seeks to both create and anticipate the long term future, whilst at the same time dealing with more immediate issues.

It is great to be part of a modern Labor Government that is building the jobs, the schools, the infrastructure and the hospitals of the future.

I’ve come a long way from Camperdown.

I never imagined when I was Nathan’s age that I would one day be standing here as the Deputy Labor Leader and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.

Labor seeks to govern because we understand that government can enhance opportunity and improve peoples’ lives.

Our opponents seek government because they believe it is what they are entitled to.

For Labor, government is never the end in itself. We govern so that we can build for the future. It’s the Labor way.

We built the age pension.

We built the trans-continental railway.

We built the Snowy Mountains scheme.

We opened up universities.

We built Medicare and now we’re building DisabilityCare.

Over the past six years, both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have led good nation building governments that saw us through tough global economic times.

We created almost one million jobs.

We have low inflation.

We have low interest rates.

We have higher workforce participation.

We have lower industrial disputes.

And we’ve achieved all this with a triple A credit rating.

We returned fairness to the workplace.

We are increasing the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 percent.

We introduced the largest pension increase in Australia’s history.

We took a million of the poorest paid Australian workers out of the tax system by tripling the tax free threshold, something that I know my friend and passionate advocate for the disadvantaged Wayne Swan is particularly proud of.

We’ve taken action on climate change.

We’ve supported the development of renewable energy – and to give you just one example, more than one million solar panels have been installed across Australia on our watch.

We are delivering sustainability for the Murray Darling Basin, talked about for decades, delivered by Labor.

In infrastructure, we’ve doubled the roads budget, rebuilt one third of the interstate rail freight network and, something I’m particularly proud of, invested more in urban public transport since 2007 than all previous governments combined since Federation.

The Howard Government spent not a single cent, the same amount that Mr Abbott has promised to spend.

And of course our most important visionary infrastructure project is the National Broadband Network. The NBN will transform the way we work and the way we live.

If any single issue defines the failure of the Coalition to build for the future, it is their support for the out-dated, unreliable copper network of last century.

All these gains are at risk on September 7.

Remember Medibank – introduced by Whitlam, removed by the conservatives.

It took the great Bob Hawke to deliver and entrench Medicare, along with other social and economic reforms through the Accord.

I pay tribute today to Australia’s longest-serving Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke.

And I welcome Bob and Blanche here today.

Bob worked with this nation’s greatest Treasurer, who went on to become Australia’s 24th Prime Minister.

Paul Keating transformed our economy, laying the foundation for 22 years of consecutive economic growth.

He delivered the best superannuation system in the world.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I’d like you to welcome Paul Keating.

I say to Bob Hawke and Paul Keating that John Howard may have become Prime Minister in 1996 but much of your tremendous legacy is intact today because you gave us long term Labor government.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I’ve had a bit to do with John Howard.

Whatever you say about John Howard, he was a man of intellect, who had a vision for his country.

Not my vision, but a vision nonetheless.

But let there be no doubt: Tony Abbott is no John Howard.

Mr Abbott is a man mired in pessimism and stuck in the past.

He just sits in the Parliament and says no, no, no.

He’s sharp when it comes to three-word slogans, but dull when it comes to new ideas.

He’s energetic when it comes to running around Lake Burley Griffin, but he’s lazy when it comes to policy development.

If you want a bloke who can jump through tyres, you can vote for Tony Abbott.

If you want a bloke who can guide you through the next financial crisis, vote for Kevin Rudd.

Mr Abbott is a true blue conservative in every single sense of the word.

He finds comfort in the status quo. He struggles with change and because of that he offers no progress.

In today’s fast moving world, if you are standing still, the world goes straight past you.

He’ll tell you what he thinks you want to hear, but he won’t tell you what you need to know.

What you need to know is whose jobs will be destroyed by Mr Abbott’s cuts if he wins next Saturday.

While we build for the future, Mr Abbott lives in the past. He talks down our economy and he talks down our nation.

He doesn’t have a plan for next week, let alone a plan for next month, next year or a decade from now.

Where is Tony Abbott’s vision? What are his priorities?

During the debate about action on climate change, Mr Abbott described the science around the issue as “absolute crap’’.

His policy response is to plant trees – a laudable aim on its own but no answer to a problem so profound that it requires the sophistication of a market-based solution in the form of an emissions trading scheme.

It is one thing to be a climate sceptic but it is another thing altogether to be a market sceptic.

Mr Abbott is both.

When Labor asked Parliament to consider what has been recognised as the world’s best-targeted economic stimulus package to save the jobs of Australians during the global financial crisis – where was Mr Abbott?

He was snoozing in his office.

When Labor moved to wire Australia to the world via the National Broadband Network, an economic game-changer that will create jobs and revolutionise communication, Mr Abbott said he had appointed Malcolm Turnbull to “destroy’’ the project.

His words, not mine.

At least it shows Mr Abbott have does a perverse sense of humour.

We know Mr Turnbull believes in his fraudband policy of fibre to 40,000 fridge type cabinets about as much as he does in direct action on climate change – which he called “a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale”.

Let’s be clear: The Coalition’s plan is like building a four-lane bridge to a dirt road. You won’t get any benefit from that bridge unless you also widen and upgrade the road.

And it will cost you more when you have to go back and do it again later.

On Broadband we will do it once, do it right and do it with fibre.

Today Australia took over the presidency of the United Nations’ Security Council in New York. This puts our nation at the centre of global power at a critical time.

When Mr Abbott heard Australia was seeking this role in 2011 - what was his response?

He said: “I don’t think we should be spending money we don’t have to promote a cause which is unlikely to come to anything.’’

No issue is too big for Tony Abbott to show exactly how small he is.

He’s got something to offer if want someone to join you on your morning run.

But running the country? He’s not just up to it.

His ideas are too narrow, his world view is too restricted and his ambition is just too small.

The problem isn’t that Mr Abbott is stuck in the past. The problem is that he wants everyone in Australia to stay back there to keep him company.

He doesn’t like public transport.

He doesn’t like public schools.

He doesn’t like public health.

He doesn’t like public delivery of broadband.

I sense a pattern here.

Mr Abbott just doesn’t like the public.

Ladies and gentlemen, elections are about choices and in this election, the choice could not be more stark.

I've worked with Kevin Rudd for 15 years.

I have never met anyone more focused on his vision for our country.

His ambition for Australia is as big as this great country itself.

His enthusiasm for serious, ground-breaking reform in the grand Labor tradition is extraordinary.

Kevin has had his critics but one thing we know about him is that he cares about our country and he really is here to help.

Is Kevin Rudd a bit of a nerd?

You bet.

Would I pick him in a rugby team or in a boxing match ahead of Tony Abbott – no way.

But he is the right man to lead this country:

He’s the right man to build the schools and hospitals of the future.

He’s the right man to build the NBN.

He’s the right man to continue to deliver economic growth, jobs and prosperity.

He’s the right man to deliver the better schools plan.

He’s the right man to take action on climate change for this and future generations.

Kevin Rudd cares about your job, your family and your future and when he says that we all know he means it.

Kevin is going to come on stage soon and tell you about his plans.

But to introduce him, let’s hear from someone who knows him better than anyone.

Please welcome Therese Rein.


My score:

Sphere: Related Content

Oz blogosphere on Gillard's fightback

What is the Oz blogosphere saying about Gillard's fightback? My post for Global Voices:

There have been very mixed reactions to Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s decisive victory over former PM Kevin Rudd in the leadership challenge. The vote amongst Australian Labor Party parliamentarians (the caucus) was 71 – 31, despite opinions polls showing Rudd having much higher popularity with voters.

Can she unite the party and make sure that her only opponent is Opposition leader Tony Abbott?

...the inevitable sports satire came from the White Maggot (the name refers to umpires who traditionally wore white) in Rudd set to challenge Gillard as Bulldogs Number 1 Ticket Holder. The Western Bulldogs is an Australian Football League club located in Footscray, part of Julia Gillard’s electorate. The prime minister will be hoping that her bark is at least the equal of her bite.
Australia: Prime Minister Julia Gillard Wins Big in Leadership Dogfight

More

Now also available in French.

Sphere: Related Content

Twitterville: Political Paralysis Before Leadership Vote

From my latest Global Voices post:

Australia’s governing party will decide between current Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the one she deposed in 2010 Kevin Rudd. Following months of speculation, Australian Labor Party parliamentarians will vote after a very self-destructive confrontation this week.

As well as bloggers such as Lavartus Prodeo and their legions of commenters, tweeters have taken to the task with gusto. #respill has been the tag of choice for many whilst the somewhat bizarre #kevenge seems to capture the mood of many others in twitterville.

...A new pro-Rudd user appeared @Vote4Rudd which asks, “Follow us if you want Kevin Rudd back!” Despite Kevin’s supposed popularity it had only 141 followers after two days.

...Parliamentarians who have not yet indicated how they will vote are being hounded on twitter. Journalists such as @ABCNews24’s reporter Latika Bourke seem relentless. After stalking Anthony Albanese MP for days she live-tweeted his whole radio interview
Australia: Political Paralysis Before Leadership Vote

Sphere: Related Content

Video: Julia Gillard announcing leadership spill

As promised, video of Julia Gillard announcing leadership spill.

Unfortunately, it does not have the questions section when she gets really feisty. If anyone knows where to get a copy, please let me know.

Update: From Sunriseon7 - the long version

Sphere: Related Content

#ISupportGillard

Julia Gillard's press conference was one of her best performances. Will post it when it's available.

She gave journalists carte blanche to reveal any instances of her undermining Kevin Rudd before the coup that toppled him in 2010. Kevin Rudd should give a similar undertaking to the press gallery, given the accusations that he has been leaking against Gillard since the 2010 election campaign.

My view: #ISupportGillard

More later.

Sphere: Related Content

Iraq a Mistake: Ex Australian Defence Forces Chief

Was I dreaming last night? I watched the launch of ABC News 24. The beat-up by Chris Uhlmann was predictable. A scoop! Rudd weak on national security! Pity it lacked detail, relied on anonymous sources and the confidentiality of the National Security Committee. The highlight was former Defence Forces Chief Chris Barrie’s confession that the Iraq war was a mistake in that it had distracted us from fighting the real threat in Afghanistan. That should have been headlines today. We were told in the report that John Howard never missed a meeting and that the Deputy PM chaired in his absence.

I can’t find the transcript or video of the rest of Uhlmann’s interview anywhere on the web. If it had been said by a senior British military head, it would lead all today’s bulletins: Failure of Afghan War Liberal Mistake! Howard Dropped Ball on Afghanistan!

If anyone locates it, please let me know.

There is a reckless silence in the mainstream media about the Afghanistan war. I wonder if it will get a mention on the Leaders' debate.

Sphere: Related Content

Oz Bloggers on the Sudden End of Kevin Rudd

My post for Global Voices: Australia: Dramatic Fall of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

Australian bloggers give their views of last week's events.
Not the usual suspects. Even has a 'Pome'.

Sphere: Related Content

Decline and Fall: Vale Kevin Rudd

When we left for five weeks in South America in mid-April, Kevin Rudd seemed to be cruising. The economy was performing spectacularly. Even the battered Climate Change strategy was still on the horizon – we’d get some sort of deal with the Greens after the election. Despite Tony ‘the jock’ Abbott’s energy, the opposition were still looking like losers. The loudest critic was the Victorian Labor Premier John Brumby over the proposed health reforms.

While we were away the Prime Minister apparently went into self-destruct mode. The Emissions Trading Scheme was scuttled. The budget was judged as lack-lustre but politically safe. Then we heard the first mention of the Resource Super Profits Tax on BBC World News. The word courageous seemed too weak. Despite the tax’s obvious merits, a Whitlamesque fight to the end with the multinational miners was the last thing we needed.

Not long after touching down in Melbourne, I attended my local ALP branch. In an election year, there were only two others in attendance: one a student in his 20s; the other pushing forty years party membership like myself. The gloom matched the fast approaching winter. Thinking that the health reform was still unresolved, I was surprised to hear that agreement had been reached with the Labor States and only Western Australia were holding out. A big win for Rudd, I incorrectly assumed.

This sense of the government moving on to the next issue with business either unresolved or unheralded became a regular theme.

In the month since then, Kevin Rudd imploded. He became post caricature or satire. The more he said, the more voters stopped listening. Even in my extended Labor family, it was hard to find anyone who was not depressed by his seeming paralysis. Or his inability to articulate a way forward.

The government had lost the environment vote and not all of it was coming back in preferences. It seemed impossible to sell the company tax cut and improved superannuation that are the flipside of the mining tax. The hypocrisy of the taxpayer funded advertising submerged the debate about the merits of the proposal.

A relentless media campaign against Rudd and general fixation on opinion polls was extremely enervating. There was little solace that most polls still had Labor in front. We were presented with the bogey of winning the two-party-preferred vote but losing the marginals. 1998 revisited. Hints that party polling confirmed this, added to the gloom.

The PM had lost not just the mainstream media, the natural allies of the mega miners and conservatives, but also faced a very disillusioned blogosphere. The infamous internet filter wasn’t helping either. Ironically Minister Conroy’s peace deal with Telstra felt like the beginning of resurgence. A government that was being portrayed as doing nothing but spend money had also squeezed Paid Parental Leave through the Senate. Tony Abbott’s expensive alternative had split the Liberals and Nationals but no one seemed to care.

I couldn’t watch the ABC’s Australian Story on Monday night promoting Julia despite my admiration for her. The trap was set. Still a challenge seemed unthinkable.

Today was a very sad day. Kevin is a compassionate person with a strong social conscience. He had exhausted himself at Copenhagen trying to get a better result on combating global warming.

The political cynic in me feels that the billionaires and right wing factionistas are running the country. Little consolation that they have produced a feamle PM from the left – something the rest of us would have found extremely difficult to achieve.

The political realist feels that today’s events were unavoidable. That the nerd experiment in leadership had failed. Like Gough, Kevin was just too far removed from the rest of us, at both an intellectual and an interpersonal level.

The political idealist hopes that Julia Gillard will make one of our best Prime Ministers. Despite a heavy heart, like many of my relatives I do feel re-invigorated tonight. We’re ready to defend our piece of Labor history. The vandals are at the gate.

Sphere: Related Content

Update: Is Kevin Rudd the Victim of Media Group Think?

An update of yesterday's political rant is now available at theangle.org:

Is Kevin Rudd the Victim of Media Group Think?

Sphere: Related Content

Warren Truss for Deputy Prime Minister. Not!

The ALP is leading the coalition for the fourth poll in a row. Perhaps we can get back to some real political debate now. Most of the opposition spin is about Rudd doing nothing. It is Nationals leader Warren Truss's (who?) only line. And in a week that gave us Paid Parental Leave and the Broadband deal with Telstra.

Barnaby Joyce should be figuratively horsewhipped by the media for his attack on Rudd's whoring with pimp pollsters. Is that the only way he can keep himself in the spotlight?

Lenore Taylor's remarks on ABC Breakfast this morning, that as Rudd and Swan were planning their economic stimulus package, the media were consumed with Costello's leadership ambitions, were very revealing. It is hard to take the mainstream media seriously, given their lack of depth or understanding.

Today's headlines should be about the split in the coaltion over parental leave, given their decision to oppose Tony Abbott's proposed scheme.

Sphere: Related Content

Mining Windfalls A Taxing Problem

Crosspost from Th!nk3: Developing World 'Mining Windfalls A Taxing Problem'

Two of Australia's richest people, Andrew Forrest and Gina Rinehart, led a protest demonstration on Wednesday against Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The big end of town took to the streets in Perth.

There is a major political battle raging between the government and the Mining companies over a proposed Resources Rent Tax, popularly known as the Resources Super Profits Tax.

Meanwhile in Mongolia:

The decision by the government of Mongolia to allow Rio Tinto and Ivanhoe Mines Ltd to develop the Oyu Tolgoi mine has caused civil unrest in the country because of a number of claimed legal irregularities in the agreement (not least the lack of a full Environmental Impact Assessment and a detailed water study).
Update on Rio Tinto at Oyu Tolgoi

Rio Tino issued a response to criticism:

Similarly at Oyu Tolgoi there has been a high level of consistent, genuine engagement with local communities, herders and the government. Projects of this nature will attract objections, and we expect them as a sign of a healthy civil society.

The full text is available here. Their promotional video from 2009 shows what's at stake.

Locals were concerned not only about environmental issues. They also claim that the agreement between their government and Rio Tinto/Ivanhoe Mines will not provide a fair return to the Mongolian people:

On 4 April 2010 NGOs and 200 representatives from 18 'aimags' (provinces) gathered in Sukhbaatar Square, the main square in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia's capital, calling on the Government to respect its election promises and accusing it of selling out the country to foreign mining interests.

... The NGOs are also asking Professor Ruggie to review the fairness of the benefit sharing arrangements of the Investment Agreement so as to ensure that the project helps eradicate poverty in Mongolia.
Mongolian NGOs appeal to UN over Oyu Tolgoi

It seems that a windfall tax was sticking point last year:

An investment agreement for the first major mining project in the country is expected to act as a blueprint for billions of dollars worth of future investments in other resources projects.

... the parliament agreed to scrap the windfall profits tax on copper and gold, setting the stage for an agreement, miners Rio Tinto and Ivanhoe said in separate statements.

The windfall tax, introduced in 2006, and a demand for greater government ownership in strategic projects, have been key sticking points between the government and investors, delaying the progress of several investment proposals despite a mining boom in recent years.
Mongolia clears way for Oyu Tolgoi mine

These days everything seems connected. Must be galloping globalisation. There has been a lot of talk about resource taxes creating a sovereign risk. That's the risk that government actions pose for mining ventures. The real risk may well be to sovereign States and their ability to stand up for their long-term national interests.

Full post

Sphere: Related Content

Garrett Not Only One Who is Accountable to Voters

While Peter Garrett is under siege over insulationgate, we can only hope that those who are baying for blood will remember their concerns next time that Occupational Health & Safety on the political agenda.

The level of noise in parliament seems to be drowning out the blocking of the Youth Allowance and the Medicare Rebate bills. Nick Xenophon’s lame defence of his no-vote on the latter, yesterday on ABC Breakfast, was appalling. Seems that the conservatives will staunchly defend upper-middle-class welfare to the end.

The Senate is being used to disrupt effective government. At the same time Abbott continues to chant his spin that Rudd is a do-nothing PM. He can't have it both ways. If Labor had done nothing about the GFC then we'd have no problems with the insulation scheme.

Sphere: Related Content

Tony Abbott's Plans: Ahead to the Past

We are getting a clearer picture of Opposition policies under Tony Abbott. It's full steam ahead to the past, circa 2004 to 2007:

Work Choices Light
Global Warming Slack
Hospital Boards Slight
Medibank Private Fire Sale
Refugee Reject

The attacks on Kevin Rudd are cleverly crafted but contradiction ridden:

• The government does nothing (but it does it too quickly and it's too grand).
• The deficit is too high (but revenue raising Bills are routinely blocked in the Senate)
• The stimulus spending is trivial and ineffective (but local Liberals will take credit for new classrooms in their electorates)
• The PM gives long, complex answers (when simpleton solutions make better sound-bites).

Will we see a triumph of cliché over substance in this year's election? Populism over policy?

Sphere: Related Content

Australia Wins Fossil of Day 10 at COP15

Australia has won yet another Fossil of the Day for Day 10 at Copenhagen COP15:

1st Place

Australia
 has been awarded a First Place Fossil of the Day Award for putting pressure on Pacific Island nations–and Tuvalu in particular–to agree to 2 degrees and 450 parts per million of CO2. You know, when we see one of the world’s most vulnerable nations take the kind of bold actions that we saw Tuvalu take last week, our hearts are warmed and we are filled with inspiration. And maybe that’s why we were so discouraged and angry to learn that Australia, one of Tuvalu’s bigger, richer neighbors has been acting like a big bully and asking Tuvalu to give up on its strong commitment to a legally binding agreement that keeps the world to 1.5 degrees of warming and 350 ppm. Have no fear, dear audience, Tuvalu stood firm in the face of this outrageous display of aggression…And it’s no small feat for a tiny country of 26sq kms and 6000 inhabitants to stand up to financial blackmail from big bad Australia. Our message to you, Australia? Time to act like a leader, not a bully.
Day 10: Australia Takes 1st Place for Bullying Tuvalu and Other Small Island States

My tip for Fossil of the Year is Canada.

Sphere: Related Content

Business Wants The Real Deal

From WWF:

Powering economies into the low carbon future:
Business leaders claim that a strong deal in Copenhagen will be good for the economy, a weak deal will be bad.

What will world leaders produce at the end of the week? A political deal? A legally binding deal? No deal at all?

There are rumours floating in and around the Bella Center that big business would prefer caution and the status quo instead of a treaty that is bold and sets comprehensive reduction targets.

That perception is incorrect. More than 1,000 businesses from all continents, most of them global players, are advocating for a strong legally binding deal that reduces carbon pollution and accelerates clean energy innovation on a global scale.
Business – The Real Deal

If you're a Facebook friend of Barack Obama or Kevin Rudd let them know we demand a real deal now.

Sphere: Related Content

Australia's Brand Spanking Clean Feed Internet Filter

A brand spanking new Internet filter is on the way. Senator Stephen Conroy's Clean Feed is another step closer. This follows the release of the ISP Filtering Live Pilot Report. Government decisions were announced the same day. Why bother to release the report at all?

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has announced:

1. Introduction of mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification (RC) –rated content.
2. A grants program to encourage the introduction of optional filtering by Internet Service Providers, to block additional content as requested by households.
3. An expansion of the cyber-safety outreach program run by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Cyber-Safety Online Helpline – to improve education and awareness of online safety.

Media Release 15 Dec 2009Measures to improve safety of the internet for families

There are many questions that need to be addressed:

The Blacklist

How many sites will be blocked? The report suggests that 10s or 100s of thousands are possible. 1000 were tested. In what ways is the current blacklist ineffective? the blacklist will be passed to ISPs in an encrypted form to avoid the list falling into the wrong hands. After the recent East Anglia climategate hacking, it won’t be long before that hope is dashed.

Passing on the Cost

ISP will be required to bear the costs. This could well be a disincentive to competition as small providers may be discouraged.

Non-sexual Content

As well as sexual sites Refused Classification RC (sic) list will include websites that contain "detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act".

There goes boxing and several other Olympic sports. How will the list deal with different crimes in different States? If euthanasia is legalised in one State, would sites explaining how to use the laws be banned? Would sites arguing for a change in the law face censorship? Would links to “undesirable” constitute the grounds for black listing?

What about literature, which is full of detailed examples of crime, violence and drug use? Trainspotting? Fight Club? Crime and Punishment? Film and Television sites also pose a risk.

Inaccuracy

"The Government will also establish a grants program to encourage and assist ISPs to offer additional filtering services on a commercial basis for those families that wish to have a wider range of material filtered..."

However, "All six ISPs achieved 100 percent accuracy in blocking the ACMA blacklist. This was a requirement of the pilot. In blocking additional categories of content all six ISPs achieved 78 percent to 84 percent accuracy..." Only 22 percent got through. That’s encouraging.

The FAQ includes No.17. “Why does the Government consider demand exists for additional ISP-level filtering services?” The answer doesn’t mention demand just choice. The general public didn't use the free service and it has been discontinued. Why would they pay for an inaccurate service, especially one that may include over-blocking? But that's a sideshow, as filters for parents are already available on the market. You can already spy on your kids from work if you so desire. Big Father knows best!

Scope of Censorship/Protection

The RC system is not a filtering mechanism that will protect children from accidental or deliberate access to pornography, just the "illegal" stuff. Nor will it catch out child pornographers and paedophiles. Apparently, "Telstra found its filtering solution was not effective in the case of non-web based protocols such as instant messaging, peer-to-peer or chat rooms." ACMA will only list a very limited number of specific internet addresses (URLs).

Circumvention

According to the report, "A technically competent user could, if they wished, circumvent the filtering technology." Technical competence is widespread, including amongst the young. So why spend money on something that is easily circumvented.

Political Equations: In the Wink of an Eye

Kevin Rudd’s Labor government is unlikely to win many votes from this initiative. It’s uncertain if it will lose many in a climate change dominated election. What it faces is a major loss of goodwill from those who object to the filter's authoritarian potential. Imagine Tony Abbott or Kevin Andrews in charge of deciding what's appropriate. Don't mentioned RU486?

The good news is that the internet speeds should not be affected very much. It will be done in the wink of an eye, or as Telstra reported, a delay “equivalent to one seventieth of the blink of an eye”.

Kevin on Facebook: “The Rudd Government's approach to cyber-safety has been informed by the trial of internet filtering and extensive industry feedback about the most appropriate way to improve safety for families online.” What about community consultation? It’s the sort of action you would announce the week of COP15 in Copenhagen and ten days before Christmas. Most of those affected won’t read past the headline.

If the government’s aim is to protect children from inappropriate content, then this scheme won’t achieve that. If it wants to stop illegal material on the web, then it should be confined to criminal material of a sexual nature as proposed in the ALP’s policy in 2007. If it’s trying to increase its popularity amongst “families”, then it’s wasting time and money.

Sphere: Related Content

2007 Remembered: Howard's Swift End

24 November is the 2nd anniversary of the election of Kevin Rudd's Labor governemnt in Australia. 'The Poll the Counts' videos from election day were taken around Canberra polling booths and at the National Tallyroom. My favourite is Tallyroom Spectators:



The others can be found at YouTube or Teacher Tube.

Sphere: Related Content

Australia’s Climate Countdown to Copenhagen

With just over three weeks till key climate talks in Copenhagen, there is little optimism that a binding agreement will be reached.

In Australia, Kevin Rudd’s Labor government has positioned itself uncomfortably in the middle of the national debate. Many of its supporters feel let down by what they see as weak 5 – 25 percent carbon emission cut targets and an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) that rewards big polluters. Yet Big Business, especially the energy sector, is arguing for more concessions.

Meanwhile a small but vocal and influential media minority continue to question global warming and the role of greenhouse gases. For some commentators, it’s all part of a conspiracy to advance global government.

Party Politics

The politics are messy to say the least. Negotiations are taking place with the Liberal Party opposition over amendments to the ETS legislation, which was originally defeated in the Senate in August. Their coalition partners, the National Party, are implacably opposed to the bill.

Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull is struggling to unite his own Liberal parliamentarians, a difficult task considering the party claims a significant number of climate sceptics and deniers in their ranks. His proposed amendments to the ETS bill are supposed to be about “jobs, jobs, jobs,” but he really wants to see some kind of ETS for two main reasons.

Firstly he accepts the science and has a personal commitment to fighting global warming. Secondly he fears a rout at a climate change election. Some of his own leadership team such as Senator Nick Minchin are considering having a bet each way: support the amendments and vote against the amended bill. The Nationals intend doing both.

The unknown element in the government’s compromise strategy to pass the legislation is much how further they are prepared to water down their scheme. In doing so they risk completely alienating many of their voters.

The Greens have been excluded from real talks because of their unwavering commitment to 40 percent emissions cuts. Even if a deal could be hammered out with them it is unlikely to get the support of the two independents in the Senate.

PM Kevin Rudd is using the negotiations to keep several balls in the air:

Re-election

A three-year electoral cycle means continuous campaigning. Cynics argue that his tactics are more concerned with short-term political advantage than long-term planning.

The Hostile Senate

The Kyoto Protocol finishes in 2012. Its replacement is supposed to hammered out at COP15. To have a real voice there, Rudd wants to establish some concrete climate change credentials through legislation but the hostile Senate stands in the way where the Greens and two independents hold the balance of power.

One solution is a double dissolution election if the ETS bill is rejected a second time. The bill could then be passed by a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Current opinion polls suggest that Labor would win well however, the election might be closer than predicted. There is the potential for the climate spoilers to use the basest tactics such as appeals to fear, ignorance and the tried and true hip-pocket nerve. In addition early elections have misfired in recent history. An even more hostile Senate could well result, even if the government is re-elected.

The Planet

Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party are committed to climate action. To have any impact on the future of the planet the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme needs to have both popular support and some guts, such as targets of 25 – 40 percent or 350 ppm.

The Economy

Jobs and economic growth are key Rudd priorities. Moreover, his own party is committed to protecting the coal industry and its unionised workforce. Clean coal research has received generous support.

The Environmental Lobbies

Australian Environmental groups have been divided in their response to the government’s target range increase to 25 percent in the event of a global agreement. The Australian Conservation Foundation’s latest Progress Report, Climate Change – the road to Copenhagen, is generally positive over the move. However Greenpeace Australia has a very different view stating in its own report Rudd’s weak targets undermine progress at UN that: “Unless countries like Australia put stronger targets on the table, it is difficult to see how we are going to get anything other than empty rhetoric from Copenhagen.”

The International Political Climate

The international scene is even more troubled. Barack Obama’s attempt to get cap and trade legislation is just one of a list of challenges along with health reform, the economy, Afghanistan and Iraq. The recent Barcelona talks and G20 meeting were inconclusive and the vexed question of how to finance developing countries is still unresolved.

Kevin Rudd has been asked to be one of the friends of the chairman, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen at Copenhagen. Like many Australian PMs before him, he likes to think that he is punching above his weight on the world stage. He is expected to use the current APEC meeting in Singapore to lobby for an agreement in Copenhagen. A recent parliamentary report into the effects of climate change on coastal Australia and a government report Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coast underline what is at stake.

* Climate Change is a soup of acronyms:

COP Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC)

CPRS Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

ETS Emissions Trading Scheme

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

* For more background, these links may be useful:

Linkages: Introduction to the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol

Seven steps to becoming an UNFCCC expert

The Road to Copenhagen Simon Talley

tck tck tck Global Campaign for Climate Action

(This post appeared first at theangle.org)

Sphere: Related Content

Suffer the children

Cross post from Global Voices:

Asylum seekers and illegal migrants must be in the top five hottest issues around the developed world. After the arrival of the Tampa, a cargo ship that had picked up refugees at sea, Prime Minister John Howard used border security as one of his catch cries in the 2001 Australian election with telling results.

This week his successor Kevin Rudd became embroiled in another controversy:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he spoke to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on the weekend before Indonesian authorities intercepted 260 Sri Lankans on a boat who were on their way to Australia.

Asylum seekers stopped after PM's call

Heavyweight blogger Mark Kenny is Political Editor of The Advertiser, a News Limited paper in Adelaide. He blogs at The Punch, an online venture that brings together both News Limited staff and dozens of independent writers from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests. His response was scathing of the PM:

In just one interview in Adelaide this week, Kevin Rudd used the terms “tough” and “hard-line” over and over again and repeatedly declared the Government made “no apology” for its hairy chested approach to boat people.

His condemnation of both leaders is unequivocal:

Yet there is no more pressing moral question before the world than the human rights of the forcibly displaced - some 42 million of them at present. And like capital, the movement of people is a global reality also.

The Government should now have the courage of its convictions and stare down the fear campaign being waged against it. If ever there was a case for evidence-based policy, it is here and now. That would be real moral leadership - voters respect that too.

My name is Kevin Rudd, and I’m just like John Howard

Mark Henderson, at The Australian Conservative blog, has the opposite view:

Kevin Rudd unwinds the Howard Government’s tough but highly successful measures against boat people and almost two thousand illegal immigrants find their way onto Australian territory.

… What a joke.

The “most hardline measures” involves nothing more than a phone call to the Indonesian president.

Rudd is not prepared to make the really hard decisions the Howard Government took, decisions that made it deeply unpopular with large sections of the media and the elite commentariat, but decisions that actually stopped the flow of illegal immigrants and stopped the tragic loss of life at sea.

Tough on illegals? Who’s he trying to kid?

Guy Beres’ presents his self-titled blog as: ‘Reflections on social democracy, economics, the media, and spin in an age of incorrigible cynicism’. In a lengthy and impassioned analysis of the issue he argues:

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

The boatpeople furphy re-emerges

Incidentally a ‘furphy’ is an Australian term for a red herring or false report.

Meanwhile we haven’t heard the last of these Sri Lankan asylum seekers as they are on a hunger strike:

THE 255 Sri Lankan asylum seekers staging a hunger strike last night remained defiant, insisting they would not leave their boat or even consume liquids, despite the blazing heat.

A young girl who made a plea for asylum on their behalf has been the subject of a personal attack:

Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan high commissioner, Senaka Walgampaya, cast doubt on the account of a nine-year-old girl on the boat, Brindha, who made an emotional appeal for the Tamils to be helped. ”She is crying and weeping and said, ‘We were in the jungles for one month',” he said. ”But she is quite well nourished and she spoke very good English. She is not from Sri Lanka.”

Boat people shun fluids in stand-off

There are seemingly no innocents in this ongoing struggle. It is not an issue that will disappear soon as a visit the news website of Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) will attest. A click on the refugees tag brings up dozens of recent stories involving Australia.

Sphere: Related Content