Senator Andrew Bartlett
Thursday, September 29, 2005
 
The Proposition
I mentioned here a couple of weeks ago that I was attending the Parliament House screening – which I believe was the first public screening in Australia – of "The Proposition". This film is written by Nick Cave, as is the music score in conjunction with Warren Ellis, the violinist from the Bad Seeds (and the Dirty Three). It has Guy Pearce in the main role. While Nick has done some acting in a few films and contributed to scripts and scores, this is his biggest contribution to a full length film.

For those readers who don't know, I am a huge Nick Cave fan, having every album he has released over more than 20 years, plus many singles, b-sides and individual songs. He's also written a fascinating novel and a range of other smaller pieces, including lectures on the nature of the love song and an introduction to a publication of the Gospel of St Mark. I cited him as a key influence of mine in my first speech to the Senate back in 1997.

The film is being formally released in Australia next week, and tonight there is a preview screening in Sydney which Nick Cave and Director John Hillcoat are attending. As seems to happen every time Nick has done a public appearance in Australia in the last few years, either the Senate has been sitting or I’ve been out of the country. Of course, if I’d decided to go to Senate Committee hearings, instead of speak at a conference in New Zealand, I would already be in Sydney today. Aaannnnyway, I figured this was as good a time as any to provide a few thoughts and impressions of the film for anyone who might be interested.

Firstly, I have to say that the film watching experience is given an unusual edge when the movie is introduced by the Arts Minister, Senator Rod Kemp, and you are told you are sharing the viewing experience with people like Philip Ruddock and various other Liberal and Labor MPs. For some reason, the film was also attended by the Ambassadors for Israel and South Korea.

The overarching assessment I have to make is that the film is well acted, well written, has a really good and interesting musical score, fascinating multi-layered themes and story and is definitely worth seeing. BUT it is also very brutal and fairly graphic in its violence. It is the sort of film that would be pretty brutal and confronting in its impact even if the violence was only implied, so if you really don’t like that sort of thing, then I’m afraid I’d have to recommend you give the film a miss. Otherwise, it is definitely worth seeing.

The film is very much in the western genre, but it is also unmistakably Australian. It was filmed around Winton in the far west of my home state (and electorate) of Queensland. The landscape is a character in its own right and is portrayed to very good effect. The film is set in the 1880s and doesn’t put any veneer on the harshness of the life and conditions that people lived in at the time. As an aside, the iconic Australian ballad, Waltzing Matilda, often cited as our unofficial national anthem, was written by Banjo Patterson near Winton in the 1890s.

Almost every character of note has a range of facets, with even the most unsympathetic still having some features which, while perhaps not always endearing or redeeming, at least show a different side. This is a bit of a hallmark of Nick Cave’s work, as he likes to reveal and explore the paradoxes and different sides that lie beneath the surface of the human condition and which often belie the simple stereotype or initial assumptions about a person. Perhaps also typically of Nick, the only character who is revolting and ghastly in a one dimensional way is also the only one who seems to avoid having anything particularly unpleasant happen to them.

The film unfolds in a way which is not totally unpredictable, but which still has some interesting twists and turns visited upon various people. The basic idea is pretty simple. There is an outlaw gang of three brothers, and two are captured. The middle brother is told by the police chief that his younger brother will hang in a week’s time (on Christmas Day) unless he agrees to track down and kill his older brother, who is seen as the most guilty and violent ringleader of the gang. But while the central storyline is simple, the way the themes are explored and unfold, and the way characters deal with and respond to the challenges and environment they are confronted with is certainly sufficient to keep the intellect stimulated throughout.

Despite the fact that the main character has an imminent deadline to fulfil if he wishes to save the life of his younger brother, I found the pace of the film to be fairly measured, and even a bit meandering in paces. Whilst there are plenty of violent incidents, I wouldn’t call the film action packed. Its strength is in the story and its characters and how they are portrayed.

I suppose you could say the central proposition of the title is a bit reminiscent of “Sophie’s Choice”, but the storyline and underlying themes are more evocative of one of Clint Eastwood’s most renowned westerns, “The Unforgiven”. Clint’s comment in that film, as someone is about to meet an unfortunate fate, that “deserve’s got nothing to do with it” remains a favourite of mine. It is particularly apt for many of the things that I see happen in politics.

The roles played by Aboriginal people are worthy of comment and analysis in itself. While it is fair to say that there is no aboriginal person in a leading role, the role of indigenous people themselves is important. Longstanding and well known indigenous actor David Gulpilil plays a significant role as a black member of the local police force. Others play roles as traditional tribal aboriginal people, and there is also an aboriginal member of the outlaw gang at the centre of the main storyline of the film. Leah Purcell, a multi-skilled performer, but perhaps better known to me as a singer in and around Brisbane, also has a small but well-acted part.

Simple, callous racism is frequently displayed, but it is not gratuitous. A massacre of a local tribe is portrayed matter of factly and barely without comment – which was undoubtedly the way killings of black people often occurred at the time. Whilst the environment displayed in the film seems like a world away, it is only a little over a lifetime ago. Our failure to acknowledge some of the less pleasant things, some from the very recent past, which built modern Australian society, continues to blind us to things that constrain our future and explain aspects of our present.

The cruelty and brutality displayed in the film was almost omnipresent, and it is easy to think of it as a museum piece relic of a long-gone past – the determined goal of the film’s police chief to ‘civilise the place’ having long been achieved. However, sometimes I feel we’ve just become skilled at putting a highly polished and civilised veneer over our actions (and our own perceptions), but are still capable of brutality that is no less callous and savage.

The film started and concluded with some historic archival photos of Australia, and a simple song, sung with a child’s thin unpolished voice that created a sense of both innocence and foreboding.

In introducing the film, Rod Kemp said he believed descriptions like “brutal, yet gentle” might be apt. Perhaps he was thinking of his own performances in Question Time, but when I saw him in the Senate a couple of days late, he said he now thought “numbing” might be accurate (about the film, not his Senate performances).

A few days later, I ran into one of the Ambassadors who was at the screening – who I don’t know, but who recognised me because I was sitting in front of him. He asked me how I found the film. Suffice to say he found the violence fairly confronting.

All in all, I think it’s an excellent film which shows Australia can produce high quality movies. It is also confronting and brutal, and it messed with my head a bit. I will try to see it again.

If you want a different take on it, read this review from the Hollywood Reporter from the film's showing at the recent Toronto Film Festival. The review is also highly positive, although it does give away a little bit more of the story than I think a review should. However, it certainly won’t ruin the film for you if you read it.

PS - Some other reviews: Peter Thompson from the Sunday program, Lawrie Zion in The Australian, In Film Australia, Urban Cinefile, hoopla.nu and Variety. (warning: some of these give away quite a lot of the storyline).

Also, from May 2006 when the film debuted in the USA, is a review from Village Voice.


EPILOGUE:
As this snippet in The Australian shows, Winton is hoping to get a bit of boost from the film – both from tourists and possibly other filming opportunities.

While I’ve visited Longreach a number of times, which is not too far to the east (well about 180 kilometres, which is ‘not too far’ once you get that far into the outback) and been to Mt Isa a few hundred kilometres to the west, I’ve never been to Winton. The film certainly made me feel like visiting there; although not for the climate - one of the film financiers told me it was over 50 degrees Celsius in the sun when they were shooting the film, and I know from visiting other similar places that the abundance of flies portrayed in the film weren’t artificially placed there.

Winton is already known for being the birthplace of Waltzing Matilda – it’s the reason why the long highway through the region is known as the Matilda Highway - and the town also wrestles to this day with Longreach for the title of being the birthplace of Qantas. (I think the first board meeting of Qantas occurred in Winton, but the first flight took off from Longreach). Maybe “The Proposition” will give it a third reason for fame well into the future.


posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Thursday, September 29, 2005 Permalink
|
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
 
Migration again and flying (again)
Yesterday saw another day of Senate Committee hearings into the administration of the Migration Act. There was again some very useful evidence provided, including some quite startling evidence provided by a researcher named Michaela Rost, about the large number of overseas students who are subjected to detention when they run into problems with their student visas.

Whilst I don’t have a problem with conditions for student and other visas being set and enforced, one of the problems with the Migration Act is that it is so inflexible that even a minor or unintended breach can have quite dramatic consequences. A student who has paid tens of thousands of dollars for a course of study and is one subject off finishing it, can fail some subjects or be deemed by DIMIA to have worked for 22 hours in a week, instead of the 20 hours allowed under their visa. Instead of getting a fine or a please explain, they can get an automatic cancellation of their visa, which can lead to them automatically being put in detention. If they wish to appeal or challenge the decision regarding their visa, they may be kept in detention while they do so, which means a debt continues to pile up because Australia charges people for detaining them. All of which means they can be removed from Australia, ten of thousands of dollars out of pocket, owing a debt of thousands more and with potentially major consequences for their ability to travel to other countries in the future – and with nothing to show for it.

This is unfortunate enough when the decision of DIMIA, with all its harsh consequences, is correct, but in light of a recent Court decision which suggests that thousands of students may have had their visa wrongly cancelled and been removed from the country, it becomes scandalous. Having your visa cancelled and being removed from a country is not a minor thing – even without a debt attached. In the current international environment of disproportionate paranoia and poorly targeted control-freakery, having something like that on your record can severely affect your future job and life opportunities.

The Committee also heard from well-known QC, Julian Burnside, who was eloquent and to the point as always. He is currently acting for the deported US peace activist, Scott Parkin. Whilst he couldn’t go into detail on that case, it still served to show the inflexibility and dangerous disproportionality that exists, even under current law, let alone under some of the extra powers federal and state governments are now planning to give themselves. In Scott Parkin’s case, ASIO made a secret determination that he was a security risk, which means DIMIA automatically had to cancel his visa, and automatically has to put him in detention. He has yet to be told why he was a security risk, because it’s a secret, (although not secret enough for a journalist from The Australian newspaper to apparently be told by someone in Government). I met Scott Parkin at an event in Brisbane a couple of months ago, and while I obviously can’t comprehensively vouch for every aspect of his character, he didn’t threaten my security.

There was some other good evidence throughout the day. By 4pm, my 5am start in Adelaide to fly to Melbourne for the hearing was beginning to catch-up with me and I was starting to flag a bit (must be getting old I think). Last week I had the rare pleasure of being in Brisbane for a full 7days, and this week, I can feel myself building up to a renewal of my full blown loathing of plane travel, which had subsided over the last 6 months or so. I flew back to Brisbane in the evening, looking forward to spending a bit of time with my little girl before flying off again in the morning. My flight landed about 15 minutes early. I was then forced to stay sitting in the plane on the tarmac for another hour, because of lightning storms in the area meaning they wouldn’t use the airbridge to offload the passengers. The irritation of this was compounded by having felt the fleeting pleasure of getting in early.

When I did finally get home, my little girl was sitting up in bed reading a book aloud to herself – well she was actually mainly reciting from memory, but it seems the same as reading and looks just as cute. Five minutes of that was enough to make me wonder about why I was flying out again early in the morning for another three nights away.

However, I dragged myself out of bed at 5am again, this time to fly to New Zealand for an Australasian political studies conference where I will be talking about the nature of Australia’s refugee and immigration laws and policies. I actually agonised a fair bit over whether to go to this - not so much because I would be away from home, but because I have to miss a day and a half of further Senate Committee hearings. Given that I moved the motion setting up the Inquiry, I should be attending, but I know that the other Senators attending will ask most of the questions I would have asked, and I can still read the transcripts and submissions. Plus I know almost all the organisations giving evidence and can follow them up myself if need be. I felt the chance to engage with a new group of people in an international context about the human and legal reality of Australia’s laws was an opportunity too good to miss. However, I won’t know for sure how valuable it will be until after I’ve done it – we shall see.

It certainly gives me a chance to remind myself further of the joys of flying, with a 4 hour trip to Wellington, trying to type this while squished into an economy seat that won’t tilt back, before a 3 hour transit wait prior to getting another flight on to Dunedin. And at the risk of being accused of doing a ‘poor, unpampered me’ impression, I thought I should report for anyone who thought that politicians always get upgraded as a matter of course when they fly, I can report that this does not occur. This thought just happened to occur to me when I was walking back to my seat from a toilet break and noticed that Business Class on the flight was completely empty, while I squeezed myself sideways back into a space which had shrunk even further while I was out of it, because the person seated in front of me took the opportunity of my absence to demonstrate that his seat obviously didn’t suffer from the same inability to recline as mine did. It did also remind me that I could benefit from a bit of work on reducing my waistline, so it was probably a good thing for my health that I wasn’t upgraded. Which reminds me, I really must write a piece on the massive greenhouse emissions caused by air travel - I might save that for the flight back.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, September 28, 2005 Permalink
|
Monday, September 26, 2005
 
Committee hearings into Migration Act
I spent today in Senate Committee hearings in Adelaide looking at the operation of our Migration Act. There was a lot of solid evidence given about the enormously negative impact of our refugee determination system. I did have an occasional feeling of déjà vu, having sat through many hearings of a Senate Committee Inquiry into this matter back in 1999 and 2000. The frustration is that most of the recommendations of that Inquiry were rejected by the Government, so most of the problems identified 5 years ago have continued, with even greater damage being done to people as a consequence.

It is just terrible to see that so many people have been so badly damaged for no good reason (and at massive public expense) as a direct result of Government policy and laws. There is actually quite a bizarre discrepancy between the Government’s preparedness to brutalise and destroy some refugees and their families, while at the same time doing some very good things helping an increasing number of other refugees from Africa to escape their suffering and build a new life in Australia.

Even this one day of hearings reminded me just how many people have put in so much effort at personal cost. Different lawyers, migration agents, chaplains, doctors and advocates have all worked over many years to try to get basic justice and basic help for asylum seekers, and while the system is only now improving in a few ways, many individual lives have been saved and dramatically improved along the way as a direct result of the work of many of these people.

In amongst all the specific examples and suggestions about possible changes, one simple quote from the final witness stuck out for me: “We could have done better, we should have done better and we’ve got to make sure we don’t do it again.”

Figuring out how best to do that should be the core goal of the Committee, and I hope politics doesn’t get in the way of us being able to achieve that.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, September 26, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Sunday shows
Once upon a time I used to be religious on Sundays – I'd religiously watch all of the Sunday morning current affairs shows on television, trying to catch the political interviews to find out what the issues of the day might be and what sorts of comments I could make. These days, I don't watch much TV at all, regardless of the day of the week.

So I felt especially virtuous last Sunday, not only forgoing sleeping in, but steeling myself to watch all of the political interviews on the Sunday morning shows, (although I must admit my main motivation was to see the brief interview on The Insiders with the guy responsible for the often-interesting blog, The Daily Flute.)

Watching these shows made me feel young again. I spent most of the time yelling at the TV set, with words like "rubbish", "garbage", "pish tosh" and "fiddle faddle" cascading from my lips, (they’d be crasser four letter words if I was a chap of less couth an upbringing) (my mum reads this blog).

This brought back memories of when I was in my 20s. As a powerless student witnessing grotesque unfairness, inaccuracy, absurdity and injustice being blithely portrayed on the television, I used to vent my frustration at being powerless to do anything about it by yelling at the TV.

It made me feel like I'd come a long way, now that I'm in my 40s and a hugely powerful Senator, to be faced with grotesque unfairness, inaccuracy, absurdity and injustice being blithely portrayed on the television, and being able to vent my frustration at being powerless to do anything about it by yelling at the TV.

I thought I would pick out 3 things amongst the 472 643 that got under my skin:
(1) The so-called "war on terror" has to be one of the biggest con jobs ever perpetrated on the Australian public. Sure there's a few foreign extremists doing a good impersonation of an Australian yobbo with masculinity problems (and a not totally irrelevant gun slung over their shoulder), but let's keep things in perspective. Conspiring to kill people has always been illegal, whether you’re a modern mindless 'terrorist', or a good old fashioned axe-murdering maniac. I can't see why there needs to be a whole bunch of new wide-ranging powers given to politicians and police to 'protect us' against old style crimes like bombing and shooting, just because someone is wanting to bomb or shoot people for ‘terrorist’ reasons.

(2) There is a lot of talk lately of ethanol and biofuels. Whilst I know there are some factors which suggest that ethanol is not necessarily the economic and environmental magic bullet that some people might suggest, it still peeves me that the Democrats got a big ethanol boosting package out of the Government in 1991, and now the Nationals are expecting some kudos for getting policy somewhere close to where it was 15 years ago, before both the major parties let it die.

(3) I think Malcolm Farr is a reasonably OK assessor of Parliamentary activity, given that he is the chief reporter for the Daily Telegraph. However, he suggested on Sunday that the Prime Minister's decision to postpone a week's sitting of the House of Representatives was due to the delay in the drafting of the industrial relations legislation AND the need to hold up the VSU legislation which will cut services for students on university campuses. In fact, the VSU legislation was introduced into the Senate months ago. The Senate is still sitting as per its original schedule, and there is no reason for delay on the VSU legislation, other than the fact that thankfully some Coalition members are still unwilling to vote for it in its current form.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, September 26, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, September 25, 2005
 
Inquiry into Migration Act starts public hearings
Tomorrow sees the first public hearings for the Senate Committee Inquiry into the administration of the Migration Act, which was initiated on a motion of mine back in June. I'm travelling to Adelaide tonight for the first hearing on Monday, followed by Melbourne on Tuesday. There have been a lot of submissions already received for this inquiry. You can read them, plus look at the schedule of hearings and the transcripts from them by going to this site.

My views about the inadequacies of the existing law and the implementation of it are already on the public record – including on this website. There are already ample examples of the human suffering and injustice caused by our immigration laws and how they are administered, so I'm not really interested in just seeing more examples of that. What I desperately hope can be achieved from this Inquiry is a recognition that there must be a change in migration laws and policies, and some ideas and common views developing about what those changes might be.

It is one thing to point out problems – and there are many in the immigration and refugee area – but it is another to provide ideas about what to do about it. I have been highly critical of the policies and rhetoric of both major parties in this area for the better part of a decade, but all of us that criticise them do have to acknowledge that migration law is a very difficult area which will always throw up hard cases and generate situations which cause heartache for individuals. That inherent difficulty is no excuse for the perversion of the rule of law and the brutalisation of human lives which the current government has willingly and knowingly overseen, but it is a difficulty that should be acknowledged none the less.

A Senate Committee has already tabled reports in the last couple of weeks into the case of the Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin, and deported Australian citizen Vivian Solon. These haven’t generated a lot of attention, but they all reinforce the fact that there is something seriously wrong with our immigration system. What I hope the wider Senate Inquiry that’s holding hearings this week does is not only show that there is something wrong, but what it is that should be done about it.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, September 25, 2005 Permalink
|
Friday, September 23, 2005
 
Grand Final Day - Carn the Swans
For the first time in three years, I’ll be able to spend AFL Grand Final day free of any other engagements. For the last two years, I’ve attended the Kangaroo’s Grand Final breakfast in Melbourne on the morning of the game, but then had to leave town later that day for activities in other cities. Last year in particular brings up memories that are less than uplifting – stuck in the middle of a hugely frustrating election campaign, having to go from the breakfast to fly to Sydney for media commitments, and then watching the game in a hotel room where the Brisbane Lions had a final quarter fade out to lose to Port Adelaide.

I’ve never seen a Grand Final game live at the ground – something I’m really keen to do one day. I haven’t been a member of the Lions for a few years because I just can’t get to enough games to justify the cost, which makes it a lot harder to get Grand Final tickets. I suspect it might be at least a couple of years before the Brisbane Lions are there again on Grand Final day in any case. The fact that last year’s premiers Port Adelaide fell so far in this year’s competition, (as did the Lions), shows just how amazing a feat it was for the Lions to win three years in a row and come so close to getting a fourth.

In the meantime, I’ll settle for just enjoying having the day free to watch the game. Like most people, I’ll be barracking for the Sydney Swans to win. Even though my former Chief of Staff (from when I was party leader) is a big Swans fan who will probably gloat insufferably if they win, and Sydney could do without any more encouragement in believing it's the centre of the universe, I still figure seventy-two years between flags is a long enough wait for any club. You can’t really begrudge them a win (and a gloat or two) after all that time.

If the Swans do get up, I think the Bullldogs will then be the ones with the longest drought - going back to 1954. Geelong, Melbourne and St Kilda also haven't won since the mid-1960s, which all goes to show just how long some fans have to wait between drinks, and just how fortunate Brisbane fans have been. Of course I have to say it does also emphasise how magnificent the Brisbane Lions' achievement was in winning three flags in as many years - especially in the modern era with the draft and the salary cap.

P.S. Other reasons why a Swans win would be OK:
- It would be the best result for strengthening the national competition of our national game;
- I reckon that on average the Swans (along with the Lions as the other northern team) do get a raw deal from the umpires, (and I reckon people should be able to say so without getting fined $10 000), so it would be good if they could triumph over adversity;
- I quite like Andrew Demetriou, but you have to enjoy the notion of the head of the AFL bagging a team for ‘playing ugly’ and saying they will “lose more games than they win”, and that team then going on to win the competition. (although I should also note that later on he did say that he wanted the Swans to win the flag);
- A key sponsor of the Eagles is a hamburger chain directly responsible for the slaughter of millions of animals each year, so no self-respecting vegetarian could support them;
- They have a better team song and better colours that the Eagles – these things are important;
- I think the SCG is a crap venue to watch footy (I’m not sure what that has to do with it being OK for the Swans to win, but I just wanted to say that while I had the chance).

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, September 23, 2005 Permalink
|
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
 
Mark Latham
The media frenzy over the Mark Latham diaries in the last week or so has been hard to avoid. I haven’t read his book yet, nor have I watched or listened to any of the various interviews he has done on television or radio. However, I’ve read bits and pieces of the newspaper and magazine pieces, as well as a lot of the commentaries on the web, with many blog sites (far too many to list individually) giving a view, as well as plenty from the more mainstream media.

I probably will read his book at some stage down the track. As a few other people have said, there is probably a lot of useful information and insights in there, but its value will be obscured by the malevolence with which it appears to be expressed. I’m actually more looking forward to reading the book on Labor and Latham by journalist Annabel Crabb. She seems to me to be one of the more perceptive writers about politics, who appreciates the bizarreness and occasional absurdity of the political environment whilst still respecting the importance of it. She also had the rare knack of being able to be make fun of what politicians do without being cruel or vicious in doing so.

The focus on Latham made me revisit the posts I wrote on this blog at the time he announced his retirement, which in the current environment appear in contrast to be very sympathetic. I guess he has given plenty of reason for people to be a lot less sympathetic about him now. One of the few recent efforts I’ve seen which seeks to draw attention to the physical condition which Latham is probably still enduring is this item by Catherine Job, which notes the impact that living with constant physical pain can have on a person’s mindset.

John Howard has certainly had some luck with this event. The extracts from the Latham diaries in the News Limited papers were released earlier than originally planned. They were brought forward to appear the morning after the Telstra sale legislation passed, which certainly helped push the details surrounding that bastardised process off the front pages very quickly. It has also very much buried the perception that was starting to develop about the level of thuggery and malevolence between people inside the Liberal Party, not least from the religious extremists who seem to have control of the NSW branch of the party (amongst others). Assuming half of what Latham says is true, the degree of callousness and lack of respect for democracy amongst Labor is truly appalling (although not overly surprising), but I’ve seen enough to have little doubt it’s similar inside the Liberals. To me, it is just a manifestation of the way many politicians, journalists and operatives behave in parliamentary politics, rather than something peculiar to the ALP.

There has been plenty of no-holds-barred commentary on Latham from press gallery journalists – which is perhaps not surprising seeing many of them are as much of a target of Latham’s as are his former Labor Party colleagues. I found this piece from Tim Blair one of the most eviscerating, perhaps because it is hard to dispute any of it. The Latham comment he starts with, regarding the armed forces, is both callous and hypocritical in the extreme. The comment he ends with, by Labor supporter and one of Australia’s more thoughtful bloggers, Chirstopher Shiel, is also very telling.

Mind you, the end comment on another recent post by Chris about the nature of political debate today is also worth noting when considering how much truth there is to the various Latham allegations and anecdotes – “Whether a political matter is true or false has increasingly become beside the point, just so long as interest rates don’t go up.“

Tim Blair also has a collection of old comments by various people in The Bulletin, which gives a reminder of how past quotes can make most of us look a bit silly in hindsight.

Whilst there have been many comments suggesting Latham is performing a valuable service in opening up the workings of the major parties and the media to public scrutiny, about the only example I’ve seen so far of someone specifically praising the actual content of Latham’s views was by Ben Oquist, the Green Party’s long-serving spin doctor in Parliament House. It appeared in the daily email sent out by Crikey. It’s not on line, so I’ll reproduce it in full here without making further comment:


No doubt you have heard some of Latham's fine words over the last week. While much of it is crude, there is none the less a very very rich vein of truth in what he has been saying on many issues. His statements about foreign policy (and how safe New Zealand is from a terrorist attack), individualism and materialism this morning for example.

I think that while some in the political class and mainstream commentariat are suggesting that there is nothing worthwhile in the diaries, many – particularly in the Greens constituency – will be taking good heart from what he is saying. So much of it is Greens sentiment expressed in a language that cuts through.

Here are a couple of bits relating to the Greens that I have picked up from reading the book this morning that haven't been directly covered in the media so far.

"Bob Brown is killing us on this issue [Iraq] through the power of a simple, commonsense message: Bush is an imbecile and Australia should not be part of this war"

"I also like Brown: other than economic policy, our beliefs are quite similar. I prefer his political values to the likes of [Dick] Adams and Michael O'Connor [CMFEU forestry division], with their close links to the timber and woodchip bosses. It's a shame that people like Bob Brown have been lost to the Party. Gough tells me he was a member in Western Sydney in the 1970's. [this last bit is untrue actually]

"And then there was the Forestry Division of the CMFEU which organised the rally for Howard, the same CFMEU that was subjected to a Royal Commission by the Howard Government. This one was even beyond Billy Hughes.""The problem with the Forestry Division is that it has formed a dependency relationship with the companies. Their officials can't fart unless the bosses say it's ok."

"The Media. As detestable as ever. One thing I underestimated was the capacity of the Liberals to use large parts of their commercial media as an extension of their campaign. The Murdoch tabloids, for instance, kicked off the scare campaign against the Greens, which the Government finished off in their last days of the campaign. I knew Murdoch was backing the Government, but not as a formal part of its campaign."

All in all I think there is much to congratulate Mark Latham for in this book. It is a shame these honest things are not said by more politicians when they are actually in parliament. Thank God the Greens are there to do it!


posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Permalink
|
Monday, September 19, 2005
 
Liberating the persecuted? Iraq and Sudan
The Guardian has published one of the more telling articles I have read about the consequences, motivation and competence of those who generated and implemented the invasion of Iraq. It is by former British Army Colonel, Tim Collins, who became well known in the UK for the speech he gave to his Battalion prior to going into battle in Iraq in 2003.
We go to liberate, not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.
Colonel Collins has now left the army, and he has written an article in The Guardian saying he clearly was naïve, and that “it is the role of the leaders of nations to explain where we are going and why. I, for one, demand to know.”
One cannot help but wonder what it was all about. If it was part of the war on terror then history might notice that the invasion has arguably acted as the best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda ever: a sort of large-scale equivalent of the Bloody Sunday shootings in Derry in 1972, which in its day filled the ranks of the IRA. If it was an attempt to influence the price of oil, then the motorists who queued last week would hardly be convinced. If freedom and a chance to live a dignified, stable life free from terror was the motive, then I can think of more than 170 families in Iraq last week who would have settled for what they had under Saddam. UK military casualties reached 95 last week. I nightly pray the total never reaches 100.

I shudder to think how parents who have loss a son or daughter in this war feel in the face of this unarmed truth, or indeed how a military commander feels who has led men to their deaths for such a 'cause'. I think the deceit used to fool people into believing this was a just war is an even greater crime than initiating the invasion.

An interesting contrast is the way countries are responding to the unthinkable persecution and oppression in Sudan. This piece by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times details various countries making up the ‘Axis of Medieval’, who are not only refusing to act but are even threatening those who try to show the facts about what continues to happen to the people in that country. More details can be found in this equally compelling article by the same writer. The television networks in the USA won’t even show an advertisement by this anti-genocide group trying to encourage more coverage of the killings in Darfur.


(acknowledgement to The Daily Briefing for initial links)

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, September 19, 2005 Permalink
|
 
Keeping up the pressure on Mental Health
I have a posted a few times before about mental health issues and the Senate Select Committee inquiry into mental health has been generating a huge amount of interest, with well over 500 submissions made public so far. Whilst of course there is never complete agreement, there is clearly widespread recognition of the nature of many of the problems.

Tonight’s 4 Corners on ABC TV is focussing on the issue. Hopefully it will help reinforce the public pressure for more action, although if this report is any indication, it looks like the buck passing, blame shifting and finger pointing between state and federal governments which has plagued this issue for so long is still getting in the way of adequate solutions.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, September 19, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, September 18, 2005
 
Water Water Everywhere
I’m at home in Brisbane this weekend. It’s quite dry (not to mention extraordinarily windy), which is actually one more reminder of water issues and how prevalent they are becoming.

Water issues are definitely a topic of big interest amongst federal politicians. A breakfast briefing and forum on water issues by some CSIRO scientists held in Parliament House a week ago attracted over 25 MPs from all parties. There is certainly clear, if overdue, recognition that a lot more needs to be done about the way we use (and re-use) water.

A frequently cited phrase is that Australia is the driest (inhabited) continent in the world. However, this is a fairly misleading comment which is only true in a geographical sense, not in a per capita sense. Water resources per person are actually better than many other nations, especially as the majority of Australians live in areas where rainfall or water is reasonably plentiful. However, we are also one of the most profligate users of water and unless we change our ways dramatically, we are going to be in big trouble quite soon.

As mentioned in my previous post, I was keen to get out of Canberra this week and back into Queensland as soon as possible. I flew up to Townsville on Thursday night to attend part of the state conference of Queensland conservation councils. THere was a fair bit of focus on problems with rampant coastal development. I wrote a while ago about an example of this in Mission Beach. Climate change issues are also looking harder and harder, which may well lead to permanently reduced rainfall, compounding our water supply issues.

Brisbane’s Courier-Mail newspaper has been giving a good amount of attention to water issues in recent times, and this weekend had a story which showed just how serious our water problems are in South East Queensland, and how poorly various levels of government have performed in this area. The Courier-Mail also commissioned a report by the Queensland branch of the Australian Water Association.

I have written before (twice) about the Toowoomba City Council’s plans to recycle highly treated effluent back into the towns’ drinking supply. I think this is a very good idea and we have to start strongly pursuing these options (along with many others), at least in those areas where it is cost effective. I’d have to say a couple of the people I spoke with at the conservation conference were less than convinced about this, but I’m comfortable with it given the range of scientific involvement and the monitoring safeguards in place. (although one commenter on my previous posts doesn’t agree).

I was sent details of this blog site specifically focussed on the Toowoomba plans. The people behind it seem to be very much against the project, but even though I’m in favour of it, I’m even more in favour of wider public discussion on these sorts of issues, so I thought I’d mention it.

People in Brisbane interested in the issue should try to get along to a forum this Tuesday night 20th September, featuring the Mayor of Toowoomba, Dianne Thorley, who is a big promoter of the project. She’s a straight talker too, and I expect will give a good speech and be open with her answers. It’s organised by the Brisbane Institute and is being held at Customs House in the city from 6pm. (cost up to $22)

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, September 18, 2005 Permalink
|
Saturday, September 17, 2005
 
Article on Margo Kingston's site
I found this week’s Senate sitting quite distressing. Whenever people prove a willingness to let political imperatives override all other factors, it fills me with apprehension as to what else they are prepared to do. It is also depressing to see our parliamentary system, which has the potential to work so well, being reduced to such a hollow sham. It was a genuine relief to get out of Canberra on Thursday night and into the wider outside world.

I give a brief indication in my previous post of just why the Liberal Government’s actions were so dodgy, which generated a higher than usual number of comments. I have written a much longer piece expanding on this, which is on Margo Kingston's new webdiary site. The full piece gives some historical comparisons, but it was the whole range of measures the Government took to stifle scrutiny and debate, rather than one single act, which makes their actions so worrisome and extreme.

The key measures they used, one after the other - and each one with the full support of Senator Barnaby Joyce - were as follows:
1 - forcing Senate debate on legislation to start immediately upon its introduction on a Thursday;
2 - forcing a Senate Committee hearing into the legislation to be held on the Friday, less than 24 hours after the legislation was made public, and before the time for public submissions had even closed;
3 - forcing the Committee to write and present its report to the Senate by the following Monday;
4 - guillotining debate on all 5 Bills on the Wednesday, less than 7 full days after they were made public;
5 - ensuring only three hours of the Senate debate could be spent in the phase where the Minister could be questioned about the legislation;
6 - ensuring a significant proportion of that three hours was unable to be used to properly question the Minister, by Government Senators making speeches and asking 'dorothy dixer' questions to the Minister.

There are two other incidents from the Telstra ‘debate’ which I forgot to mention which demonstrate the level of contempt for basic decency, let alone due process and honesty.

The first occurred when the votes had been taken to cut the main debate stage of the legislation to a matter of minutes. Having just voted to prevent a range of Senators from speaking on the Bills, the Government managed to get the (theoretically independent) Senate President to give the call for next speaker to Barnaby Joyce, even though the speakers list, which is arranged in advance by the party Whips, did not have him on the list at all. You can read that exchange here in the Senate Hansard.

The second is the issue of Family Impact Statements. For those who don’t recall, before the last election, the Prime Minister promised the Family First party that Family Impact Statements would be produced for key pieces of legislation. Following various comments and questions about where the statement was for the Telstra Bills, it became clear that not only would the public not get to see such a statement, but not even the Family First Senator would! Any impact statement produced might be shown to Cabinet, but Cabinet documents are confidential. Needless to say, the Family First Senator is displeased about this. You can hardly blame then for assuming that, when the Prime Minister promised to prepare such statements, it would go without saying that they would also be made available for people to see. It’s an early lesson for them (and for the rest of us, another reminder) of how this Prime Minister operates to a different set of standards and honesty to the rest of us.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Saturday, September 17, 2005 Permalink
|
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
 
Telstra Sold - Senate Sold Out
The package of 5 Bills that allow the sale of Telstra was guillotined through the Senate tonight, with Barnaby Joyce voting with the rest of the Government Senators, as he has through every step of the corrupted and tawdry process that was used to prevent proper scrutiny of the legislation and its many flaws.

A Senate Committee was given only a one day hearing to take evidence from the public on the Bills. This occurred less than 24 hours after the legislation was released by the government. There was less than a week from when all the legislation was released to when the final vote was forced on the Senate.

The only chance for the Senate to directly query the Minister on the detail of legislation is in the stage of the debate which is called the Committee of the Whole. This involves the whole Senate going into committee, thus enabling Senators to speak more than once on any amendment or issue, and to ask for explanation, clarification or seek guarantees from the Minister.

Today the Government – without any advance notice – used its numbers to limit this examination stage of the debate to less than four hours for all 5 Bills. Not content with doing this, Government Senators spoke and asked puffball questions of the Minister to use up as much of the time as possible.

I've been working as an adviser and Senator for over 15 years. There have been guillotines used many times before, but the only case that was even remotely comparable was the package of 7 Migration Bills that were forced through the Senate following the Tampa incident in 2001. Even then, most of the Bills had been around in some form or another for a while, and there was no attempt by Government speakers to talk out the time to prevent others speaking. Of course, those Bills were supported by both major parties, so only smaller parties were opposing the whole thing.

I can't think of a single example in all my experience where such total arrogance and contempt for the Parliamentary process was displayed. Of course, the one thing that is different now than at any other time in the last 24 years is that the Government has a majority in its own right in the Senate.

Any hope that the Liberal and National parties might not use this smallest of majorities to trash the entire purpose and role of the Senate was obviously forlorn.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, September 14, 2005 Permalink
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
 
Cultural Interlude II – Film (or Nick Cave plays Parliament House)
The Senate usually doesn't sit past 7.20 on Tuesday nights, but as part of the Government's efforts to ensure the Telstra Bills are passed this week, they are making the Senate sit until 11.00pm. This just happens to clash with a pre-release screening in the Parliament House theatre of a new movie, "The Proposition", which has a script written by Nick Cave.

One of the fascinating things I heard at the Publishers Association function is that around 60 percent of all books sold in Australia are by Australian authors. With the music industry, the figure is around 16 per cent, but for the film industry it is an abysmal 2 per cent. This makes me feel duty bound to lend my support to Australian film and go to see the movie, even though I would normally love nothing more than listening to another night of speeches about Telstra.

Nick Cave wrote a fabulous book some time ago called "And the Ass Saw the Angel". The book industry statistics suggest that Nick is better off sticking with music, or trying another book. I'm not sure if writing a film is as hard as writing a novel, but he's certainly been releasing plenty of music, and in the absence of a follow up to the book, I guess a film script is the next best thing.

I presume the film hasn't had a formal premiere yet, as the notice sent around about the film screening said that "audience members should note that the film is yet to be rated. It contains violence". Parliament House has these early screenings from time to time - mainly films that have got some funding from the Australian Film Commission or the Australia Council. I recall seeing "Priscilla Queen of the Desert" a few years ago at one of those 'pre-premiere' screenings.

"The Proposition" is directed by John Hillcoat, who has done many Nick Cave videos and also did "Ghosts … of the Civil Dead", which Nick co-authored and acted in. The stars of this film include Guy Pearce, John Hurt, David Wenham and Emily Watson. It was filmed in western Queensland.

To give readers a bit more of an idea about the film, the promotional blurb is as follows:
Set in the beautiful and brutal landscape of 1880's Australia, two families are bound in merciless conflict by an impossible proposition set down by local law enforcer Captain Stanley (Ray Winstone). The only way for Charlie Burns (Guy Pearce) to save younger brother Mickey from the gallows is to track down and forsake Arthur (Danny Houston), his formidable older brother. The Proposition unleashes in a wave of bullets the gripping conflict between savagery and civilisation, loss and loyalty and how even in a living hell hope can survive.


Sounds well suited to the new Senate under Howard Government control.


posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, September 13, 2005 Permalink
|
Monday, September 12, 2005
 
Cultural Interlude – Books
In the last few sitting days I have given speeches on the initial Telstra Bills, the referral to Committee of the Telstra Bills, the need to allow proper consideration of the first 2 Telstra Bills, the need to allow proper consideration of 3 other Telstra Bills and the need to allow a couple of weeks before we finalise the debate on the Telstra.

I led off debate on the Telstra Bills last week, but no one else had done their speech on the actual Bills, and that debate got under way at 7.30pm on the Monday night. The speakers list had at least 30 names on it. Much as I believe it's an important issue, it was a bit of a relief to go to a function where people were actually talking about something else.

I attended the Australian Book Industry awards, put on by the Australian Publishers Association, which was held at the National Museum down by Lake Burley Griffin. I saw a few people I knew, including the person that runs one of Brisbane's good bookshops, The Avid Reader in West End. I also met the sister-in-law of the person who maintains my main website, who is clearly a well read person who recognises high quality writing (and who just happens to read this blog).

One of the main awards was won by Helen Garner, for her book Joe Cinque's Consolation. I read this a little while ago and found it a fascinating read about an awful real life story which appropriately enough happened in Canberra.

I have attended these awards before. At some functions and dinners, listening to 10 or so acceptance and other speeches can sometimes get a bit dull, but one real plus about the book industry is that people give really good speeches. As they are writers and other people who work with words for a living, this perhaps should not be surprising, but it was certainly very noticeable. They are better than the speeches you get at music award nights, although I guess if the book industry people had to perform a song when they accepted an award, the reverse would apply.

Also noticeable was the real passion everybody had for the world of books in all their infinite variety. I came away feeling like I should just find a nice cabin somewhere and read books for a year. Instead, it'll be another day of speeches about Telstra in the Senate.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, September 12, 2005 Permalink
|
Saturday, September 10, 2005
 
Telstra - railroaded, steamrolled or guillotined?
The biggest signal of an extremist government isn't the policies they put forward, it's the way that they try to implement them.

I'd have to say one of the phrases I am most suspicious of is "the ends justifies the means". I've always instinctively felt this was a dubious notion. One of the sayings I remember from one of my better University lecturers is that "the means are the end", which I took to mean that how you do things significantly shapes what you end up with.

The means being used by the Government to ensure the sale of Telstra, with the support (so far) of every single Coalition Senator, sends a big signal that they are not capable of responsibly handling the extra powers they have been given with their thin Senate majority.

I had the bizarre experience on Thursday of having to stand up in the Senate to give a speech on two pieces of Telstra legislation within a minute of them having been made public. Needless to say, I didn't have time to assess them in much detail.

More absurdly, anyone from the public who wanted to make their views on the legislation known to the Senate Committee examining the Bills had less than 24 hours to do so.

The Committee held a one day hearing on the Friday, with 11 Senators – Labor, Liberal, Democrat and National – attending to ask questions. I listened to some of the proceedings from my Canberra office, but left it to Lyn Allison to carry the Democrat flag.

The regulatory regime surrounding Telstra is in many ways just as important as who owns it. This is a complex and contentious area which has proved to be highly problematic in the past. To railroad such matters through the Senate in the space of less than a week is just bad practice and a bad way to make law, even if you do think privatising Telstra is the way to go.

If you are interested in the issues involved, it is worth having a look at the transcript of the Senate hearing. It was a fairly spirited, although mainly good humoured affair, as can be seen from how things kicked off on the very first page.

The first witness was the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), who are charged with enforcing the Trade Practices and competition aspects of Telstra's activities. The ACCC is meant to be an independent regulator, but they seemed to be picking their words rather carefully and relying on others to be more forthright in their concerns. However, even their evidence provided enough to demonstrate that there are big gaps in what has been put forward being proposed.

As the transcript shows, Labor Senators got 12 minutes of questioning, Government Senators got 12 minutes and the Democrat got 6. Absurdly, Senator Joyce, upon whom the whole legislative package seems to rest, was not able to ask a question of the ACCC at all (see page 13 of transcript).

Still, every attempt by the Senate so far to enable a more normal time frame to consider the legislation has been defeated by Senator Joyce, along with all his Coalition colleagues, so I’m not sure he can complain much. Given that there is clearly no reason at all for urgency – other than the Government's burning desire to get the issue off the political agenda – I really do not understand why he hasn’t insisted on a reasonable time frame, especially given that according to news reports, he is again wavering in his decision as to whether or not to support the sale.

The Government still wishes to pass these Bills through the Senate this coming week. To do so, they will have to pass a 'guillotine' motion, which cuts off debate and forces a final vote by a specific time. Such a motion will not pass without Barnaby Joyce's support. Frankly, I think people who support selling Telstra have an even greater obligation than those who don't to make sure that all the surrounding laws dealing with regulating competition, service, pricing, and investment in infrastructure are done right. It is not possible to do that in the time frame the Government is trying to force on the Senate.

Despite all the ums and ahs, I'm fairly sure we will see a guillotine motion passed in the Senate sometime on Wednesday and the matter forced to a vote that day or early Thursday, when the legislation will pass by a margin of one person.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Saturday, September 10, 2005 Permalink
|
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
 
We the People
Every now and then you see comments which say a lot more about what the views of the speaker are than the specific situation they are talking about.

A few weeks ago, new Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson said it was
"gutless" for a politician to cross the floor. He was having a go at Barnaby Joyce amid speculation that the new National Party Senator might vote against the Government. As someone who has crossed the floor on a major issue, I can assure Senator Ronaldson that sticking with the majority is a much easier and more comfortable thing to do, even leaving aside what you can cop afterwards. But for me, the bigger message in Senator Ronaldson's comment is what it says about the decay in the balances that are meant to be in place in our Parliamentary system. As Harry Evans shows in this article, such an attitude inevitably leads to the concentration of power in one place, which is "a sure route to corruption and misrule".

If you want an idea of what sort of mindset this attitude is engendering amongst members of the Government, look no further the following quote from National Party Senate Leader, Ron Boswell, reacting to criticisms of the Government by Sol Trujillo, the North American who has recently taken over running Telstra. In response to criticism of the Government's telecommunications regulatory regime by Mr Trujillo, the weekend's Australian Financial Review quoted Senator Boswell saying "when you attack the government here, you attack the people of Australia."

That pretty much says it all. When members of the Government shift from thinking "we represent the people" to "we are the people", it's pretty serious.

In another example of where this mindset ends up, here's Malcolm Turnbull explaining why it's OK for the Government to spend your money to promote the Liberal Party's policies:
The government is elected to represent the people and the money the government spends is the people's money, obviously, but this is a policy that the government is seeking to put into place in its capacity as the government that represents the Australian people.
In other words, 'your money is our money and if something helps the government it must help you, so it's OK to spend your money to help the government.'

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, September 06, 2005 Permalink
|
 
My first blog meme
One of the features of blogging which I have regularly witnessed but not engaged in myself is the circulating of memes, which, at least in the blogosphere, is a sort of internet phenomenon where one person posts an answer to a question or series of questions, and then 'tags' other bloggers to do the same.

One of the reasons I haven’t done this is because (sob) nobody liked me enough to tag me. However, in a sign of my spiralling popularity in all the hippest places, I have been tagged by Kim, with a meme that I've traced back to here.

So, who would I like to play me in a movie based on my life?

One is tempted to go with Mr President:




















Then again, if I hadn't diverted into politics and stayed with radio, I probably would have ended up like John Cusack in High Fidelity, hanging round alternative record stores all day and reordering my record collection every other month.





Although he's probably still a bit too dashing to be credible playing me. Perhaps I could get away with this guy……?





Bill Murray ….. maybe…. but come on, who would really end up playing me in a movie of my life?





Which reminds me of one of my "great moments in public speaking" stories. Around the mid 90s, before I was in the Senate but when I was Qld President of the Democrats, I gave a speech at a forum at Brisbane City Hall. I can't remember what the topic was, but afterwards I saw a person who I knew from when I had studied social work some years earlier. She was working with some kids with mild intellectual disabilities, who were there for the forum. She introduced me to one of the kids, who said hello and then looked at me, and with a straight face said "I really liked your Elliot Goblet impersonation". A great confidence builder.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, September 06, 2005 Permalink
|
Monday, September 05, 2005
 
Howard vs Costello
When the Senate is sitting, each office is provided each morning with a big wad of newspaper clippings. This is twice the size on a Monday, because it includes the weekend papers. Looking through them today, I was struck by the huge number that dwelt on the perceived tussle between John Howard and Peter Costello, with Costello's response to Malcolm Turnbull's tax ideas used as a prism to assess the contest through.

This endless talk about whether John Howard will go or Peter Costello will challenge is starting to really irritate me. Firstly, because there are some immensely serious issues that are not getting anywhere near enough scrutiny as they should be (e.g. welfare changes, tax proposals, workplace relations, security laws, climate change and water usage and infrastructure just to pick a few), whilst so much time is being spent on something that is basically just theatre.

Secondly, because I can't see why people would even find it genuinely interesting as theatre. Unless John Howard's standing in the community changes dramatically, there is simply no way that Peter Costello will challenge him the way Paul Keating challenged Bob Hawke. Costello does not have the party room support that Keating did, and even if he did, Hawke was clearly in political difficulty (albeit some of that was generated by Keating), and Howard clearly is not. If Costello really tries to challenge in current circumstances, he will fail dismally.

Regardless of what you think of John Howard, objectively I can't see any reason why, as things stand, he should retire any earlier than he wants to. I think my public record would make it clear what my views are, but for anyone who isn't aware, I dislike many of John Howard's policies, his divisive modus operandi, his lack of respect for the truth and his calculated undermining of some of the pillars of our democratic system. However, that does not negate the fact that when someone is doing a job as well as John Howard is being seen to do it by those who support him, the fact that someone else wants a go is not sufficient reason for him to step down.

Frankly, I can't see any evidence that suggests that Costello will do a better job than Howard – or a worse job. If you think Howard's policies, ideas and methods are good, I can't see anything much that Costello has said or done suggesting he will do it better. And if, like me, you think there are many bad policies and destructive actions John Howard has taken, I frankly can't see any clear evidence Costello wouldn't be just as bad.

Costello has been Deputy to Howard for the entire period of the Coalition Government and I don't know of any evidence that suggests he was anything other than strongly supportive of the policies and strategies employed by John Howard in areas such as refugees, the Iraq war, industrial relations, tax or welfare. It's true that Peter Costello is a minimalist republican, and reputedly he is a bit less antagonistic towards reconciliation. Even if you think, as I do, that these are both improvements, I don't think they are reason enough to replace someone who is clearly successful and performing well with somebody untried, just for the sake of it. While Shane Warne is still taking wickets or Ricky Ponting is still scoring centuries, you wouldn’t replace them just on the off chance that the crowds might find it more exciting if someone new was in the team.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, September 05, 2005 Permalink
|
Sunday, September 04, 2005
 
Senate resumes - Telstra sale looming
I’ve managed to have a rare weekend at home with absolutely no work related commitments (although I have to dip into the email from time to time.) Tonight I fly back to Canberra for a fortnight of Senate sittings. This ‘two weeks on-two weeks off’ sitting pattern continues through until December.

There’s any number of major policy issues on the agenda, from the Telstra legislation, to welfare changes, workplace changes, tax proposals, national security and student services on Uni campuses, all of which will have big impacts on millions of Australians.

Amazingly, Helen Coonan seemed to suggest on TV this morning that the Telstra sale Bill might come up for a vote this fortnight, even though it has yet to be made public, and the details of the funding packages and regulatory changes are nowhere to be seen!! No matter how much you agree or disagree with what Qld Nationals Senator, Barnaby Joyce, has done in agreeing to support the Telstra sale, I can’t believe he’d be so silly as to let them push through the sale Bill first and let them produce the details later, let alone let them do it without some form of genuine Senate Committee examination.

The value of Senate Committees isn’t that it can give politicians a chance to posture and run their arguments, it’s that it provides a chance for people with expertise to put their views before the Senate AND have those views and evidence tested by Senators from all sides. There have been a number of Senate Committee reports in recent times which have shown that, regardless of whether you support public or private ownership, the existing regulatory regime is highly inadequate. The Committee I now Chair tabled one just last month. Among other things, this report highlighted that even the Government Regulator – the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) – felt their current powers and budget were clearly inadequate to get fair competition (e.g. see paragraphs from 3.49 onwards).

If Barnaby wants to get a reasonable assurance that all the things the Government is promising will work to ensure decent service and a fair price in the bush, he’s far better off ensuring the detail is put in the public arena and independently tested, before he votes to let the rest of Telstra be sold. Once the vote has happened, he’s lost all leverage. I can almost guarantee he’ll get screwed over down the track by the Government reneging anyway, but he may as well make it as hard as possible for them.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, September 04, 2005 Permalink
|
Friday, September 02, 2005
 
New Orleans
The New Orleans situation seems literally unbelievable. When I first saw pictures on the television a couple of days ago, the scale and nature of the devastation reminded me of the footage of the tsunami, except in this case the water isn’t going away any time soon.

But the media reports now, such as police officers from the Superdome saying that "people were raped in there. People were killed in there. We had multiple riots." One usually thinks of people and communities pulling together in a time of crisis, which makes such reports all the more shocking.

Whilst the conditions would be unimaginably appalling, it seems astonishing that such behaviour has broken out so quickly. The conditions of people living in some refugee camps around the world for months and years would be as bad if not worse – maybe the same sort of widespread lawlessness and violence happens in those camps too and we just don’t hear about it?

This blog is really worth a look. It is giving regular, unvarnished reports from ‘Outpost Crystal’ - someone directly on the ground in New Orleans. I guess as with any reports, one can’t guarantee that it is genuine, but it is certainly reinforces some of the terrible impressions gained from the mainstream media reports.

Some excerpts give the flavour and gravity of the situation:

The Superdome looks like the Jenin refugee camp. God help this city. Whether or not it ought to be rebuilt is secondary to the real issue: can it be rebuilt? Looking around, I wouldn't know where or how to start.

It is a zoo out there though, make no mistake. It's the wild kingdom. It's Lord of the Flies. That doesn't mean there's murder on every street corner. But what it does mean is that the rule of law has collapsed, that there is no order, and that property rights cannot and are not being enforced. Anyone who is on the streets is in immediate danger of being robbed and killed. It's that bad.

Outpost Crystal is still a viable and functioning camp of civilization in the face of the lawless barbarian hordes who threaten at all times to turn what's left of New Orleans into the war of all against all. It's like Mogadishu out there.

Dead bodies everywhere: convention center, down camp street, all over.

Cannot confirm any of the following:
Superdome fire, 2 shot police officers this morning. We hear all kinds of stuff, but no way to verify those.
Can confirm: The National Guard, FEMA, the NOPD, and City authorities DO NOT have the city under control. There are live radio feeds for the National Guard comms and NOPD comms which have been circulating the web, and you can listen to the chaos and disarray for yourselves. I doubt the government's ability to reestablish order without a full active duty military presence to crush the mob mentality. This of course will mean no civil rights and everyone being treated equally -- as a criminal. Rock / Hard Place.

Over at William Burrough's Baboon, there are a number of posts with telling comments, photos and grabs from various sources, including this one and this one.

Going back to the mainstream media, there's this from the Independent in the UK:

Local officials already overwhelmed by the scale of the catastrophe said they were particularly bewildered by the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to stem the gush of water pouring into New Orleans through broken levees protecting the city. The Army Corps, like every other authority charged with preventing the flooding of New Orleans, has had its budget cut repeatedly in recent years. The Federal Emergency Management Administration has had its resources diverted towards the Bush administration's "war on terror", and many of the National Guardsmen who might have been in place to intervene sooner have been diverted to Iraq.

This statement by the Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, provides one instance where a politician could not be accused of being unclear or mealy mouthed.

“Three hundred of the Arkansas National Guard have landed in the city of New Orleans," Ms Blanco said. "These troops are fresh back from Iraq, well trained, experienced, battle tested and under my orders to restore order in the streets. They have M-16s and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will."

Extraordinary.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, September 02, 2005 Permalink
|