It’s a scary business, this democracy, isn’t it? Almost two weeks out from polling day, and still we have no idea who’ll be in charge of the country for the next three years. In less democratically settled parts of the world (perhaps I mean less apathetic?), there’d be violence and looting in the streets by now. As for Australia, well, there’s more important things to focus on, like the footy finals coming up, and who is going to host X-Factor now.

Of course, the stream of invective from all sides continues unabated on the #ausvotes twitter stream, with most of the arguments having been worn down to nothing more than repetitious name calling and indoctrination. In fact, the only real suggestions that are new are the constant demands for a new poll.

Personally, I don’t think it should happen that easy. Regardless of the record numbers of informal voters, this is the parliament we’ve ended up with. And if it’s hung, well, who’s fault is that? All of ours, really. And like I said, sometimes you get the government you deserve. As much as I hate to quote politicians, because I think they get enough space in the media already, I think that Julia Gillard’s got the right idea here again: it’s a time for parliamentary reform. Perhaps not in a huge re-writing the constitution kind of way, but if a government is going to survive the next 3 years, then it must respect the will of the people – and the will of the people was a hung parliament – in other words, make it work like this. If you ask me, that necessitates more consultation with the people, and less backbiting at parliamentary consultation time. It also means actually listening to the voices of minorities – like independents and greens. It will be a very different government – if one is ever formed.

As for the independents themselves? Well, they’re a strange bunch. I respect Wilkie for having absolutely nothing to do with the other independents. He’s got his platform, and, well, I guess he’s campaigning on it as much as he can, despite the elections actually being over. Interestingly, according to first preferences, he got less than both the Lib and Lab candidates, and only a little bit more than the greens, but he managed to sneak over the line on the 2PP basis. Another example of the greens preference deals hurting the labor party. Bob Katter – the ‘force from the north’ is closer to the one nation party than I’m comfortable with, added to the fact that he’s a climate change denier as well. Windsor and Oakeshott seem reasonable people, trying to do the best by their electorate and the people of Australia as a whole.

Perhaps the most perceptive comment I heard was by someone on Twitter who suggested that a hung parliament sorts out the people who believe in democracy from those who don’t…

Okay, perhaps a little melodramatic there, but after I’d got up at 2 am on Saturday to set up polling booths and then spent the whole day handing out how to vote cards before scrutineering, I can probably get away with being a little deflates about the whole election thing.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the whole business – it was interesting to see how it all worked – t he blood and guts of Australian democracy so to speak, but it was also a little disheartening in the end.

Let me explain: the local labor member is in danger of losing his seat to the libs candidate. Fair enough? Well, maybe, but I’ve got a few problems with that. Firstly, the libs candidate ran a campaign where she said nothing. Not to the people or the press. Except for one late interview on 2GB, she was effectively gagged and hidden away from sight. No community forums. No online presence. No town hall meetings. In fact, the only way we knew she existed at all was because every now and then we’d get glossy brochures through the mail, promising real action. That’s it. I bet every other bloody lib candidate had the same glossy brochures, with just the electorates name changed.

But it got worse – when it came to election day, lo and behold, hundreds of liberals descend upon Bradbury from Manly! They didn’t know the local area (kind of funny watching them try to give directions), they didn’t know Fiona Scott, and they were getting paid by the liberal party for the day, according to some.

And they might still win the seat of Lindsay. Doesn’t seem right, really, does it?

Anyway, with a bit of perspective, you can see where it all went wrong for labor; a lot of people might argue that it started when Keven Rudd was unceremoniously shown the door. That’s not the way that I see it: I think that it happened before that, when Rudd backed down over the ETS and the Mining Tax. I’m not sure what else he could have done – the hate campaign being run by News Ltd and Fairfax pretty much ensured that public opinion was turning against him anyway, but I can’t get past the feeling that he lost his nerve a little bit. The moment that the ETS – and climate change – was off the agenda, you could almost see the left wing of the labor party start to decamp to the greens. The Mining Tax only accelerated this departure.

And that’s the crucial thing that so many of our political commentators missed at the first analysis; while this election certainly wasn’t a win for Labor, it wasn’t much of a win for the LNPs either. Instead, it was a major win for the greens – with power in the Senate and now their first lower house representative, too. It seems like Australia got the parliament it deserved!

So where to now for the Labor Party?

So, its election day. Thankfully, the migraine from yesterday has disappeared and I’m left feeling clear-headed and calm, which is a good thing because at 2:00am, all the ALP faithful met up to go and set up polling stations. In what must be organization of a quite impressive nature, I imagine ALP members from all over Australia huddling around pre-dawn cups of coffee, clad in ‘beanies and bomber jackets before heading off to pit up posters and bunting and placards in front of every polling station in the land.

Certainly, there’s been a lot of criticism of both parties during this campaign. People have accused each leader of only focusing on marginal seats, which, to an extent, is a fair criticism. There’s been allegations of pork-barreling and gamesmanship and all the usual tricks that are part of an election campaign. However, apparently this campaign has been, according to the media, one pf the dullest in
living memory, too.

I don’t see it like that. Maybe because I’m more involved in this campaign than I ever have been before, but I think it’s been a vital and interesting time. In fact, this election promises to shape Australia’s future in ways that I don’t think we expect. Let me start off with an analogy: they say that writers should be judged b their second novel, which suggests that anyone can get lucky once, but you have to have taken to get it right twice.

So, Australia has tried out the Labor government once – is it going to try them out a second time? If they did, I guess it would be like Australia agreeing that we are committed to a progressive approach to government, despite the muddied waters of the current confusing labor campaign. The labor party has always stood for change and justice and freedom from oppression, the rights of everybody as opposed to only those who can pay.

When Rudd was elected in 2007, it was with that kind of mandate – and his government delivered on many of these things – climate change, refugees, indigenous relations, school and health reform. Of course, when embarking upon such a massive program of change, mistakes were made. There was waste, although not excessive, I don’t think. Even unexpected events, like the GFC, was dealt with appropriately – and so says the vast majority of economists who don’t have a vested interest in big companies.

Thing is, change scares people. Especially when its rapid. And the libs were clever enough to realize that, and they’ve built what might be a very successful campaign around that fact – and ensuring Tony Abbott keeps his mouth shut. It’s been effective, but my question is this: what now?

If the lbs come to power, Australia will effectively have turned it’s back on progressiveness. Said it’s too hard. Basically agreed to tolerate the injustices visited upon marginalized groups because we are kore comfortable thinking about our hip pocket than anyone else.

The depressing thing is, despite the libs trumpeting of their economic potential, in real terms Australians have been getting poorer for decades thanks to neoliberal economic policies.

I know who I’ll be voting for.

Something’s been on my mind a lot lately; perhaps it was brought about by the mining tax issues, or some of the disagreements that I’ve had with some people that I’ve been involved with regarding my business dealings, but they’re both the same kind of issue: the importance of free speech.

Let’s look at the mining tax; few people would argue that citizens of a nation have a right to the profits derived from the resources of that nation – it certainly seems to make sense that the nation – and the people in it – should profit from the mineral wealth of that nation. Fair minded people would probably agree that companies who go to the trouble of raising the capital to extract such mineral wealth are entitled to turn a profit from their endeavours.

But that’s not what this debate is about – the actual matter rests on the fact that mining companies are making super profits – ridiculous sums of money, akin to the stratospheric payouts given to departing CEOs. However, you won’t hear mining companies mention the fact that they’re making super profits in their ad campaign – and that’s the part that really annoys me. According to the mining companies, they’re facing the possibilities of going broke if this new tax goes through. According to the mining companies, people are going to lose their jobs, investment will suffer and so on and so on. It’s hard to believe that that could be the case if the tax doesn’t even kick in until these companies start making ‘super’ profits.

Now we come to the heart of the matter; the mining companies deliberately ran a campaign – and personally, I think they perverted the truth – to influence public decision. Fair enough, you argue. That’s free speech, and in a democracy, free speech is one of our ideals. Nothing can get in the way of free speech. I agree, at least on those principles – but here’s a thought for you – free speech is predicated on the fact that everybody has the same right to that speech (and the same access?) However, the mining companies had vast amounts of money to ensure that their speech was heard, in the form of advertisements across all the major networks, while other points of view were drowned out due to lack of access to ready funds. That doesn’t seem vaguely fair, does it?

I reckon a similar situation happens on a daily basis. Let’s have a look at this example. A person makes some unflattering (but true!) remarks about his or her employer. Suddenly, that person is faced with the sack or disciplinary action. They protest, arguing that they haven’t said anything that was untrue but the business responds by arguing that they’ll take it to court to challenge that. Of course, this poor, foolish (but honest!) person cannot afford a lengthy court battle, so has to retract their statement. I know I’ve simplified it, but once again it seems less like democracy and more like totalitarianism…

A friend of mine was interviewed by the Sun Herald newspaper the other day. The journalist was Jessica Wright, and there was a photographer there, as well. The reason that he and his family were interviewed was because of the Lindsay electorate. David Bradbury, the local member, is from the ALP and holds Lindsay by about 6%. However, it’s seen very much as vital seat to win in this federal election, linked as it is to the idea of Western Sydney as a heartland of racism and the refugee issue – both of which I have some serious concerns regarding.

Anyway, it was interesting to see the process the interview went through. My friend, Jonathon, was actually reasonably positive about a lot of the Rudd government’s work. He was also positive about David Bradbury’s work in the local community. However, the reporter seemed only to want to focus on areas of negativity. So a statement like, ‘I’m supportive of the trade schools but worried about the waste of money involved in BER’ became ‘I’m worried about the waste of money involved in the BER’.

To me, at least, it seemed like there was a lot that was taken out of context in the interview, which basically skewed the whole point of view. Free and impartial press? Not in this lifetime.

Here’s the whole article:

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with Wayne Swan, the Treasure and Deputy PM while he attended the local Federal Member’s (David Bradbury – Lindsay) opening of his new office. Mr Swan spoke at length about his views on politics to the assembled group and the importance of communities. He and David then highlighted the way that Labor had worked to support communities, and in particular, save local jobs for people. He specifically spoke about Labor’s success in dealing with the global financial crisis, which, I believe, is something that Labor should be rightly proud of. I was glad that I was with  David Currie, who understands financial trends and factors far better than I do – we talked later about the fact that part of the reason that Australia was able to navigate the GFC so well was because of the surplus that the Howard government left in place. Of course, another part of the reason was because Australian banks are so much more heavily regulated than their US or European counterparts, which in itself is, I believe, a legacy of the Hawke government, so I don’t think that Swan can claim all the credit for the successful navigation of the GFC. However, I think it is partly fair to say that the government used the resources that it had at its disposable to ensure that Australia managed to survive the GFC, with low unemployment.

Anyway, I also had the chance to speak privately with Mr Swan for a little while. I talked to him about the Trade Training Centre, and he pointed out that these ideas are originally from Queensland, and we agreed that there is a lot of important educational thought coming from Queensland at the moment, in particular the productive pedagogies stuff, as well. Anyway, I was fairly impressed at his depth of knowledge regarding education, considering I thought his main focus was economic policy.

Anyway, I got some photos on my phone. See below! And, yes, Wayne Swan is pretty short, so I look like the BFG next to him and David!

I’ve been watching with great interest the recent debate about the correctness of the Resources Super Profits Tax here in Australia. Although I’m by no means knowledgeable about taxation or taxation law, I do think that there are certain conclusions that can be drawn from the course of the debate that illustrate the ideology behind many of the corporate decisions that take place in Australia.
Firstly, though, a little background. Recently, the Federal Government of Australia (at that time, a slightly left of centre labor party) received the findings of the Henry Review. This review looked at Australia’s archaic tax system and made a number of recommendations about improving the system, in the interests of making it more equitable. Some of these recommendations specifically related to replacing the old system of royalty-based mining tax (where all mining companies had to pay a certain fee for using the land and taking minerals from it) with a system that charges a tax once the profits of a mining company exceeds a certain point. It is, to be fair, a tax that is placed upon all the other kinds of taxes, like company tax and so on.

Economists and academics around Australia agreed that this was a way forward for Australia; it made the system fairer and, by not taxing companies until they were making  a profit it would actually encourage investment, rather than hindering it. Here’s a link to an article about that: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Economists-back-RSPT-pd20100526-5SU45?OpenDocument&src=tnb

So far, so good, right? Well, that’s where it all seemed to go wrong. As soon as the tax was announced, the owners of the mining companies immediately used every resource (hah, hah) at their disposal to convince the public that this tax was an outrage, and it would damage the ‘little people’. Basically, you, your job, your house and everything about you was at risk because of this tax. What was particularly interesting was they way that some of the richest people in Australia, like ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, managed to make it look like he and the mining companies were on the side of the average ‘joe’ working hard for a dollar.

Seriously, the whole thing is ridiculous; what isn’t made clear is that this isn’t a new tax at all, but a reform of old ones. In all likelihood, it will make mining in Australia stronger, rather than weaker, and that will provide employment for more Australians. However, what it will do is charge those people who are taking vast sums of money in profits from mining companies more of their earnings. Naturally, this doesn’t make these shareholders happy and thus the stream of invective directed at the Federal Government.

So what is my particular interest in this? Well, I see it as another very clear example of the lack of critical consciousness present amongst the general populace, as well as an example of the ideology of the dominant capitalist hegemony in Australia. Let’s examine the ideology part of this first; one of the principles of ideology requires it to be presented as ‘common sense’. This has been done by the mining companies through their overwhelming use of the media and the tagline ‘If mining’s strong, Australia’s strong.’ However, at no point do they actually explain this tax; instead, they repeat things about people losing jobs and how it will affect all of us. And, here’s the clincher: because they have the power to influence the media, and purchase advertising space, this becomes the message that people hear more often, and therefore come to believe. It’s a short step, then, to adopt it as common sense.

However, if people had learnt to challenge this ideology, and resist the power of the mainstream media; that is, if people were becoming critically conscious, then I believe (and I hope) that this would be a different story; ideally, we might be able to see the vested interests and conflicts that lie behind both the mining companies arguments and the way the media has presented the opposing views to us. Until that point, are we to remain slaves to the capitalist hegemony?

It’s an interesting topic, isn’t it? Personally, I think it’s a lot more than interesting, and I’ve certainly been thinking about it a lot recently. I’ve been speaking to a lot of people about this issue recently, in the light of Mr Rudd’s sudden departure. According to a lot of these people, the issue of boat people was a major one in this decision. Rudd was seen as doing the wrong thing regarding Boat People for a number of different reasons; firstly, he wasn’t ‘tough’ enough on ‘queue-jumpers’ and secondly, he’d stopped listening to the electorate – and members of the government on this and other issues.

I think that, at times like this, it is easy to allow emotion to carry the argument; this should be avoided at all costs. I accept that emotion will play some part in the argument, and that is fine, but an argument that solely relies on emotion is deficient; it is more akin to an appeal than an argument. Of course, in my opinion, this is the direction that Tony Abbott seems to be heading – by convincing Australia that every single person on that boat is a terrorist threat waiting to kill your children, or that they are going to take away your job, your house and your Holden. It’s a bit of a truism in politics that, to win elections, fear is a bigger vote-getter than rationality. I’m reminded of the section in ‘The American President’ where the actor playing the president – Michael Douglas, I think – explains that you win elections by making people scared.

So let’s try to introduce a little bit of rationality to the argument:

Point 1: More people are in Australia, illegally, from overstaying their visa  than have arrived via boat. The numbers themselves are limited. The last figures I heard put it at less than 5000 people since 2007. As a percentage of the Australian population, that’s less than a quarter of 1 percent. Hardly unstemmed hordes of boat people flooding the country.

Point 2: Australia is not getting the vast majority of refugees in the world. Countries like Germany take in 80 000 refugees every year.

Point 3: Asylum seekers do not automatically get into Australia – they are subject to stringent security processing (which causes the delays in detention centres) and those that fail testing are returned.

Point 4: It is not a matter of simply ‘turning the boats around’ or, as I’ve heard some conservatives argue, ‘sinking the boats.’ This argument smacks of selfishness; I don’t believe that we have the right to turn away genuine refugees simply because we fear that our way of life might be in danger. In my opinion, it’s danger to human life trumps creature comforts every time.

Point 5: We did sign the UN Declaration about Refugees. Most of the countries that these people might pass through on the way to Australia did not – for example, Indonesia. Therefore, we are obligated to help them. Others are not. The fact that the UN is a toothless tiger and cannot enforce any sanctions due to a failure to uphold the declaration does not matter.

Point 6: Refugees have previously made a significant impact in Australia. And I mean a positive impact. For example, the Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s (again, like those coming from Afghanistan, fleeing a war that Australia was involved in…) are now important members of the Australian community – they haven’t been assimilated (and how I hate that word, and its similarity to ethnic cleansing); instead, they have broadened the scope of Australian society simply by being part of it. For as long as I’ve been at school, we’ve had students that had names like Trinh or Nguyen, who might have eaten sandwiches or noodles, or might have liked cricket or not, who might have spoken Vietnamese or not. The point is that they are genuinely Australian – by any sensible measure – so why do we imagine other refugees might not be able to do the same?

Remember, ‘we’ve boundless plains to share….’

It’s funny; when I was too young to know much about it, I went with a friend to a few Young Liberal meetings. I enjoyed the ideas behind it – the theatre of voting and seconding motions – more than I had any real passion for the politics; to be honest, I wouldn’t have been able to explain to you any of the facets of the ideological basis for Liberals. Or for Labor, for that matter.

Anyway, after my time in England, where I was more heavily involved in the Trade Union Movement, coupled with revulsion for the Howard government’s approach to indigenous Australians and refugees, I joined the Labor Party on my return. I thought it was about time I got serious about what I believed in, and if I believed in community involvement, then, doggone it, I needed to be involved in the community.

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the process so far; it’s certainly been eventful. I’ve met the local federal Member for Lindsay (David Bradbury) and saw the whole Karyn Paluzzano affair as well, which was very sad, especially as I had respect for both Karyn and her husband, Robert.

Enough back story. On to the central question. Anyway, I was having dinner with Mrs Heggart and a very good friend of hers (who is now a very good friend of mine). Somehow, we got talking about politics which is always a minefield, even at the best of times. We were talking about the upcoming federal election, and I suggested that it was an election that would be won or lost on economic principles. I suggested that I wouldn’t vote for Tony Abbott, simply because

Our friend – let’s call her Miss Y, for the sake of this blog – announced that she completely disagreed with this. She argued that Australia is always better off under a Liberal government than a labour government, and suggested that she’d be voting for Abbott in the next election. I said, ‘Whoah, hold up. Better off for who?’ She said, ‘Better of for me.’

And that’s the crux of the matter: I can’t argue with Miss Y’s assertion. She would be better off under Abbott. She’s a wealthy white woman, highly educated, with a job at an international corporation that pays her very well to sell things and manage products. It’s a good job, and she’s very good at it.

But this is where it gets interesting; I’m not a labor voter because I think that I will be better off under a labor government. I don’t lean towards the left because it will earn me more money. I situate myself there simply because I think that this kind of government (and I have grave reservations over some of the current administration’s policies) is the best for all people – not just me.

However, are people on the right only thinking of themselves? I know this is topic that might raise a few hackles, but I think it’s interesting. Liberal Conservative governments generally stand for the reduction of big government, cutting of taxes, especially those of big business to increase the economy. It stands for conservative values as well.

Taking this into account, let’s look at a topical issue through this lens: boat people. As a left-leaning member of Australia, I argue that we should encourage more boat people to enter into Australia, from the simple reason that, morally, it’s the right thing to do. Of course we need security checks and so on, but generally, the vast majority of these people are genuine refugees and we, as signatories to the UN declaration on refugees, should do everything possible to accept and assimilate these people. It’s not like we haven’t done so before in Australia. From this point of view, I’m arguing what is essentially a selfless argument – I don’t benefit from this in any way. It’s even possible that I am worse off, because the money spent on supporting these refugees is money that doesn’t go to be spent on Australians.

On the other hand, through a conservative approach, we should ban boat people, because we have to spend money on them, and that money comes from taxes, and if we cut taxes we could have higher investment, which means everybody in Australia would be better off – or at least the people that own the companies that we buy from would be.

I know I’ve simplified the issue, but essentially, I think the question does come down to this: Are liberal conservatives just selfish? If they act in a way that suits their best interests – at the cost of others’ welfare (like the RSPT), then the answer must be yes.