respect

I went for a run on Sunday afternoon. I covered 5.38km in 30 minutes, which is a little slower than I'd like to be going, but I hope a good start to running more often.

On the same day, the Australian leader of the opposition, who more than 20 years my senior, completed an iron man triathlon. That's a 3.8km swim, followed by a 180km bike ride, followed by a 42.2km run. In my life, the most I've ever managed of each, on separate days, is I reckon a 2km swim, a 110km bike ride, and a 10km run. Doing them on the same day is just crazy.

I disagree pretty vehemently with most of Tony Abbott's politics (and have been known to describe him as "dangerous"), and there's no way in hell I'd ever vote for him (and I don't get to), but I respect and admire him for getting out and doing the Iron Man. It was very disappointing to see at least one Labor politician (Roxon) using it to score political points..

thoughts on ETS

Since I'm not getting any work done, perhaps I'll jot down some thoughts on the current turmoil in Australian politics.

The Liberals (foreign readers should note that this is a liberal party in name only - they are the conservative side of Australian politics) changed leaders today, from Malcolm Turnbull to Tony Abbott. This all happened because the conservative side of the party couldn't stomach the negotiation on the Emissions Trading System, and behind Abbott and Nick Minchin, they organised a leadership spill. Abbott ran against Turnbull and Joe Hockey (who had been seen as the compromise candidate, each running different lines on the ETS senate vote - Abbott saying vote against, Turnbull saying vote for, Hockey saying vote conscience. After Hockey was knocked out in the first round, Abbott beat Turnbull by a single vote. Its made more controversial by one of the votes being informal, one of the Turnbull supporters being unable to attend due to illness (and unable to lodge a proxy since the Libs don't support such things), and the prospect that after this weekend's bi-elections, there will be two new Libs in the party room, both of whom project as Turnbull backers.

Anyway, Malcolm has gone to the backbench, and the Libs are once again led by a conservative (in fact, more socially conservative than any leader they've had in a long time). Its sad, because Turnbull offered much promise, based on his past and to a certain extent his stated intentions during his short-lived tenure as leader, of a transition for the party towards somewhat more progressive, small-"l" liberal politics. Feeling towards him was good amongst the Labor voters that the Libs hope to poach at the next election, but as was pointed out on Insiders this weekend, whether this would transition to votes remained to be seen, and he was understandably a bit on the nose for the conservative side of the party.

What does this mean for the unwitting cause of the drama, the ETS bill? Well, I think its stuffed. The Libs will, after a secret party-room ballot, try to send the bill to committee or, failing that, oppose it. They don't hold a majority, but nor does the government, so the likelihood is that (a) it won't go to committee (there have already been numerous senate committees on this topic, so I don't see how they could justify another), and (b) the ETS won't pass, barring at least a handful of Liberal senators crossing the floor. That's not as impossible as it sounds, but its a lot less likely now than it would have been 2 weeks ago - after all the division in their party, the last thing they want is more. The alternative negotiation position for the government, with the Greens, is even less viable. Winning the Greens over by strengthening the bill might be possible, but doing so definitely rules out getting Fielding (who is unlikely to support the bill anyway), and probably any rebel Libs who would already have crossed the floor in the above scenario. So my feeling is that the bill will go down, and Rudd/Wong will go to Copenhagen without any legislation. Rudd in particularly will be disappointed not to have his trophy, but by way of compensation, the government will get a trigger for a double dissolution.

They may take it. It has political advantages in terms of giving them a shot at Abbott before he either builds himself a more credible public image (the prevailing wisdom is that he is presently unelectable, due to past indiscretions and a huge image problem with women in particular), or they see sense and replace him, although having shot down Turnbull and forsaken Hockey, its hard to see to whom they might turn. Having failed to get the ETS before Copenhagen, I don't think it matters much (politically) one way or another whether the government gets it after an election in February/March, or the scheduled one at the end of next year.

So my feeling is that the bill gets tabled, at least until March, and possibly until 2011.

5% is bollocks

The government yesterday announced their intention to cut emissions by 5% from 2000 levels. Not only is this at the lowest end of what had been predicted (between 5 and 25%), but it is against 2000 levels, and not against 1990 levels. I understand that it is comparable on a per-capita basis to the reductions discussed by the EU of 20% from 1990 levels, but this argument only holds water if you think that developed, higher per-capita emitters should not be aiming to reduce their emissions by more than others, which I don't think is valid. It is by any measure a very conservative commitment, and the industry reps are doing everything they can to keep from grinning in the press they are doing (while the environmental lobbyists are doing everything they can to keep from yelling or crying).

To make it worse, the scheme will be accompanied by a rash of middle-class ("working families") and corporate welfare, the former to the extent that they will be reimbursed more than 100% of the increase in costs due to emissions trading, making behavioural change towards lower energy consumption much less likely. With a budget already slipping into deficit, this was a prime opportunity to break from the contemporary populist politic at throwing cash at the mortgage belt, but it seems that Rudd lacks the courage or inclination to do so. 

The government also mentioned a cut of 15% in the event that a consensus is reached amongst the key countries in global talks (including Copenhagen). However, having failed to commit to a significant reduction ourselves, it will now be very difficult for Australia to play any significant diplomatic role in the negotiation of significant global targets.

This sort of scheme was one of the key reasons that I voted Labour at the last election (not that I ever could have voted for a Howard government candidate), and as such I am very, very disappointed. They have followed a process (they are known for following processes) to get what I've heard described as a very sound scheme, but have wilted under pressure when it comes to configuring it (certainly with a reduction target, and in my opinion in terms of compensation, as well).

Between this and the clean feed debacle (which I haven't blogged about, yet), as well as other areas (education, for instance) upon which they promised much but have delivered little, my optimism of a year ago has much faded. More and more when I look at politics I am finding that I like (Tanner, Gillard, occasionally Turnbull) or dislike (Conroy, Pyne, Bishop) individuals, but can find little to like about the parties and their policies. Its unlikely that this will change my broader voting tendencies - Howard's legacy is still too much in evidence, both in my memory and in parliament - but it is loosening them to the point where a genuinely good candidate on either side (I've never really had the chance to vote for such in the House) could change my vote in a specific contest.

To summarise, partly for Ali's benefit, 5% is bollocks.

And hast thou slain the jabberwock?

So much to say. I'm afraid this is a long post. I'll wind in slowly, with a poem most have probably already read before.

(Apologies to John Quiggin, who seems to have also used a quote from this. It's just so appropriate, though)

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

The beamish boy (was there a more happy match for that label?) has indeed slain the Jabberwock (again, JW just fits far too well). The vorpal sword was Workchoices, and the promise of investment in infrastructure without sacrificing fiscal responsibility. To be fair, the Jabberwock was not his former self, and I really suspect that he won't personally mind losing so much, as he had mainly done what he wanted to do.

Nonetheless, I could have quoted just the second-last verse, but I have included the whole thing. There are two perils contained within.

The first is that the beamish boy has gone galumphing back to his putative father, and now must deal with his familial legacy. Will he be the son to the unions, or will he strike out as a leader and leave his own imprint? Early signs suggest the latter, in particular his indication that he will select his own ministry rather than leaving it to the caucus. As the prodigal son who has led Labor out of 11 years in the wilderness, he will have some leeway.

The second is that the last verse is the same as the first. Our two major political parties are, in many ways, more closely aligned than they have ever been. Will foreign policy continue to gyre and gimble in the wabe? Will the degradation of civil rights remain mimsy, and the refugees outgrabe?

If the answer to all these questions is "yes", when will a beamish boy arise from the Liberals? At the moment, it seems like the answer will be "a long time". It appears that Costello will go quietly into the night, and one can hardly blame him. The Liberals hold government in no jurisdiction bigger than the Brisbane City Council. The dominance of Howard over the party, and Costello's retreat, leaves with them with a vacuum at the top, and no governments in which to stockpile talent. Howard's long-time political expediency, of blowing with the wind of popular politics, has left them lacking direction. They are a party in need of a moral compass, and its hard to see where they will find one. Certainly the answer will not come from an opportunistic social conservative; such a move would only lead them further down the rabbit hole. Although highly unlikely, it is not inconceivable that the coalition will fracture, or even that the Liberal party will fold, and the Australian political landscape will be reshaped.

The one element where Mr Dodgson's poem has no contribution is the senate. Labor's sweeping gains in the house were not reflected in the upper house. The coalition have a hostile majority there until the transition next June, and even then it seems likely that the government will need the votes of all the Greens, plus Nick Xenophon, and either Steve Fielding or a rogue coalition senator like Barnaby Joyce, to pass legislation. Its hard to see how that will happen, and a double dissolution, either late next year or in 2009, is not out of the question.

We live in interesting times.

strike one

I try every now and then to keep an eye on French news, partly to keep up my french comprehension, and partly because I'm just interested. Its pretty easy to do on the internet; my current preference is checking out France 3's 19|20 news online.

Of course, the big news in the last week or so is the strikes to do with the transport unions, in particular the trains (SNCF). The Parisian metro, TGVs, and regional TERs have all been dramatically effected, and the scenes of packed platforms in Paris are impressive.

The reason for this is that French government workers (SNCF was until recently government owned, and is still basically government backed) had very generous rights at work. (The same pretty much applies for EDF/GDF and a whole bunch of other sectors). France then went and elected Sarko, an economic reformer, as President. Blind Freddy could have seen that he was going to butt heads with the unions over things like retirement entitlements, and that's exactly what's happening now. The French got the government they deserved, and now, for better or for worse (IMHO a little of both) they are seeing the beginning consequences. I would be surprised if there isn't more of the same ahead, and from any number of sectors; the fonctionnaires (particularly teachers) are rumoured to be talking about strikes this week.

note to self: senate

I vote below the line in the senate. There are lots of reasons for this, the biggest being that parties often set down their preferences in order to get elected, rather than based on policy alignment. John is particularly culpable, doing unthinkable things with LDP preferences. Another reason is that I'm a sucker for numbers and things like voting systems.

So, mostly for my benefit, here is my first cut at a voting order for the senate:

1. Dems (grp I), John H (Grp B), Waters (Grp M), ALP (O), Greens (M)
2. LDP (B), CCC (C), Carers (D), WWW (A), Secular (W)
3. Coalition (J)
4. Unaligned independents
   
5. RR (K), NCP (U), SOL (E), Baker (X), Couper/Brown (N), FF (H)
6. Fishing (G), Fishing & Lifestyle (P), Shooters (L), Socialists (F), CDP (T), One Nation (Q), DLP (V), CEC (S), Pauline (R)

I guess the list items correspond roughly to:

1. people I'd quite like to see get elected
2. people I wouldn't really object to seeing elected in that they're mostly harmless
3. the incumbents who have abused the senate and thus don't deserve election
4. independents I know little about
5. people whose election I would consider somewhat dangerous
6. people whose election I would consider distinctly dangerous

Pauline gets to go last, not because she's the worst candidate (she isn't), but because she was a significant part of the shift of the Australian electorate a few years ago towards narrow-mindedness, xenophobia, parochialism and other such silly things. I'm not above being petty.

Update: I've been thinking about why senate preference deals matter, in light of the "just vote below the line" argument. If at some point in the STV count, my preferred candidate is elected, I get a bonus part vote. This is because that candidate's surplus votes are redistributed to other candidates, proportionally to the preferences of all those who voted for that candidate. Now, because 95% of votes are above the line, basically my bonus part vote is redistributed according to the party's preferences, not mine. So, if I vote for John, and he gets in (unlikely though that is), then my bonus part vote is going to go to Pauline Hanson and the DLP before Andrew Bartlett, which I couldn't stomach.

Labor vs Liberal

I suggested in a previous post that there wasn't a lot of difference between Labor and Liberal* policies in this election, and Keith and Lee both pointed out that there are nonetheless significant differences. They're right, and over the last week I've been thinking about why.

* I hate using that term for the Liberal party - non-Australians should realise that our Liberal party is not a liberal party, and a capital or small 'L' should be observed to distinguish between the party (big 'L') and the ideas (small 'l').

Accountability/process: I really struggle to explain this, but I've had real problems with the way the Liberals have governed. They played fast and loose with truth on some things like children overboard, which is something that can be said of many governments, but in hindsight its shocking that no-one really was held to account for that. Of more concrete concern are things like their guillotining of debate in the senate and their failure to listen to reasonable non-government amendments. I also have a real problem with spending a half million dollars a day during their time in office, and $350 million last fiscal year. Lee mentioned that ALP figures like Lindsay Tanner and Penny Wong are making good noises about avoiding that kind of spending if they take office. We also went to Iraq for all the wrong reasons, which weren't those given us when Howard decided to send troops. Howard's apparent reluctance towards multilateralism in foreign policy is disturbing, and the "free" trade agreement with the US was a real sellout, particularly on issues like copyright term extension.

Education: I just feel like Rudd and Stephen Smith (who speaks very well, incidentally) are saying more appealing things about education. In particular, they seem to have a more real commitment to universities, which makes me think they have a greater appreciation that education is not the same thing as training (although both are important). Their mid-career research fellowships announcement (in many ways an expansion of the existing federation fellowships scheme) appeals to me as someone who has come back to Australia to make a career in research and found it frustrating that the best jobs for me are still overseas.

Spending and pork: How can a party claiming (by name) to be liberal be so convincingly winning the drunken sailor spend-a-thon? John posted a rundown of their election spending the other day, which included an astonishing $12 billion on roads, a domain that is normally the remit of state governments. This is at the same time as university and research funding have essentially been frozen at 1996 levels (as I understand it).

Federalism: If John Howard wants to dissolve the states and federalise the things they historically take care of (health, schools, transport, etc), then he should come out and say it. Personally, I can't help but feel that he's just playing games out of frustration with the present weakness of the Liberals in state politics (nowhere moreso than Queensland, perhaps). I support the idea of the GST, but I don't like the idea of using it to control state issues to the extent that Howard seems to be doing.

Civil liberties: The sneak and peek powers (including non-judicial warrants), sedition laws, and other anti-terrorism laws seem to me (not versed in legal stuff) as gross infringements on basic civil liberties established going back hundreds of years. Whether they're applied to Australian citizens (Izhar ul-Haque) or others (Mohamed Haneef), its just not on. Its an easy electoral sell to blurt "we need more powers to catch bad guys", but its cheap and unworthy. It remains to be seen whether Labor will be any better, or repeal any of these laws.

Environment: I would be quite happy if, as Keith suggests, Garrett is playing possum and will be much more aggressive if/when he becomes environment minister. I don't really understand Kyoto, but I've heard that we're on track to meet the targets anyway, in which case a symbolic non-signing is just being a dog in a manger. I also don't feel like the Libs actually believe in acting on climate change; it feels too much like they're just trying to keep up with public opinion, not leading it.

Industrial relations: I think the Liberals have a vendetta against unions, which at the end of the day are just employee advocacy groups, even if they have had problems at times with the manner in which they represent workers. Labor was the party that moved against centralised wage-fixing, and I can't see them being regressive in this, but I do believe they will move to limit employers (who have an intrinsic advantage in contract negotiation) convincing workers to trade away their rights to things like penalty rates and overtime.

I've probably missed some issues.

In the end, I have some problems with the Labor party, in particular in terms of the way they're set up in terms of unions' role in party voting. However, I feel like Howard and the Libs have been bad for Australia on a number of issues, and don't ascribe them as much economic credit as they have taken. Perhaps they can find some more small-'l' liberal roots if they lose an election, Howard retires, and they have some time in opposition to have a good hard look at themselves.

senate blogger

My first senate vote will probably wind up going to Andrew Bartlett. I'm philosophically close to the Dems' policies, even if they are a bit fuzzy on some things, but most importantly, I feel that Bartlett has shown real and admirable openness about his job at representing Queensland. The only parliamentarian (to my knowledge) with an active blog, he posts regularly about what he's doing, from consultation with interest groups to senate proceedings, and responds to feedback. His press is sparse, partly because he lacks the charisma to draw cameras (or at least to draw them for the right reasons), but in the media I have seen, and in the webcasts of senate proceedings I've watched (I know, I'm an unmitigated geek), he has struck me as constructive and well-spoken.

I would encourage other voters to give him consideration for the senate, and I would encourage other senators to consider the transparency he has shown during his term.

The likelihood of him actually being re-elected is small but non-negligible, partly due to the unfortunate state of his party.

candidates

Jesse has been bugging me to put up a rundown of the candidates for the HoR seat we're voting in, Brisbane. So, here we go, in the order they appear on the ballot:

• Ewan Saunders (Socialist Alliance): The Socialist Alliance are left-wing crazies. They don't have much info on their house candidates, and I don't much care to read what they do have, because a brief foray into their policies just made me giggle.
• Ted O'Brien (Liberal): The liberals' policies, seem centred around throwing lots of cash at the buzzword of the election so far, "working families". There's also a good whack of pork barrelling for roads and sporting facilities in marginal seats (or so it seems to me). Their very mild tax break/reform has been largely offset by all this, as far as I'm concerned. The candidate, Ted O'Brien, seems to be some sort of itinerant businessman, which I find less than inspiring. He had a spot on ABC local radio about first-time candidates, with a Labor candidate from some other Brisbane seat, but Ted pulled out, apparently because the merits of appearing in the media were outweighed by the cost of having the ALP guy appearing in the media. I wasn't impressed.
  
• Arch Bevis (Australia Labor Party): There really isn't an awful lot of difference between the ALP and the Libs on policy. Lots of cash being thrown at "working families" and a good slab at roads, offsetting a mild tax break/reform. IR is an exception, and it will be interesting to see how much they strip away from "Workchoices". The candidate and sitting member, Arch Bevis, is a teacher by training, although he spent only a few years teaching, and the time since split between being a union rep and a politician proper. I don't hold being a union representative to be a demerit, and I do like that he has an identifiable "trade" (in a loose sense of the word), unlike O'Brien.
  
• Nick Contarino (Citizens Electoral Council): The CEC are protectionist crazies, and will go last on my ballot, as they should on just about every ballot (although the socialists are also pretty wacky).
  
• Elizabeth Guthrie (The Greens): The Greens are growing into a more credible party with a broader base of policies, but I still have real concerns that they are more activists than constructive policy- and lawmakers. This is particularly true for Bob Brown. Their candidate for Brisbane is an interior decorator, and seems a reasonable enough candidate.
  
• Mark White (Family First): Family First are a conservative "values" party, who do a reasonable job of keeping their religious base out of things, but basically push christian conservative policies on social liberty. They're also a party with a very narrow policy base. The candidate is alright, as far as christian conservatives go, I guess.
  
• Don Sinnamon (Democrats): The Dems are a sad affair, a party quite close to my political sympathies, but devastated by personal disruptions. Its hard to identify what their key policies are, but they include rolling back parts of workchoices, and much well-motivated gesturing on climate change without really worked-through policy. The same might be said for indigenous and asylum-seeker/immigration issues. They do seem to be strong on civil rights and parliamentary process, which are two things whose degradation has really annoyed me in the current government. The candidate, Don Sinnamon, seems a good soul, and certainly a much better candidate than they put forward in Ryan last time around.

This is all very cursory. Last time around, my reason for doing a run-down of candidates was to point out that some parties I would consider voting for had candidates that were basically unelectable. This time around it seems better. Arch Bevis strikes me as a good candidate. O'Brien is OK, although I'd be more comfortable if I knew what he did - he seems a bit like a faceless MBA-type. Sinnamon is similar, but a faceless advocate-type. Guthrie seems OK, and the others I can't consider because of their parties (7,6,5 will respectively go to CEC, SA and FF on my ballot, probably).

election announced

The federal election was announced yesterday for the 24th of November. I followed the previous election reasonably closely, albeit from a great distance, and suspect I'll also be very interested throughout this one.

Some of my closest involvement has been through John and the party he has started, the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP). They were previously known as the Liberal Democratic Party, but the AEC (effectively, as I understand it) ruled that the Liberal party had a monopoly on the term 'liberal', which is both ironic and wrong.

John has cast around at a couple of social gatherings recently for warm bodies to run in House races for the LDP, including asking me. I was pretty tempted, and haven't totally ruled out signing up for a run in Ryan, but I think I'm probably more interested in discussing policy than in a Quixotic candidature. I'm also not sure to what extent running lots of "token" candidates(with all due respect to those I know who are running) is a good idea for the LDP; they're up for $500 registration per candidate, with little likelihood in most cases of gathering enough votes to be reimbursed.

I have strange discussions with John about politics. I agree with most of the philosophies and principles of the LDP, but have trouble with some of their policies, in terms of where they have chosen to apply their principles (e.g. shooters' rights, smokers' rights) and the practicality of doing so (particularly regarding privatisation and deregulation). It certainly makes for interesting discussions, though.

I'd encourage anyone who is remotely interested in politics to seek out others who are or might be, and to engage them in discussions about what you think is important for this election. If you have been unimpressed by something your government or your representative has said or done, one of the reasons that happens is because people don't engage enough in the political process.

Tongue Lashing

Either Alexander Downer has a very dry wit, or he is under grave misapprehensions about what one learns from a 2-month course in French conducted in Australia, and how French compares to Mandarin as a language.

This is the email I just sent him.

Monsieur Downer,

Vous êtes vraiment un gros nul.

Ce n'est vraiment pas normal qu'un ministre des affaires étrangères ne
reconnaisse pas que apprendre le francais et apprendre le mandarin ne
sont pas la même chose.

De plus, c'est évident que M. Rudd parle couramment mandarin.
Peut-être que vous êtes un prodige en langues étrangéres, mais
personellement, ayant appris le français (en france), je trouve
difficile à croire que vous parlez aussi bien français (que M. Rudd
parle mandarin) grâce à deux mois de cours en australie.

Finalement, je trouve honteux, dans une culture où l'étude des langues
et moins en moins valorisée, qu'un ministre des affaires étrangères
dénigre quelqu'un qui a clairement fait l'effort de bien apprendre la
langue de notre plus grande partenaire de commerce.

En essayant de rester quand méme poli, veuillez agréer, Monsieur, mes
sentiment les plus distingués.

For the benefit of those that don't understand that (a number which I personally suspect will include Mr Downer):

Mr Downer,

You really are a moron.

Its outrageous that a foreign minister not acknowledge that learning French and learning Mandarin are not the same thing.

Additionally, it is clear that Mr Rudd speaks Mandarin well. Perhaps you are a foreign language prodigy, but personally, having learnt French (in France), I find it difficult to believe that you speak french comparably well after two months of courses in Australia.

Finally, I find it shameful that, in a culture where the study of languages is less and less valued, a foreign minister belittles someone who has clearly made the effort to learn the language of our largest trading partner.

I noticed a bunch more letters in the Australian, including from the head of Asian studies at ANU. Rightly so.

outrageous

This is just outrageous. Making the police accountable to the judiciary and to the law itself is an important element of a free democracy. If as the article suggests the government is claiming, there is a problem with the judiciary leaking information about operations, then surely that is criminal activity and needs to be dealt with as such. The checks and balances in the system have to be respected and maintained. The solution is not, however, to remove those checks and balances. We covered all this 60 years ago, for goodness' sake.