A Response to “Does the Labor Party Deserve Our Vote”

• 

This article is a response to Noely Neate’s article in Independent Australia – Does the Labor Party Deserve our Vote?  This article challenges statements made within Ms. Neate’s article, which I strongly argue misrepresents Labor’s position on various policy areas. In addition, I will add further discussion to the arguments surrounding the AA Bill.  This article also discusses the political motivations of those who actively campaign against voting for the major parties. 

Seriously Unhappy with Labor

Central to Ms. Neate’s article is how she is very unhappy with the Australian Labor Party.  Listed are a range of policy areas that Ms. Neate either explicitly or implicitly states Labor either supports, or  that Labor does not stand up against bad Liberal Policy and Bad Liberal Programs. 

Review of Centrelink

There have been a number of issues I have been seriously unhappy about when it comes to the ALP. I don’t like how they waffle about “doing a review of Centrelink” when they know damn well people are living in poverty.

(Neate, 2018) 

Here it is implied that Labor does not give a stuff about people on Centrelink and are using delaying tactics to not commit to a rise in Newstart. 

The Importance of a Review

The reason why Labor is able to commit to a review – is that they are not in Government. When pressed on the review system, Bill Shorten has stated that “You don’t review something to cut it.” 

In his budget reply speech, Bill Shorten also said that “Jobseekers living in poverty is unacceptable.”

Labor is completing a full review, because the payment is not separate from the system.  There will be a vote at Labor conference for a Newstart increase, but I expect that will still be linked somehow or need to be revisited with a review of the entire Jobsearch framework; which is currently a punitive, draconian mess under the Liberal party. A review of the Jobsearch Framework, current mutual obligation participation requirements and associated punitive measures is necessary, as the punitive compliance procedures all affect payments. 

Contrary to the anger that is present in Ms. Neate’s article that a review is a bit of a a joke. It is a necessary requirement to get this policy area right. 

In addition, connected with a review of the payments system, will be Labor’s commitments to training, TAFE, Higher Education, Apprenticeships, commitments to the awards system and a commitment to enforcing a liveable minimum wage.  All which will have impacts on how the payment system is calculated. 

A Commitment to Raise Newstart

News reports today in the Courier Mail and on Sunrise state that Newstart Recipients will receive a significant increase under Labor, in reference to the vote at conference.  This is an important point to include, because (and I think I can speak for most Labor Twitter people I engage with) the frustration for “us Labor people” or “Diehard Labor Supporters” as we are referred to in the article, is the frustration that democratic processes that are vital to any progressive party, are ignored in commentary such as this. Instead, the purposeful absence of such is used to advance an argument. Which is a disingenuous argument. 

Labor Just Doesn’t Stand Up 

The article then moves on from delaying tactics around Newstart to explicitly stating that ‘Labor is not standing up.” I will detail each of these issues separately. Including Work for the Dole and PATH. Ms. Neate implicitly states that Labor are supportive of these Liberal initiatives, and is so angry about that, she exclaims;  “I won’t even start on Work for the Dole or the rorting PaTH program.”

Nor have they stood up for those being harmed by robo-debt, punished with the cashless welfare card, or given dodgy demerit points by private job providers earning a fortune at the expense of people, many of whom would rather be anywhere else than on social security.

(Neate, 2018)

RoboDebt

The system of debt matching was developed under a Labor Government. However, the implementation of this software under the Liberal Government is the key difference. The Liberals shifted the onus of proof from the Department to the recipient.  In short, the recipient must prove that the Department’s claim is false.  In this case, procedural fairness is non-existent. 

With regards to Labor not standing up against Robo-Debt, the first inclusion to dismiss this claim, would be the actual evidence of the Labor Party members participation in the Senate Enquiry Committee.  Labor party members on this Committee include Senators Bilyk, Brown, Dodson and Polley. 

In another act of not standing up against Robo Debt, Labor members as part of the Committee tabled recommendations to the Government.  These recommendations include, to put the system on hold until procedural fairness and other recommendations could be addressed.

Although Labor are always posed as the Bad Guys, the Liberal Party who is always let off Scot Free, rejected the recommendations and offered up their own dissenting report, based on the reason that the Committee report was biased and the Government rejects that the online system lacks procedural fairness. 

Senator Murray Watt and Linda Burney, MP, also have not been standing up by being incredibly vocal on this issue.  Again by not standing up, Labor also commissioned legal advice regarding the release of personal details of a recipient by the Government.  Labor in not standing up against RoboDebt, then led a concentrated charge at the Government for the Minister to stand down, in light of this legal advice.

Cashless Welfare

In 2014, the Indigenous Jobs and Training Review recommended a trial of the Cashless Welfare Card.  Labor agreed to this trial period.  Labor has stated they agreed with the trial period in two geographical areas, due to the support from these communities. This is contentious, as some community members have been quite vocal about their opposition and deny that there was ‘community support.’ 

During the trial period, Labor said that they would look at the evidence from a trial. This is another sticking point for the ‘Labor bashing crew’ who get quite angry at any type of evidence based policy. Well, they get angry at the bit where Labor needs to ‘collect the evidence.’  If a trial does not occur and evidence is not produced that the trial is ineffective; then the policy item would just keep being pushed as ‘needed’ and keep gaining public momentum. Without evidence to highlight ineffectiveness, such a policy could be rolled out nationally and forced upon people in the most arbitrary and draconian manner.

Those who advocate loudly to ‘not vote Labor’ risk reducing Labor’s numbers to fight propositions such as this. 

The 2017-18 Trial Extension Initiative was offered up by the Government, in the form of Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017.   In 2017, post a Committee Inquiry into the legislation, Labor produced a dissenting report.  This means they were against the roll out of further trials. 

The dissenting report covered issues such as, that there is no evidence to extend the trial areas (to areas such as Hinkler) and that the existing trial must have a guarantee of funding for social supports to be in place and limitations on the amount of participants in the trial.  

Further evidence that Labor stood up for Cashless welfare, is evidenced by votes in the Senate. Labor voted against the Bill. However, the Bill was passed with the support of Hinch, Centre Alliance, Bernardi, PHON, Leyonhjelm and Gichuhi. 

Votes were: 30 for 26 against for all readings, including the 3rd reading of the Bill.  By telling people not to vote Labor, once again, it reduces Labor’s numbers further in the Senate so they are unable to block harmful legislation.

The ruse that is often used is that ‘if Labor votes with the Greens, they can block x, y, z.  As you can see, this is simply not true.

Demerit System (Social Security Amendment Bill)

I find this particular inclusion in Ms. Neate’s article, quite alarming. Labor has spoken up quite vehemently about various sections of this Bill, including demerit points and drug testing.  Maybe it is just me, but I don’t know how anyone missed this one.

Labor does NOT support demerit points. Nor do they support Drug Testing.

The member for Bass spoke passionately about this, as has Senator’s Cameron, Singh and Polley.

As Senator Polley pointed out in her second reading speech, ‘The Liberals tried to ram this Bill through, but Labor referred it to a Senate Inquiry to ensure it was scrutinised.  

Senator Doug Cameron spoke out very strongly against demerit points.  He spoke to evidence from the UK which suggests that these punitive measures create more unemployment and have severe negative affect and severe physical health impacts. 

Senator Cameron castigated Senator Scullion, when in light of evidence that this measure would cause further inequality and have harder impacts in Indigenous Communities, when Senator Scullion said, “It is important we stop characterising penalties as punishment. 

Senator Cameron lividly described Senator Scullion’s comment as “An outrageous statement of paternalism to justify discrimination and damaging social policy”

Although Senator  Cameron was not angry enough for Ms. Neate, I think most of us would agree that when Senator Cameron berates something or someone, he berates at epic level 100. 

Significant amendments were made to this Bill by Labor. However, the Bill was passed 31 to 29 with the support from, Anning, Burston, Georgiou, Griff, Hanson, Hinch, Leyonhjelm and Patrick.  

Possibly, these are all the ‘wonderful Independents’ that Ms Neate suggests people vote for instead of Labor. Ms. Neate claims that: 

“Badgering people to vote against their own interests won’t result in them voting for your interests.”

Perhaps not, but I personally believe it is important to point out that the alternatives (non-majors), who are always presented as a neat little group as ‘much better to vote for than Labor’ are certainly not in the Nation’s interest. 

Senator Storer voted against the Bill with Labor and the Greens. 

Work for the Dole 

Ed Husic, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workforce Participation (literally one of the nicest people you could ever hope to meet, just in case you are the only person I haven’t told) has been standing up against Work for the Dole and campaigning with the Australian Unemployed Workers Union (AUWU) for the Government to release the report for Joshua Park-Fing.  Mr. Park-Fing was a participant in the Work for the Dole program and tragically lost his life in an industrial incident, at his placement site for the Work for the Dole Program.  

Ed Husic has expressed serious concerns about the Workplace Health and Safety aspects of the program and the ineffectiveness of the Work For the Dole outcomes. 

Ms. Neate, does not need to start on Work for the Dole, because Labor has committed to cancelling the Work for the Dole Program because it is “punishing people for not being in work.” (Husic, 2018) 

PATH Program

The PATH Program is the mutual obligation program, designed by the Liberals to supply free labour to employers. I have previously written about PATH here. 

Ms.Neate does not need to worry about PATH either, as Labor has already committed to abolish the PATH program and to replace this program with a three part program – Working Futures Program.  This new program will include:

A six-week work readiness course focusing on essential employment skills as well as personal presentation, interview techniques and job hunting.

A six-month work placement with an employer, paid at an award-equivalent training wage.

A fully-funded Certificate III in a subject of their choice

AA Bill – A Wicked Problem

Ms. Neate’s article also speaks to the current passage of the AA Bill. The passage of the Bill was contentious with civil libertarians and the Tech Industry, against Labor’s participation in the passage of the Bill. My take is here.

I framed my article linked above, within the context of a Wicked Problem. There has been a lot of heated debate online regarding this Bill.  The reason for this is, that with a Wicked Problem, there is no perfect solution. Every point of decision making Labor took with a poorly written Bill, that was written by the Government, with the additional complexity of National Security Agency requests and the constraints of time limits*, creates a set of additional problems.  That is the nature of a Wicked Problem.

*No, Shorten could not just make Morrison keep the Lower House open Noely, because Bill Shorten is not the Prime Minister, nor is he in Government.  

People who are not empathetic, or who do not try to understand both sides of the argument, will continue to pile on the hate online. This is because one of the factors to measure a wicked problem is divergence – the competing social beliefs or values connected to the problem. 

Purist Politics

Those who see the passage of this Bill, as a simple issue in Black and White terms, rejecting the context and the political game playing from the Liberal Government, are consistently arguing from the point of purist politics.

Arguments online (and in Ms. Neate’s article) are that Labor just rolled over. Which is not the case, as detailed in my linked article above.  Through this article, I seek to rebut that accusation, through a discussion of purist politics vs democratic socialist politics and decision making theory and incrementalism.

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

If Labor rejected the National Security request, this also creates an alternative set of problems. That is, the alternative Prime Minister treating ASIO with contempt and ridicule and not taking their requests seriously. This would have serious domestic and international ramifications, simply due to the external observable nature of such behaviour. (In context, the Prime Minister, left the responsibility up to the opposition leader, by clocking off for drinks. This further highlights the incompetence of this accidental Prime Minister.)

Bill Shorten had the choice between ignoring the National Security Request for urgency; or if he chose to pass the Bill (which he did) the alternative set of problems he accepted, were that the Bill was flawed and was not complete with all amendments debated or passed. The IT industry and civil libertarians have serious concerns regarding the Bill. With this choice, Shorten risked getting many within the public offside. Which is also a dilemma close to an election.

For those saying Shorten had no choice and rolled over, are ignoring the complexity of the decision making process, within the context of the problem. 

Decision Making and Incrementalism

To add to the framework of a Wicked Problem from my previous article; the point of difference between the purists and the democratic socialists, can be discussed using Decision Making Theory and Incrementalism. 

Rational Decision Making

The Purists arguing that Shorten just rolled over, are approaching this issue, with the view that Shorten should have used rational decision making. They have identified the solution (do not pass the Bill) and he should have just acted on it.

However, the problem with this, is with Rational Decision Making Theory, the decider (or advocates for the decider) already believe they know the perfect outcome.  This perfect outcome is confined within bounded rationality, where the above, are not cognisant (or maybe they are, but do not appreciate) the severity of the alternative problems, their ‘perfect outcome’ may cause.  In short, their perfect outcome, is limited within their own scope of knowledge or bias and does not extend outside of that. In other words, this decision making model is flawed.

And no, this is not an ‘attack’ on anyone. This is a theoretical perspective and it applies to CEOs, Leaders, Policy Makers, Politicians, World Leaders, every single day. So no, I’m not having a go at anyone. Just getting in first, as his debate has been quite sensitive online. 

Incrementalism 

Where Shorten really impressed me, under such pressure, due to the political games by the Liberals; was his adoption of incrementalism and the decision making model of choice under uncertainty. 

Due to the nature of the problem, as described above, with either choice, resulting in an alternative problem, Shorten had to adopt the Choice under Uncertainty model of decision making. Although this model is prominent within Economics, no actor within this problem, can be certain of any outcome for this problem.  A choice had to be made, weighing up various possibilities, problems extending from those possibilities and making a choice to maximise the most beneficial outcome. Shorten should be given credit for this, due to the time limit and the complexity of the problem. (I think this is more where my frustration lies – the difficulty I have with some people who disagree with my position, who cannot see the complexity and constraints Shorten was faced with, as we discuss this ongoing debate and who are piling on the disdain). 

With this approach, his decision balanced the urgency to meet the National Security request and offered alternative progress to try to meet the needs of the IT Industry and civil libertarians. He did this by securing further discussion of amendments and a public review, in the formal motion to pass this Bill. This satisfies the objective of success for incrementalism. That is the expertise of all stakeholders are included. 

This advances a complex problem through incrementalism, by enabling further steps to achieve a greater success. By Shorten adopting Incrementalism it is also an advantage. It will allow all politicians and the those with concerns to present their arguments at a public review.  (For those who deny this is happening, Penny Wong’s newsletter today states that submissions will be called soon). 

Alternatively, those who seek out purist political solutions adopting the rational decision making model, have difficulty tolerating any compromise towards progress, and compromise progress itself.

Anti-Majorism – A Political Agenda

The purpose of this article was to respond to Noely Neate’s article in Independent Australia, where she posed the question, “Does the Labor Party Deserve Our Vote” and also discussed general upset at certain positions of the Labor party on various issues. I have responded in detail. Sorry for the long read, but much like in parliament, the ‘anti-majors’ can really say whatever they like, and Bloggers who write with a laborist slant, like me, (about Labor) have to produce evidence and argument. Its just the way it is, folks. I speak from experience!

No – Anti-Majorism is not a word – I just made it up.

Misleading Statements are not Facts

Posing an argument for voters to question their voting intention about any party, should not be presented using misleading statements as facts. It’s duplicitous and regardless of whether a person is “party aligned” I would very strongly argue it is 100% political.

There are many (some with quite prominent followings) on social media and online blogs with the view that the majors are tainted and push this messaging. Who link Liberal and Labor together as one in the same and blame Labor for the Liberal’s Bills, practices, programs and behaviour. These people are minor party and IND supporters.

An entrenched political campaign

I don’t buy the position that “speaking up against the majors” is a pure non-political pursuit of social democracy, championed by people who are much better thinkers than the partisan aligned of the majors. I completely reject this idea and that is the theme of the arguments they often present on social media.

I would argue it is a deeply entrenched political campaign based on the belief that Individualism should take prominence over collective platforms the major parties have based on their central ideology.

I would also argue that it is based on Individualism through ego, as they believe the minor parties and Independents will represent their view (often falsely represented as speaking for my community, which is a technical impossibility. There is no community where everyone will agree) or speaking for “my issue”.

This is as opposed to the collective platform nature of the majors who need to speak for the national interest as a whole and implement that based on the practical methods as directed by their over-arching political ideologies. It is a me versus us argument. 

Their Way is Best

It’s also based on the belief that no compromise, purist politics is extremely easy, and effective. Because that is the behaviour espoused by the politicians they admire. Purist politicians believe that everyone must compromise to meet their (superior) demands and get quite shouty when others simply do not agree that their way is best.

Therefore, Purists believe that the major’s (particularly Labor) are too evil, too stupid or too lazy to “do what’s right”. 

It’s the rejection of or ignorance of, that compromise in a democratic society is not only the reality but often a necessity to make incremental progress towards securing outcomes for progressive issues. It should ‘just happen.’  They will often tout Labor’s incremental approach as “just a pathetic excuse.”

These purists believe that the two Majors never get it right because the minor parties (Greens PHON etc) or IND they look up to, have the luxury of saying and not doing (Governing).

Why Labor will get my Number 1 Vote

If one fights the Liberals instead, there are a whole range of condemning facts to go wild with. But instead, the anti-major party advocates, always attack Labor, when they present this argument. 

I have done my best above to present Labor in a factual light, in contrast to what I argue are misleading statements/innuendos, inherent assumptions, call them what you will, within Ms. Neate’s article; which reads as a bid to have voters question their voting intention for Labor. By clarifying some of the broad statements within the article on IA, I hope I have given the reader a very different view of Labor’s position on various policy areas. 

Presenting Labor in a factual light, would also list literally hundreds of progressive reforms enabled in society because of the Labor Party. Which would not happened if the type of argument in Ms. Neate’s article, to keep Labor out of power, by voting for someone else, was successful. We have already lost years of progress because of the Liberals.

That’s the difference between the collective of Liberals, minor parties, Independents and Labor and why Labor will get my number 1 vote.

Labor, Outrage and Encryption. But Why? A Wicked Problem.

There has been a lot of vigorous debate on Twitter about the Encryption Bill and Labor’s role. Here is my take on how it all panned out and why. I think the WHY is important because no one seems to want to discuss that. The WHYs are just as important in politics as the Whats, Hows, and Whens. Please note, this is not a debate about encryption technology. It is my take on why Labor made certain decisions. Everyone can decide for themselves.

1) Labor does not support “The Encryption Bill” in the raw form as written by the Liberal National Government. This is a misrepresentation being touted on Twitter. It is important to note, that this is a Liberal National Party Government Bill, that Labor must respond to. Labor is not the author of this Bill and did not write the content of this Bill in its first form.

2) Labor members were part of the committee which made a lot of recommendations to change the Bill. The Bill was deemed urgent as ASIO had requested new powers over Xmas, due to new technologies they don’t have powers for now (encrypted messages).

3) If Labor opposed the Bill, Liberals had support from Katter & McGowan in Lower house with no changes and could pass it anyway. Therefore, Labor’s opposition adds nothing but protest in this instance, as no outcome could be achieved. People angry at Labor need to weigh up if this was a viable solution.

4) If Labor opposed in the upper house (Senate) without taking time to work with the Government, the Government then had days of horse trading with X-Bench like Hanson, instead of Labor (I certainly don’t want that!) to make amendments to the Encryption Bill. People angry at Labor need to decide if this was a viable alternative to Labor blindly opposing).

5) So to prevent Hanson and co horse trading with their racist minds on National Security, Labor worked with the Government and made over 100 amendments. Amendments are protections – like control measures in risk management.

6) Time pressure was a huge factor, because ASIO said they needed these powers over Xmas and parliament was shutting down until February.

7) On Thursday 6 December, 2018, the Prime Minister shut down the lower house to keep kids on Nauru (Because the Liberals are sick in the head like that). After a Bill is passed in the upper house, the lower house needs to be in operation to ratify the Bill. (So the amendment solution Labor worked on to add protections to the Bill was now squashed by a political game played by the Morrison Government).

8) The Liberals closing parliament at 5pm was a game changer. All the hard work to make amendments would not be ratified. To reiterate, this move was made by Liberals to keep sick kids in offshore detention. (People should be really, really mad at this).

9) Because Morrison clocked off early, this left Labor with the responsibility and decision to give ASIO power. This was in light of the advice that there is an increased terror threat over Christmas. (Which makes sense because there are lots of crowds, right?)

10) If even one amendment passed, the Bill would have had to go back to lower house, which was no longer an option. This would leave ASIO with no new powers as requested. That is, except if Labor decided (in the absence of the Government who shirked their responsibility as a Government) to pass the Bill without amendments.

11) Bear in mind the experts warned of increased threat. Terror experts know more than most of us. (They don’t tell us everything because you know, Terrorists read the news and watch TV as well).

12) Because the Govt shirked their responsibility by going home, Labor had to weigh up pros and cons of increased threat, whilst weighing up the pros and cons of passing a flawed bill that a lot – a real lot of people outright reject, based on civil rights, privacy and other IT related concerns.

13) Labor erred on the side of caution, because terrorism is pretty shit and kills many innocent people.

14) With this in mind Labor had no choice but to pass the Bill to assist ASIO, if they were to take this threat seriously. Let’s face it. We EXPECT a Government to take ASIO seriously when it happens. Labor must act as an alternative Government and not a protest party (that’s why Labor mostly, does not act like the Greens).

This decision I personally support regardless of Govt. (I have faith in ASIO, others don’t, as they expressed on Twitter yesterday, which terrifies me).

15) Labor had to pass the Bill in the raw form with no amendments, because even if one amendment was passed, it needs to go back to the lower house. This wasn’t an option if ASIO were to be assisted over Xmas, because The Prime Minister and Govt clocked off at 5pm so kids on Nauru couldn’t get medical treatment. (Plus they had a knees up at The Lodge)

15) (i) The Liberals and Bernadi filibustered in the Senate (delaying a Bill by speech making, sometimes about nothing) so the Bill for Nauru kids was not passed in the senate before the Prime Minister shut down the lower house.

15 (ii) This means this was a pre-organised obstruction to get kids off Nauru. Which is pitifully sickening. The fact that people are not more outraged about this, than Labor passing a National Security Bill, also sickens me.

16) So Labor made the decision to pass the Bill to assist ASIO. To reiterate, Labor had to consider the advice of an increased terror threat over the Christmas season.

17) Labor passed this on the proviso that the amendments, including input from the public and experts is held when Parliament returns in February.

17) (i) This Bill passed with Greens, CA and Storer opposed to the raw bill. This means the Government only needed one of these to pass the Bill without Labor, which is a real possibility based on track record and the incentive for them to make their own amendments, if Labor did not make amendments. It is impossible to judge if Centre Alliance and Storer would or would not have supported the Bill with amendments that were not their amendments either.  Regardless, this is a huge risk to take and why Labor took the action to make amendments to the Bill, rather than blindly protesting with no input. For example, It appears that Senator Patrick’s main issue was with the urgency of the Bill. He appeared to agree in his speech that that ASIO needed additional powers. This would not take much convincing from a Government to win him over, in my opinion.

Therefore there was a real danger the Bill could have been negotiated with input from two major Senators well known for racism, Hanson and Anning, plus the rest of the right wing cross bench. (Except Storer – I cant work out what he stands for yet.)

17 (ii) This is the lie the Greens peddle all the time, to try to get people to vote Green instead of Labor. That is, Labor has the numbers to oppose the Liberals if Labor sides with the Greens. It’s absolutely not true and the Greens must have that many pimples on their tongues, I’m amazed they can talk!) Yes, I know, I know, I can’t stand the Greens, but this is just mathematics. It’s a valid point, because on Twitter especially, this lie gains traction.

18) A side note, but an important point, is about a week ago, Howard (former Liberal PM) advised that Morrison could win the election on National Security. So if you have noticed, there has been lots of talk about Security, boats, and even kids getting medical treatment “opening the borders.” In politics, this is called fear based campaigning, but my term for it is “sick in the head, baseless gobshite”

19) But let’s face facts. The Liberals do have a track record of creating real terror for people with regards to Terrorism. It has worked in the past.

20) If Labor didn’t pass the Bill, and a real or “foiled” terror attack occurred then Labor would have been to blame.

21) If this did occur and Labor ignored ASIOs advice, we all know, the media largely enables this fear based environment with Murdoch Press, Shock Jocks and Sunrise doing live Crosses to Hanson, on a horse in country QLD, wearing a vegemite TShirt and an Aussie flag scarf, for “regular updates.” To add to that, no doubt Prime Minister Morrison would hold a 50 flag press conference in his Trump hat, screaming about “Fair Dinkum Terror.”

22) People may argue this was the main factor. It may be a factor considered, but so is the responsibility of alternative Govt and being left with the responsibility to give ASIO Powers over Xmas, in light of a terror attack. My personal opinion is decisions were based on increased risk of Terror and advice from ASIO, but also with an awareness of a fear campaign, which Labor would have already thought about, Bill or no Bill.

23) Morrison played this game on Thursday, because he would have in no way expected Shorten to pass the Bill with no amendments. Morrison would have had a campaign tactic ready, based on “keeping us safe” which he no longer can use. For those who purely enjoy the analysis of political strategy, I personally think Shorten outdid Morrison, If this point is simply isolated, without the difficulty of the content of the Bill in Question which has serious flaws, as noted already by Labor, and needs more work.

24)  Sadly, Morrison May have achieved his aim regardless. The anger towards Labor on Twitter yesterday, was to the height of epic proportions. Voters taking the view that Labor could have stopped the Bill without any negative consequences, who now exclaim they won’t be voting Labor, in my view risk another term of the Morrison Government.

25) There is no magical realm where Liberal or Labor won’t Govern. Liberal, LNP, National, Shooters and Fishers, Independents and One Nation voters won’t be punishing the Liberals. But Morrison has achieved his aim to “split the left.” Which is good for no one else but him, now he is a Prime Minister who can’t be toppled.

26) For those who are angry at Labor, this is their own action with a negative consequence for them to consider. Every single vote counts.

A Wicked Problem

In Operations Management we refer to this entire scenario above as a Wicked Problem. This is where every solution results in an alternative set of problems.

Regardless of the decision that is made; there is no decision where a solution will result all positive consequences. Every decision has negative consequences. Importantly, no decision will make everyone happy.

Decisions when dealing with Wicked Problems are therefore based on reducing the most harm.

In this instance, and in my opinion, Labor decided the most harm would occur if a terror attack occurred over Christmas if ASIO was ignored.

Therefore, in my opinion, Bill Shorten and Labor put the safety of people before politics, contrary to the view of some very vocal people, including media personalities, on Twitter.

What would you do? Which negative consequences do you choose, based on your decisions for this scenario?

WHY’s Are Important

I have written this because I am fielding a lot of questions on Twitter because I agree with the Labor Party’s decisions on this matter. Debates are quite heated and plenty are attacking Labor – without the discussion of these points – the WHYs.

As I said in my intro, the WHYs are as important as the Whats, Whens and hows, in politics.

The absence of the WHYs I believe, is a blight on our political debate. When the Why’s or any context is ignored, I strongly feel that this makes people much more insular and they will rapidly form groups. Context is so very important.

One person commented to me on Twitter that simply because “I was outnumbered” and although I presented a good argument, I had to basically relent and join the popular voice against Labor.

That comment REALLY made me think about the power of Twitter. How it separates us into groups.  I do get into quite lengthy debates on Twitter, however, I will never, ever change my position because it is not popular. I will never sit on the fence, so people may “follow me.”  Although sad, I will accept, people will mute and block me, because I won’t agree with ‘their view.” and that’s life. We can’t do that in real life, we simply avoid uncomfortable topics around certain people, we don’t agree on, and remain civil, but it is the life on social media.

People will say I am fairly partisan with Labor; which I most certainly am. However, if anyone does engage with me on Twitter, I always aim to come from the point of the view of the “Why or How” about a view of Labor that is not popular.

This is quite prevalent, simply due to the tactic that the Greens run about Labor.  The Greens (and some Independents now) always focus on the “WHAT” and do not tell anyone about the “WHY or HOW.”  For example, Labor may reject a Bill, because the Greens have put it in the wrong format, or attempted to change the wrong Bill, or followed the wrong Process – all reasonable reasons why it must be rejected, because it will fail anyway.  However, the Greens then make a meme that LABOR VOTED WITH THE LIBERALS TO  X, Y, Z SOMETHING REALLY HORRIBLE!!

Its a duplicitous tactic the Greens play all the time and it is dishonest. In a climate where people are sick and tired of dishonesty in politics, I think the finger really should be pointed strongly at the Greens for a change. Throughout this entire debate over the last few days, the Greens applied this tactic time and time again, to pose themselves as saints, when they were purposely fuelling anger. This should also remind people that minor parties do not wear halos and they are indeed politicians. They are not voices who wear halos.

The absence of the WHY, may not clear up the bad taste in some people’s mouths, over Labor, if they read the points above; but at least I have tried to give a different perspective, than “Doesn’t Excuse them being Shit” (as said by Greg Jericho of the Guardian on Twitter.)

I Am Not A Bot

I would like to state very, very clearly, in case Senator CFW “you are a Labor bot” woman is watching me. Although, I’m a card carrying member of the Labor party, this blog is always and always will be completely my own thoughts. I have had no discussion, or instruction or by anyone else within the Labor party.

As this article is based on my own thoughts, anyone with anything to add to the PROCESS described above, which is factual, that I may have missed, or I may simply have wrong, is also welcome.

I won’t welcome anything that is a tech rant, because that is refuted as far as I am concerned until the Bill is in its final form, after public consultation and with all recommendations and amendments included. (Sure, comment, but it’s not the discussion I’m looking for).

I won’t welcome baseless untruths promulgated through Tweets, newsletters, memes, Instagram or Facebook by the Greens. These are already refuted based on the basic mathematics of addition, where numbers for and against a Bill are added for all scenarios detailed above.

Something To Think About

I hope at least I’ve added something else to think about, that outright protesting that the Greens insist Labor should do, does not always result in a positive outcome, based on the numbers in the current set of both houses.

Also, that an alternative Government (opposition) and Government, must sometimes make really shitty decisions, that people are not going to be happy with, knowing there will be huge popularity slumps for them to deal with as well.  What party wants that?

The parties that can Govern – that is, Labor and Liberal/National coalition – simply do not have this luxury of doing and saying whatever they please, without judgement.

I also want to shout out to the self identified “far more intelligent non-partisan” people on Twitter that I wrote this all by myself because Partisan people can also think for themselves. This is contrary to the belief us partisans are brainwashed for knowing where we sit on the ideology spectrum. Also that we can’t have any thoughts of our own because we don’t sit on the fence, or try to appeal to everyone, so they like us. (Sorry, in context – too many pathetic insults about this towards “us Labor People” on Twitter yesterday).

Frankly, I’d prefer an argument with a conservative with conviction, rather than someone with no heartfelt ideology. At least I’d understand their position.

Political Priorities

I am also very sad, that there was more outrage over this, than there was with the Social Security Amendment Act and the ABCC – which causes actual death. Have we lost our way? Why is this?

This last point, is the point that probably brings the most fear to me and my motivation for writing this piece. If the argument is true, that Morrison played this game, because he thought he had an advantage politically to gain ground in the polls; then from the reaction yesterday, this does very much concern me.

Its not that I am very dedicated to the Labor cause; but because in reality any other alternative than a Shorten Labor Government, means a Morrison Government for three more years.

If this tactic does work and enough people are angry at Labor, then the result will be the return of the Morrison Government. Voting Green or Independent does not guarantee a Shorten Government, regardless of how people try to spin preferential voting.  Splitting the left is the Liberal Party’s major dream.  Remember the utmost AIM of the Liberal’s entire existence is to break the working class. You do not get solidarity for the working class by dividing us into smaller groups so we turn against each other during an election.

Morrison thinks he is Trump and his tactic here is to make sure the electorate punishes Shorten, so he is Australia’s Trump after the electorate punished Hilary.  Punishing the alternative Government, when you don’t want the current Government, gives you back the current Government you do not want. It is no more clear than that.

The type of angry mob dialogue works and it is EXACTLY Morrison’s aim. He will be absolutely beaming with glee at the moment. I ask people to think about their political priorities, such as work rights, joblessness, stigma and punitive social security, the destruction of TAFE, cuts to Higher Education, Education and Health and cuts to Medicare, such as people over 50 no longer able to access MRI scans for knees etc., Only a Shorten Labor Government can achieve progress on any of these issues and give workers and the jobless back some goddamn dignity and rights.

Please seriously think about what it would take for any other party besides Labor to Govern, to knock off the Liberals.  Risking anything but Labor, is  unrealistic, it has no precedent in modern political history, and it is not a practical option. If you are passionate about issues and still don’t like Labor, please still vote for Labor, at least just for this election and for issues you are passionate about, use third party advocacy that is not about Governance of the nation. Join your Union.

The alternative of a Morrison Government for three more years, with a ‘mandate of the people’ is an unbearable, terrifying thought.

Cheers for reading. Feel free to place a comment below.

More Lies From The Greens – Newstart

Another round of lies from the Greens is making its way around social media and very vulnerable people on Social Security are very, very angry – at Labor.  If you are a vulnerable Australian on welfare listening to the Greens, let me say this to you; Labor is not anti-welfare and Labor is fighting very hard for equality.  What the Greens are fighting hard for is putting up bills they know will fail on a technicality. They then work hard to take the moral high ground to upset you, all for the sole aim of creating a deep dark pit of hatred toward Labor by you, the voter. They do this in the hope you will see the Greens as the only party who cares.  In short, it is pathetic Trump Style politics.

One thing Senator Doug Cameron is, is he is a good man. He has spent his entire life fighting for the working class and the disadvantaged and that cannot be disputed.  I have cut and paste Senator Cameron’s response to the Greens amendment in the Senate to raise Newstart by $110 per fortnight.

It is time the Greens stopped playing pathetic games with the emotions of vulnerable people. It is sick! The incessant attacks on Labor are questionable. They may as well stick a Turnbull corflute in their front yards!

Senator Cameron (Labor) Response

Senate Hansard 10 August 2017 p. 76-78

(For those who do not want to read all of Senator Cameron’s response which is over 2,000 words, I have highlighted the relevant parts in Red. I have quoted and highlighted the trickery of the Greens in  – well Green!)

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (16:59): I am quite amazed by that speech by Senator Fierravanti-Wells. In speaking on the Social Security Amendment (Caring for People on Newstart) Bill 2017, I want to try and correct some of the statements that have been made.

Let me go to the Greens first. The Greens indicated they are the only party calling for an increase in Newstart. Labor has acknowledged that Newstart is too low. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has said on a number of occasions in recent years that it is too low. Labor acknowledges that too many Australians are living in poverty.

 It was Labor that defended young, unemployed Australians when the Abbott-Turnbull government wanted to make young people wait six months to access Newstart.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells said, ‘Don’t add fuel to the fire.’ There’ll be plenty of people on Newstart who won’t have any fuel—whether it’s electricity or gas—to actually keep themselves warm. Senator Fierravanti-Wells says it would cost an extra $2 billion per annum to increase the Newstart allowance to the allowance that’s been proposed by the Greens in this bill. How ridiculous is it that we have a coalition that want to hand $65 billion in tax cuts to the big end of town, and yet they stand here and argue that they can’t look after people on Newstart? They are a party that wants to look after big business but ignore people who are doing it tough. We’ve seen them: they’re all about the vilification and demonisation of people who are down on their luck and relying on Newstart. This argument of, ‘You’ve just got to get a job and everything will be okay,’ I suppose, is alright if you live on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, the eastern suburbs or the wealthier areas of Australia where you don’t actually have to see much unemployment.

But what the coalition needs to understand—and they obviously don’t—is that there are 189,200 jobs available within Australia. There are 726,800 unemployed in Australia. So it’s not as if you can just get your gear on in the morning, lob out there and find a job. You never hear the coalition talking about that figure. It’s not easy to get a job in some areas, and it’s impossible to find a job in other areas. I notice that we’re going to have coalition people speak to this later, and we have two National Party members in the chamber now. If you look at the National Party seats, they’ve got some of the highest unemployment in Australia. Senator Williams would know it’s not that easy to go out and actually find a job in some areas in National Party electorates.

In National Party seats, unemployment has risen by 1.3 per cent on average since the coalition came to power. Since September 2013, unemployment has risen by 1.3 per cent on average in National Party seats. What a great example of how the National Party come here and suck up to that nonsense that we just heard from Senator Fierravanti-Wells, but are out there presiding over some of the highest unemployment in the country. It just beggars belief. All they want to do is vilify the unemployed, vilify those that are down on their luck. Look at what the government did when they first came to power.

They wanted to make young Australians wait six months to access Newstart. What would that do to young people in National Party seats where there were no jobs? They would either have to have rich parents or be part of the rural hoi polloi, or they would be left starving. It’s an absolute disgrace the way the National Party and the Liberal Party have dealt with unemployment and social security benefits over the last period of time. They wanted to abandon young jobseekers for six months. Starve! That was their approach, and Labor defeated that. After we defeated it, the Liberals tried to make young people wait five weeks before being able to access income support.

Remember the argument that was put forward by Senator Fierravanti-Wells: ‘Just go out and get a job. That’s the best inoculation from welfare. Just get a job.’ Well, I repeat again: there are 189,200 jobs available in Australia, and there are 726,800 unemployed. Many of those unemployed would not have the skills, the training or the capacity or live in the region where these jobs are, so it becomes really, really difficult. Senator Fierravanti-Wells ran the same nonsense that ‘Labor squandered money when they were in government’. What Labor did was to implement one of the most effective—if not the most effective—approaches to dealing with the global financial crisis that we had, and we kept jobs being created around the country. That’s what Labor did because we understood that, if jobs were lost, then intergenerational unemployment would increase. So we spent money on keeping people in jobs—in National Party seats around the country. Not only were individuals looked after by Labor, but communities were looked after and families were looked after. They had jobs when workers around the world were being thrown on the scrap heap.

But those opposite seem to forget that there was a global financial crisis. They forget that, just as they don’t have any idea or don’t want to recognise that there is global warming and a real problem for the future. They don’t want to recognise that they don’t have the policies and they don’t have the cohesion internally to actually deal with any of the problems that are facing Australians around this country.

So Labor defeated those cuts that were put there. We defeated the unfair Liberal and National Party cuts to paid parental leave. We defeated the Liberal and National Party unfair cuts to pension indexation. This is the mob that wanted to cut the pensions of Australians. That’s what they wanted to do, and it was only Labor standing against it that stopped that. We defeated the Liberals’ unfair GP tax that would have undermined Medicare as our universal health system. We defeated the Liberals and Nationals’ unfair cuts to young people that would have seen thousands of young Australians shifted from Newstart onto the lower youth allowance payment. We have consistently stood up for vulnerable Australians against this government’s unfair cuts.

I just find it beggaring belief that the National Party, who represent the victims of the Liberal Party’s ideology, come in here and vote with them to cut the social security payments for their constituents in their seats around the country when there are not the jobs available in National Party seats around the country. The National Party are an absolute disgrace. They just hang off the coat-tails of the Liberal Party, and then they try and run the Liberal Party when it comes to some ideological approach that they want to push. They are an absolute disgrace.

We have led the debate in this country on inequality. Bill Shorten, Wayne Swan, Jenny Macklin and Andrew Leigh have all been doing important policy work on the issue of inequality. Inequality isn’t just the gap between the rich and poor; it’s about the millionaires getting tax cuts under this government and large multinationals getting $65 billion in giveaways, while millions of Australians have had no wage rise for years. It’s about inequality in the housing market because first home buyers are lining up against property investors who have been subsidised by unfair and distortionary policies like negative gearing.

It’s about the gender gap in the pay that men and women in this country receive and the unfair deal that women are getting. It’s about the gap between Indigenous Australians and the unfair outcomes they’re getting in health, education and housing. And any conversation about inequality also has to focus on poverty. We know that Newstart is too low. We know that too many Australians are living below the poverty line.

As last year’s Growing together, Labor’s agenda for tackling inequality, document stated: The net replacement rate for the Newstart payment for a single person is equivalent to just 28 per cent of the average wage. That compares with an average of 47 per cent in other major English-speaking nations, such as Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. While the mechanisms for supporting the unemployed differ in each of these countries, there is no denying that income support for unemployed Australians is very low by international standards. We are doing the policy work.

That’s why at the last election Labor said that we’d establish a review into the adequacy of the Newstart allowance for people of working age and their place in the wider system of working age payments and employment supports. We won’t be coming here when there’s not enough jobs for every Australian that’s looking for them and tell them, ‘The best thing you can do is get out and find a job.’

It’s an absolute lie, perpetrated by the extremists in the Liberal and National parties who are presiding over some of the lowest paid in their electorates, and some of the worst unemployment and some of the worst housing conditions in the country. So much for the National Party and so much for the Liberal Party!

We’ve have said that, when we do the review, we’ll look at the adequacy of the base rate of Newstart to meet what is widely understood to be the essential living costs required to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of living. We will look at the adequacy of the current indexation of allowance payments in the context of indexation arrangements across the social security system.

We’ll look at the role of the Newstart allowance and other working age payments in promoting and supporting workforce participation, including through smooth transitions to paid employment, help with the cost of job search, training and employment. Labor wants a comprehensive and independent review into the adequacy of Newstart that we think should be done against two primary objectives: one, alleviating poverty and, two, encouraging work.

We also believe that the review should consider the adequacy of Newstart for people raising families, particularly single parents.

I’d dearly love to see an increase to Newstart, but this bill isn’t the right way of going about it.

Let’s be clear: it’s a stunt by the Greens political party. It’s symbolic. It won’t pass the parliament. The Greens know that this would never get through the House of Representatives. The Greens know that the appropriations bills in the House have to be introduced by a minister. Yet they introduce this bill in the Senate and give so many Australians false hope that Newstart might be increased—and it’s all for their own political purposes. (Senator Doug Cameron 10.08.2017)

 It’s worth noting that this bill has come on for debate on the same day it was introduced into the Senate. It’s not a fair dinkum proposal and the Greens know it. They haven’t done the proper policy work. They haven’t done the hard work of policy development that you need to make this kind of change. They haven’t even discussed it with the opposition before springing it on us today.

Unlike the Greens party, the opposition requires proposals to be properly developed, costed and considered before we can support them.

The truth is, if you want to see an increase to Newstart, you have to change the government in Canberra. You have to vote out the Liberals, because they will never help the vulnerable.* They’ve never helped the unemployed. The last time there was a significant increase to social security payments, it was done by a Labor government.

(*That means voting for Labor, the only party that can remove the Liberals and actually Govern to enact change – Trish)

In 2009 it was Labor that increased the age pension and the disability support pension by $30 a week—the largest increase to the pension in its history. And you know how that came about? The newly elected Labor government commissioned the Harmer review into the adequacy of the pension.

A proper policy process was undertaken, there was consultation with key stakeholders, and we increased the age pension and DSP. It was announced in the budget and paid for in the budget. The pension was increased by $30 a week and, as a result, one million Australians were lifted out of poverty. That’s how you bring about change.

That’s how you lift people out of poverty. It didn’t happen because of a stunt in the Senate from a minor party like the Greens. It happened because a Labor government was in office and able to bring about change. Labor can actually bring about change, not just talk about it like the Greens.

End.

 

PATH: Proles Accursed To HELL! Enough!

Since time immemorial, the worker has fended off constant attacks. PATH is another chapter in the Liberal’s playbook where they accurse the Proles to hell.

A Worker’s Labour is Valuable

The Liberal Party of Australia formed to oppose the workers’ parties.  How Liberals and Labor view the worker are worlds apart. PATH is a clear example of this.

Australian Liberals

The basis of the Liberal ideology is to enable growth in the free market. They believe the cost of labour should be as low as possible. Turnbull’s Liberals believe a worker’s labour should be a cheap commodity. The incessant need to eradicate workers’ unions and weaken industrial labour laws are a testament to this.

One could strongly argue that the aspiration of full employment is not on the Liberals’ agenda. High numbers of unemployed people result in a much larger labour pool. This, in turn, drives wages down. Or in the case of PATH – the creation of an opportunity where labour is utilised for free.

As Sussan Ley said on Qanda: Governments don’t create jobs

The neo-liberal ideology aim is to purchase a worker’s labour as cheaply as possible. Ideologues like Turnbull and Cash, view a law passed to create a pool of free labour, such as PATH, as an exciting achievement.

Australian Labor

The Australian Labor Party was borne from the struggle of the worker. They believe that a worker’s labour is valuable. In simple terms, they believe that the ‘supply’ side of labour has the right to participate in setting the value of the labour. Hence their close connections with the unions. In simple terms, Labour Unions are there to protect the working class from the disintegration of rights and fair pay as imposed by the ruling class.

From this perspective, laws that negate this right, disempower workers and remove individual agency.

This is a punishment inflicted upon the working class.

The Rise of the PATH

The Turnbull Government introduced the PATH Program in the 2016 budget. This bill passed the Senate on 10 May 2017; with the assistance of Cory Bernardi, Derryn Hinch, Nick Xenophon Team, Jackie Lambie, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Family First all supporting the Government.

Only David Leyonhelm opposed the Bill, along with Labor and Greens.

The PATH to Nothingness

The PATH program offers young job seekers an internship by contract with an employer. This contract legally reduces the value of a young jobseeker’s labour. The taxpayer pays the intern at a rate of $4.00 per hour.

This is $14.29 an hour less than the minimum wage.This is $6.04 less than a 16 year old junior and $16.08 an hour less than a 21-year-old level 1 employee rate set down for many industries detailed on the Fair Work Australia payment guides.

The PATH scheme enables an employer to decrease the value of the intern’s labour by a minimum of 80% based on the scantest of entry-level wages in the country.

Business is at the Centre of the Framework

Internships are often painted as ‘work experience.’  However, work experience places the worker at the centre of the framework.  Work experience is usually a short-term experience in a workplace.  This enabled the worker to determine if they should invest in developing skills to seek future work in that industry.

PATH places business at the centre of the framework. An internship is:

The internship is designed around the needs of the host organisation and the intern’s skills, experience and interests. (Item 4, Sample Path Internship Agreement)

The employer must sign off to agree that they have a vacancy available now or in the near future. They have already identified that they need staff to meet operational requirements. 

The employer is already in a willing position to outlay money on recruitment and selection of new staff. They are already in a position to employ a jobseeker in a casual, temporary or permanent capacity.

This is not an incentive to increase staffing. PATH is an incentive to reduce recruitment & labour costs for staff that the organisation has already identified are required.

Additional Cost Savings to Business

Businesses can make considerable savings in induction, training and performance management costs during the probation period, in addition to recruitment and selection savings

The PATH program enables an employer to try a number of potential employees for free. This also frees them from all the associated costs during the probationary period.  

Businesses are able to increase profits through the tax payer funding the PATH program. This is not the same as work experience or on the job learning, such as an apprenticeship or traineeship. This is a free labour program dressed up ‘helping the jobless who seek to work.’

Lower Labor Costs Equal Increased Profits

The PATH program strips workers of their own agency. The worker has forced upon them, a lower dollar value in exchange for their labour. Employers have an opportunity to reduce costs and increase profit.

Labour, raw materials and overheads are the inputs in the production of goods or services. The through-put is the phase that mixes all inputs, including labour, together.

The output, being the end product or service is purchased or consumed by the consumer at the point of sale.  The employer factors into consideration the costs of all labour and materials in the input and through-put stages. The final product or service is sold for a percentage amount above the cost to produce that product or service.  This is the profit.

The cheaper labour is, the greater the profit for the employer.  The Government is creating a legal way for employers to reduce the cost of one factor of production.

The PATH program simply offers employers a way to reduce the cost of developing their product or service, enabling them to make a greater profit.

No Employment Guarantee

The PATH program offers no guarantee of future secure employment.  It does not offer a qualification that may be determined by the worker to be a sufficient value to trade for the monetary value of their labour.

What are the impacts on the emotional health of a young worker, if they are not retained?  What are the supports in place?

Experience as a payment does not automatically equal the same value of labour. Labour is given in exchange for money, conditions and other benefits. There is no formal equivalent offered to the value of the loss of wages, such as a degree that has a beneficial use to enable the worker to sell their labour to another organisation. 

There is no solid case that this experience will be valued by the young worker so much that it will negate any negative affect the young jobseeker will experience if they are not retained.

My main area of interest is emotions in the workplace.  I would encourage other bloggers to approach the PATH program from the aspect of the emotional well-being of the intern. I strongly believe we need as many people as possible investigating this issue.

Work. Struggle.

We are working people.
Work.
Struggle.
Even laugh about it sometimes.
None of us are winners.
We’re survivors
(Cameron Wolfe – Fighting Ruben Wolfe by Markus Zusak.)

These six lines boom, boom, boomed like a heart beating in the middle of page 25.

Marus Zusak has captured the essence of so many Australians. This is who we are.

The struggle of the working class in this country is a dire story. Sure, we have a history of hard fought victories. But as long as free marketeers live and breathe on the parliament floor, this struggle is endless.

Past struggle lives like a dormant beast within every, single worker.

The scars that punctured the body and mind, the endless nights staring at jail cell walls and the lives lost, of those before us, embodies the beast which stirs within the heart of every worker.

The Beast of Past Struggle

When Liberals and Conservatives think they can take away agency of the jobless. When they insist upon total control of their spending with a plastic card. The beast of past struggle stirs.

When they deny us and our children the opportunity of a skilled education, to learn a trade or a profession. The beast of past struggle stirs.

When they make a rule that says the weekends are only important to people who can afford to not work on the weekend. the beast of past struggle stirs.

And when they think they have the right to tell young people who are desperate for work that their labour has no value. The beast of past struggle stirs.

When the beast of past struggle stirs in many of us, the beast of past struggle ROARS!

In a civilised society, labour is purchased for it’s determined worth, not stolen through the rule of badly designed laws.

Lies and Lies from the Greens. It is Time Labor Fought Back

The Greens are like that sibling who tells Mum and Dad the half-truth to get you into trouble. Then they sit back and gloat at your punishment. Three days and three lies from the Greens, plastered all over social media. It’s time Labor started fighting back.

I am Sooooo Over This!

I am not sure about other Labor supporters, but I am sick and tired of opening social media and seeing wall to wall posts of Greens claims that Labor has done something so horrible.  Only to check out Hansard to see what really happened and the Green’s lies are far from the truth. Blatant and bold lies. Is integrity even a thing anymore?

Admins responsible for pages and groups, share these half truths with a carelessness that beggars belief.  It takes five minutes to check Hansard, maybe ten if you don’t know where to look. (Hint: Big rectangle window on the APH home page, Watch, Read and Listen).

I understand many people pride themselves on sharing political information online.  I am the same. However, unless we want to spiral into the dumbness of believing anything that is posted like we have seen with Trump, it is really important to check facts, before posting or reposting.

Fact: The Greens are a Political Party

Basically, the Greens central theme of their lies is that Labor hates people. The other main theme is that Liberal and Labor are both the same. They claim that Labor is so elitist that they have pure contempt for the most vulnerable in society. They try their hardest to paint Labor as closet Tories. The Green’s – wearers of the almighty cape.

The Greens must have been so enamoured with Albo’s speech about how the Liberals hate the Public, they have copied it (as usual) as their stick to stir the embers of Labor hate on social media.  Because you know, aspiring to be the party who has given the nation every single progressive reform in history, can only be emulated, as Labor already wears that crown.

The assumption that the Greens are just some do-gooders out there fighting the good fight and not a political party is a nonsensical point of view. The Greens are a political party.  Although Labor and Greens agree on many things, the Greens are an opposition party to Labor and their aim is to take as many seats off Labor as possible. They see Labor’s place – that is a party that is in a position to govern; as THEIR rightful place, without the 100 odd years of hard work.

It is time Labor fought back.

Three days and three lies.  Let’s talk about them below.

Lie Number 1: Labor Supports Welfare Drug Testing

The first lie in the last few days that had Social Media dripping with wall to wall hatred for Labor, was the claim by the Greens that Labor supports drug testing for welfare recipients.

So, as we can see above, Labor had already discussed the Green’s motion with the Green’s and asked them to hold off until they had more information.  There are many reasons why Labor has done this, and only Labor Senator’s involved will know those reasons.  However, one reason could be that every other crossbencher so far supports drug testing, from what I have been able to ascertain.  This bill may be very hard to defeat.  Or they may be something in the bill (I can’t imagine what that would be) that Labor may agree with.  If Labor voted down a bill sight unseen, and they voted down something they agree with, then the Liberals could use this against Labor. To not even want to read a bill, like the Greens, is reckless. 

As Corbyn has taught us, never ever trust a Tory.

All other parties voted down this motion, not just Labor.  Notice how the Greens don’t mention that? They use half-truths (aka lies) to give the impression it is just Labor standing over there with the rotten conservatives. Why? Votes and Politics. That is why.

Labor may need to gather evidence from stakeholders to put forward a solid argument in the Senate to defeat the bill. The Senate is a house of scrutiny.  Stakeholder’s voices deserve to be heard. The Greens have disrespect for the purpose of that Chamber.

The Greens know that Labor’s position is to always, always find out all the facts, scrutinise bills and put bills through a proper process. That is what a party who is in the position to Govern does.  Knowing this is always Labor’s position on any bill, the Greens are playing a game. They are playing it well, and it is time Labor fought back.

Lie Number 2: Cashless Welfare

The second lie is the lie touted about by the Greens and also from Australia ProBono which makes the claim that,

“It is disappointing to see the Labor party and crossbench turn their back on people accessing the social safety net who will be dumped onto the card without consultation.

Clearly, we can see from the official Labor response in the Senate above, that Labor is in the middle of consulting with many communities.  We can see a clear statement that Labor opposes a nationwide roll out. Once again, Ayes 9 (Greens) Noes 41 (Everyone else) but the Greens only target Labor.

Whilst I personally vehemently disagree with any use of cashless welfare, Labor’s traditional approach is to consult with communities.

I personally do not agree that enough consultation was done with Ceduna. Clearly, there is a very large backlash from the people in that community, which Labor should listen to.

We do not need cashless welfare in ANY form in Australia.  What we need is a welfare review led by Professor John Falzon, to identify solutions that give people respect and dignity.

However, this is yet another tactic by the Greens to leave the impression that Labor supports cashless welfare as a whole and a nationwide rollout which is not the truth.

The Greens use this tactic believing that people will vote for them if they paint Labor in a bad light.  In Queensland where Keith Pitt is trying to roll out Cashless Welfare in Hinkler (Bundaberg area), the Greens will only convince voters to vote for One Nation.  What do the Green’s care? It was their voting of the Senate reforms that has lumped us with One Nation in the first place. As long as Labor are the bad guys, right?

Lie Number 3: Tampon Tax

The third lie in as many days is the lie that Labor supports a tax on sanitary products for women.  The overdramatic headline from the Greens really goes to the heart of the vehemency and trickery to do their best to try to paint Labor and Liberals as exactly the same.

What Labor’s central argument is here, is that whilst they support the removal of tax on Sanitary products, Labor’s argument here is that they also do not agree with ripping GST from states without another measure to replace that GST. That is why Labor is working on proposals that are palatable to other states to support so that we can ACTUALLY see tax removed from sanitary products, and not at the expense of a loss of revenue to the states.  A loss of revenue from the states will only hurt vulnerable women in other ways.

In addition, this was just shoved into a debate about a bill that imposes GST on cheap items ordered online from overseas.  This is not a bill about removing GST from sanitary items for women. The Greens know online readers will believe that this was a debate about a bill to remove the GST on sanitary items.  The Greens know this, and they use this ploy very well.

I get so frustrated with the Green’s painting their lack of risk management as some faux empathy for vulnerable people.

GST is a matter for the states to agree on, and the Greens know this.  This is just another political ploy to paint Labor and Liberals as the same. The catch cry of One Nation. Why go to all this effort when James Ashby probably has templates they can use? You never know, he might even give them to them ‘at cost’.

Labor Needs to Fight Back

I am critical of Labor’s inability to use social media well and the Greens clearly are winning the social media political Olympics. Over-dramatic headlines and posts by the Greens and their supporters, steeped in lies and half-truths, gather momentum very quickly. These are followed by a wall of comments of hate from readers directed at Labor.  “Labor has lost me.” “I won’t forgive Labor for supporting this.” “I used to vote Labor, but now they are scum.” and so forth and so on.

Labor needs to use social media well and knock these lies from the Greens on the head very quickly, as they happen.  The damage is real.

If Labor is just sitting in the Senate, self-satisfied that they have done the right thing, using pragmatism and risk management and looking at the impact on all people, or by taking the time to collect evidence and consult with stakeholders, they need to really pop their head out once in a while.

The myth that social media does not have an impact on voting behaviour, is a very ignorant view to take. The Greens love Labor bashing and they are using social media to do this very well.

Labor needs to fight fire with fire and learn to use social media tools to make sure that the truth is heard to counter Greens lie after Greens lie.

Just like that unjust punishment from Mum, when siblings tell a half-truth to get you into trouble, the Greens are gloating whilst making damn sure that voters punish Labor just the same.

The Racist Agenda Was Made to Destroy The Working Class

The fear of ‘the others’ permeates everything lately. Social media, politicians, commentators and the mainstream media are enabling a culture of stigma and ‘othering’. Fear of people we don’t understand shuffles beneath the surface of individual thought.  These fears have a parasitic grip on beliefs, ideas and thought. It channels thought, word and deed through the prism of fear. This fear is a man-made construct, developed by conservatives to destroy the working class.  It can be framed as the pre-agenda of the real agenda. The real agenda for the conservatives is as always – to destroy the working class. The pre-agenda is to establish a base, through fear of others, to help them get there.

Racism, Fear and Work Choices

This pre-agenda was first tried in the 1990’s with the aim to support the real agenda. That was to see more people embrace Howard’s Work Choices. In the 1990’s the stigma and fear of Indigenous people and Asian people was developed with a particular aim. That is fear would grip people. They would turn to those speaking out loudest against Indigenous people and Asian people. This would then, see people turn to the Government’s ‘paternalist-guiding hand’ agenda. In other words, stand with the Government to destroy the unions and destroy the working class. Even better if you were working class yourself and you left the union.

It was not going according to plan. To save some face, Howard had to terminate his association with the person he mentored, developed and gave a platform to, to be the voice of the pre-agenda. The agenda of racism. A person so ‘brave’ her voice shook when she spoke. A person dressed as an everyday Australian suburban woman. The mother at school, the tuckshop lady, the shop owner, the corner store worker. The person we don’t really know but feel comfortable ‘having a chat to.’ This person was Pauline Hanson. Pauline Hanson was to be the very voice to create a culture of fear, stigma and racism. This fear was to be so great that people’s attention would divert away from the atrocity of Work Choices. So blinded by fear of others, they would support it. 

Work Choices Enabled

As history has shown us, this backfired. It was the wrong time and the wrong targets of racism for longevity. It did work in part. A conservative Government was in for four terms and the biggest defining piece of anti-worker legislation was enabled.

However, the uptake was not strong enough for people to be blinded to the plight of the worker and the destructive anti-worker policies put forward by the Howard Government.The Rights at Work movement was the light of the working class fighting against the darkness of Work Choices. Good trumped Evil and in 2007 the working class won. We are seeing no such movement today. No such swell of deep angst organising to take up the cause. The ‘fear of other’s’ is blinding people to the real agenda. There appears to be no lessons learnt from the Work Choices era.

The Agenda of Fear Enables Attacks on the Working Class

Prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, racism, hatred and xenophobia suck the life from rational decision-making like an insidious contagious disease.  Once it has obtained its grip, this fear underpins and drives people to agree and believe in political ideology and political direction and policies, they would normally not have agreed with or believed in. The fear that we must stay safe from ‘the others’ now underpins agreement. Agreement to attack the worker and demonise and denigrating the poor. Those who choose to do so defend this stance vehemently. They see this as the just thing to do. It does not matter what the consequences are.

The Howard Government, along with the Abbott-Turnbull-(?) Government underpins their policy decisions with the idea that the working class do not know what is good for the country. That is, to allow the free market to flourish, by allowing the owners of the capital to tell the owners of the labour what they will be paid, how they will work and the conditions they will work in. Not to stand in they way of big business.

This is a Disturbing Reality

The fear of others is so great that some of the people who fought against this in the 1990’s are not remotely interested in what is happening to the working class, the jobless and the poor. They are too busy battling the ghosts the agenda of fear has conjured. The conservatives appear to have chosen the right time and the right targets of racism and stigma.

Muslims, in the minds of the fearful, are far more frightening than Indigenous people or Asians. In the 90’s these targets of victimisation were “stealing our social security money, stealing our jobs and stealing our land.”  Today, in a nutshell, the belief among the fearful is that Muslims will take over the world and force us to become ISIS.”  

Therefore, they must seek solace in ‘the brave’ – find their ‘protector.’  When Pauline Hanson’s voice shakes today it sounds much more brave to fearful ears, as the fear is much more magnified today with Muslims as the target. Hanson is indeed much more appealing as a consoling leader, as she speaks the loudest and the media makes her the centre of attention, which reinforces her words as ‘normal and justified.’  This is a disturbing reality towards the success of the conservative agenda of destroying the working class.

Too Busy Battling Ghosts

Today in 2017, the fear of others is so great that some of the people who fought against Work Choices in the 1990’s are not remotely interested in what is happening to the working class, the jobless and the poor. They are too busy battling the ghosts the agenda of fear has conjured. The fear of things that may never, ever happen and are not happening underpins their decisions to support anti-worker, anti-welfare and anti-community policies. They will even argue that these things are not happening, although the nightly news will tell the stories of what has been passed in parliament and although they can watch both houses live. It is a case of blanket denial, because ‘Pauline stands up for us Aussies against those Muzzie Bastards – Have you even read the Koran?‘  

They will scream, yell, insult and rant at those who are awake to the fact that these policies are being passed and are deeply concerned about their implications, and call them liars or ‘too sensitive’.  They are practised at standing firm with everyone who agrees with them and calling it ‘the right’ and those who they shun and don’t agree with them ‘the left.’

For Hanson voters, Attacking Workers Is Pro-Worker

Hanson advocates appear to have a twisted belief that Hanson, a conservative, Christian, nationalist, ex-member of the Liberal party, who shows immense support for the Liberal Party and who wants to abolish all penalty rates, abolish holiday leave loading and voted for the ABCC, somehow is ‘for the worker.’ This would indeed make Hanson ‘left’ on the political spectrum. 

Yes, the pro-working class voter of yesteryear, now see being angry at the passing of legislation that will increase worker deaths, where a worker has no right to silence, that removes mandatory employment of apprentices, that sees income ripped from low paid workers and harsh and unjust punitive measures on the jobless, as weak and ‘not concerned enough about ‘the others’ (who will destroy our freedoms). Workers rights have become secondary to many people who are actually good working class people, simply blinded by unfounded fear. That is a disturbing reality.

Right Time. Right Targets

This time, the conservatives appear to have chosen the right time and the right targets of racism and stigma. This is also a disturbing reality.

With so much talk about Australian values lately; attacking the worker and denigrating the poor were conservative agendas that people would fight tooth and nail against. It was against our values. They would rise up and join the struggle to ward off this narrative from becoming the norm.

The narrative of the pre-agenda is, however, strong and it has born an entirely new class of voters. Voters who are now welcoming these baseless attacks on the working class and the poor as ‘the new acceptable norm’.  Some choose to ignore the implications, such as anti-worker policy passing both houses. Others see it as a ‘sacrifice’ for the greater good, of staying safe and not letting ‘the others’ destroy us, take over our country, our jobs and our freedoms. 

Some of these people are true conservatives. Some are the non-union working class, some are union working class and some are jobless and/or are living below the poverty line. The majority of people within the ‘right wing agenda-Hansonite groupings’ supporting this ‘pre-agenda’ are the very people conservative politics attacks.

The Mini Resistance

The desire to keep fear and prejudice strong within individuals has now formed into a collective, via contagion and has formed into a mini-resistance.  It is suffocating the empathy and understanding of the plight of the worker, the jobless and the poor. There are those who were in the trenches with the working class in the 1990s, who are now fighting against the worker, shoulder to shoulder, embracing the enemy of the working class.

There are those who fight by shouting their prejudices and wearing them on their sleeve; angrily scream at anyone who dares to ‘not see the real truth.’ Their truth.

Then there are those who consciously or unconsciously deny their prejudices. They don’t want to say these things out loud. They just want to think them. Pauline Hanson, other conservative politicians, conservative commentators and the media will say these things for them. (She speaks for me). This gives them a new confidence to speak these prejudices out loud for the first time. To speak them gives a sense of reinforcement and belonging. For some, the feeling is almost euphoric. A relief beyond comprehension. They feel they are finally part of a collective. A resistance and that they ‘belong.’

This sense of belonging brings a sense of security and protection. A belief that if the ‘protectors’ – the one’s who are loudest attacking ‘the others’ will keep us safe from harm. However, it is through this false sense of reality, that real harm is being ignored and disbelieved. For some who have made the complete transformation to anti-working class – they embrace it.

The Racist Agenda. A Man Made Construct to Destroy the Working Class

What other anti-worker, anti-welfare policies will dedicated ‘Hansonites’ ignore, accept, condone and defend, all in the name of staying true and remaining loyal to the resistance that fights against minorities and speaks loudly to denigrate ‘the others?’

The racist agenda is a man-made construct developed as a pre-agenda to assist the conservative Government to destroy the working class. In 1996, “Howard’s Battlers” of the working class enabled the biggest onslaught on the working class we have ever seen. In 2017, “Pauline’s Battlers” are on the rise.

People must stop allowing the unrealistic fear of others to underpin and guide their beliefs, opinions, and decisions and take notice of the attacks on the working class. They must make a conscious choice. Support the workers and the jobless. Otherwise, support the Christian-Conservative Nationalist anti-worker agenda of Hanson and the rest of the right-wing parties. Supporting Hanson, the Liberals, The Bernardis, the Xenophons and Hinch, gives zero support to the working class.

Otherwise, this time, the conservatives may win and sustain longevity and the attacks on the working class may completely destroy everything unionists and the working class have fought for, were jailed for and died for.

Stuff the Silent Majority. It is Your Time to Be Heard

The Silent Majority demand to be heard. What about your rights to be heard? Are you prepared to do nothing? Will you be heard when the ‘silent majority’ finally get their way? Or are you prepared to sit there and let the media and minor parties tell you that you do not matter anymore?

Who Are The Silent Majority

Who are the silent majority? No one really knows. They don’t protest or fight for rights. Nor do they write to newspapers or politicians to raise issues. They haven’t really given a stuff about anything, until now. Until Pauline Hanson ‘gave them a voice.’ Or so the media tells them she has.

They are the angry silent people who have never bothered with politics. While others have been out in the streets protesting, the silent majority have done nothing.

For years the silent majority have looked at politicians on television or on Facebook and have made their judgements. Not on their policies, but on what they look like.

The media has placed them front and centre and now it is only their opinion that matters. They truly believe an angry protest vote will magically make the world a perfect place.

This is Bothering Me

This phenomenon has really bothered me. Particularly because of Trump and the rise of Hanson.  I feel the world is teetering on the edge.  I feel the hard fought gains with so many things we take for granted and enjoy, like proper health care, free education and rights at work and decent wages, will be torn to shreds in an instant.

It is a terrifying feeling and I do not believe I am the only one who feels this way.

I have an impending doom of the return of work choices – where we had NO RIGHTS AT WORK. 

How can anyone forget that? I will never, ever forget.

This is not a game. Politics is not a game. It really affects people’s lives.

I have taken the time to be less political and more approachable. I’ve asked more questions, listened and not said a word. Sometimes I have been a straight out eavesdropper and listened in.  (sorry Mum! – My mum did not like eavesdroppers).

Mostly, I have listened.  I have listened in pubs, the checkout, at social gatherings and I have waded through commentary on newspaper forums and Facebook posts, day after day.

Some Random Opinions

I often hear or read things about politicians such as:

“Ooh she looks like a bitch, I don’t like her.” (about Catherine King)

“Listen to this dickhead (physically mocking), who is this clown?’ (about Christopher Pyne)

“Jesus…Shorten is nothing but forehead, must be a brain in there somewhere hahahaha!” (about Bill Shorten)

“Blah, Blah, Blah, come and work as hard as me and then you can have an opinion, mate!” (about Barnaby Joyce)

“I like her. She seems nice.” (about Julie Bishop)

“Yeah, Yeah” (dismissive) (about Malcolm Turnbull)

“Feed that man a F ###### Pie” (about George Christensen)

“When Turnbull’s gone, don’t put Abbott back in, put him in” (about Chris Bowen – LABOR!!!!)

and of course we have:

“YEAAAHHHH Pauline. Pauline for PM” (cue five grown men insanely grinning and head nodding) (about Pauline Hanson)

They know who Pauline is because she is the star of breakfast news television and the media shoves her face in our face every five minutes and never asks her hard questions.

This may be a shock to some of the very politically engaged voters reading this (and obviously Mr. Turnbull); but some do not even know who the Prime Minister is.

Many have absolutely no idea who Barnaby Joyce, is. Many do not know which politician belongs with which party (see Chris Bowen example above).

What Is Going On?

Because some people know I am politically engaged, I will often be approached to explain an issue, when they hear or see something.

An example is:

Them: So Shorten….is he Labor or Liberal?

Me: Labor

Them: So the other ones then….the Liberals (Me: Yeh) what are they doing to the dole?

Me: They don’t want people under 25 to have any dole for four weeks – it was six months, then six weeks, now four weeks. People will starve! We must stop this!

Them: Well Pauline will not allow that then.

Me: Ahhh yes, she will. She supports it

Them: Yeh, so she will get in and it won’t happen.

Me: No….she supports Government for no payment. She wants them to starve for a month too.

Them: No, that won’t be right.

Me:  Ahh yes, it is. She votes with the bastard Liberals on almost everything. She supports it.

Them: I don’t believe that. You must have it wrong.

Me: No. She is an ex-Liberal and supports Turnbull. Hanson said she supports it.

Them: Well I say you are wrong. We will see who is right when she wins.

Me: 

This is the point where I physically want to smash my head through a wall. If anyone has any answers, any advice to combat this. Please, please put your suggestions below.

The Movement Deciding Our Future

Yet, this silent majority apparently know so much about the political decisions and how these decisions affect their lives. Their abundance of political knowledge has made them so angry about not being heard.

Apparently, these are the people we all must listen to, but they refuse to listen to anyone else. The silent majority will decide our future.

Well stuff that!

When the silent majority vote for Hanson, will you be happy to be ignored? A blind anger the media has told them they have when they have never cared about politics before? People who judge politicians on their hair style? Are you better than this?

Let’s have a look at just four things a Hanson / Liberal Duopoly will bring.

The Hanson / Liberal Duopoly

Out of Work? Kids out of Work?

You will not be heard if you are out of work and under 25. You are a citizen who does not matter. Four weeks with no income. No money for food, rent, phone, basic hygiene needs. Nothing.  Then you will receive less money than now. Only $433 per fortnight.  If you are a parent of someone under 25. You will support them, out of your own pocket. Hanson and Turnbull are paid way, way more than you. They do not care.  If the silent majority decides. You do not have a say.

Need a Job? Kids need a job? 

Hanson supported the Liberal’s ABCC, so if you are an apprentice or a mature aged worker, your voice will not be heard if you want a job in the construction industry. The ABCC discourages apprenticeships and mature aged workers. You are a citizen who does not matter. Worker deaths increased under the last ABCC.This could be your loved one or friend. Hanson and Turnbull do not care. If the silent majority decides. You do not have a say.

Storms, Cyclones, sweltering heat or freezing cold? 

The Hanson / Liberal duopoly don’t want to listen to you on this one. You are a citizen that does not matter. You will not be heard. Hanson supports the West Australian Liberal Government’s plan to privatise electricity assets. There is no guarantee of service with a private provider. Cost of electricity will sky rocket.  If you are a low income family or a pensioner, your voice will not be heard. Your worries about affording electricity or ensuring connection in times of crisis will be dismissed.  If the silent majority decides. You do not have a say.

Money for the Kids? 

If you are a low income earning family and rely on family payment to make ends meet; your voice will no longer be heard. You do not matter. Hanson supports the current cuts to family payment. Pauline Hanson said of welfare, ‘I see a big waste of money and we actually have to rein it back in’.  This means your kids will have less. So will you. Hanson does not have a family support agenda. She does not care. If the silent majority decides, you do not have a say and neither do your kids.

Stuff the Silent Majority

Because the silent majority are worried about a few women wearing a burqa, are these the acceptable trade offs?

If you vote for Hanson because of this concern, on the other hand you will vote for jobless young people starving for a whole month, privatised electricity, unsafe workplaces, less apprentices and mature aged workers and less money for kids and that is only the beginning.

If you are one of the people who post the memes about helping homeless first before refugees. Well here is your chance. Put Liberals and One Nation last and help the homeless. Welfare cuts create more homelessness. Not less. That is how your vote can make a difference. You can be heard!

Read up. Listen up. Speak up on the issues that matter to you. About jobs, welfare, families, health and education. Find out exactly what Hanson and the Liberals support and do not stop asking or reading until you find out the truth. Log onto www.aph.gov.au and have a look around. If you don’t know what something means, ask a friend who does or join a facebook political group and ask.

Become aware of what matters. For example, Muslims with multiple wives is a diversion. It does not affect you. It does not affect your family home or your kids. Hanson’s vote to cut your family payment does.

Put Liberals and One Nation Last

Take particular note that when a party preferences another party – that means their values and what they believe in are very similar. Pauline Hanson and the Liberals are preferencing each other in the Western Australian election and Turnbull will not rule it out.  They are now ‘in bed together’ whispering political promises in the dark. A duopoly. Joined at the hip.

The Hanson Party who says they are better than the majors, has now joined forces with a major party. Think about that for a second. She has sold the ‘silent majority’ out.

That means, Hanson prefers the Liberals with all their harsh cuts to welfare and the fight to keep overseas 457 visas workers in abundance and us out of jobs over Labor and the Greens who oppose both of these things. I think this really paints her as a fraud and a liar – don’t  you?

It is YOUR time to be heard. Do not let the silent majority voting in blind rage speak for you. Do not let Hanson speak for you. Also do not let the media speak for you. It is YOUR time to be heard.

Join a Left Wing Party. Join Get Up! Put the Liberals and One Nation last!

Is the “Defence Land Grab” Turnbull’s “Carbon Tax Lie?”

In 2010, Tony Abbott, supported by the media in epic proportions, touted Gillard’s infamous “Carbon Tax Lie” as THE lie that cost Abbott the Prime Ministership. Moving forward to 2017, an even bigger lie has been revealed. This just may be THE lie which allowed Turnbull to hang on by the skin of his teeth to power.  This lie is the Turnbull Government remained silent on the compulsory acquisition of farming land in Central Queensland for supplying land to the Singaporean Army for defence training.

Lust for Power and Political Lies

When the lust for political power is such that it sees citizens denied their rights, or it denies voters to make an informed vote, it is up to all of us to stand up against that.

Prior to the election in May 2016, the LNP MP for Capricornia, Michelle Landry announced that the Turnbull Government was investing in defence at Shoalwater Bay.  Landry was pleased to announce that this would pump millions into the local economy and it was a positive for small business.

In all instances, Michelle Landry framed the Shoalwater Bay investment in terms of an upgrade, implicitly insinuating that the upgrade was to existing facilities. Landry omitted the cold hard facts that this also included, or had even the potential to include compulsory acquisition of nearby farming land, owned by local farmers for generations (see maps in link above).

In addition, Bill Byrne, QLD Labor Minister for Agriculture has also accused Defence Minister Marise Payne of misleading the Senate.

QLD Labor Minister Byrne said that:

“There is no doubt in my mind that vital information was withheld to gain electoral advantage, and I am raising the possibility that Minister Payne… misled the senate estimates hearing,”

How Long Have They Known?

On 18th March, 2016, Defence Minister Payne issued a press release which detailed the enhanced development of training operations between Singapore and Australia.

Therefore, in March 2016, the Defence Minister, Minister for Trade and Investment, Special Envoy for Trade and the Foreign Minister knew that an increase of Singaporean Troops was earmarked or military training facilities. The question is:

Did not one of these Ministers have any awareness that this increase would indeed require an expansion to the military training areas?

Was this promise made without even developing an understanding of how it might impact on people living in the region or the impact on our economy?

Has the Member for Capricornia, shown absolutely no interest in asking her own Party about any perceived negative impacts on the constituency she is supposed to represent? 

Do You Even Budget?

The Federal Budget papers do not detail any expenses for upgrading the Military Operations in Shoalwater Bay.

However, in capital expenses, the Government does commit to $29.9 billion over 10 years from 2016‑17 to 2025‑26 to support initiatives in the Defence White paper which includes:

A number of ADF training areas in northern Australia will receive upgrades by 2020, including Shoalwater Bay (Queensland)

Once again, Shoalwater Bay and Townsville are only discussed as upgrades and not as an expansion.

In October, Senator Payne took a question from Senator McDonald regarding the memorandum of understanding with Singapore. Senator Payne detailed that the Singaporean Army will invest “around $2.25 billion in upgrades to Australian training areas while up to 14,000 Singaporean troops will join our own for training for up to 18 weeks per year in Australia.”

However, in Senator Payne’s response in the Senate, she details that this inclusion in the Defence White Paper includes increasing international defence engagement. The CSP will particularly enhance training area access and joint development of facilities.

Shoalwater Bay Expansion

The expansion was announced in the Senator on 8th November. Senator Payne advised the house that she would make sure that ADF would conduct extensive engagement and consultation. This has not occurred and Farmers were advised via a letter of the compulsory acquisition of Land, a shock to many. The Coalition Government decided upon compulsory acquisition of land without consulting Farmers. 

The strategic partnership is detailed as developed in May, the White Paper states upgrades as an aim. However, in May, 2016, the Government did not detail any expenses for an expansion, just an ‘upgrade.’ The Government knew the increase in Singaporean Personnel and the aims of the strategic plan, at least in May. Why did they not question the logistics of this increase? QLD Minister Bill Byrne goes into much more depth here.

Lies or Incompetence?

The Government either hid the information regarding the compulsory acquisition of farming land from voters prior to the election, or they were incompetent in their planning with the Singaporean Army in the land area that was required to achieve the aims of the strategic plan.

If the Government was evasive and did not disclose in May that this land was a necessity to acquire by force of compulsory acquisition, then the Government is also incompetent by excluding the loss of revenue from Beef Producers in the region in the Agriculture revenue within the Budget. This will rip approximately 100,000 head of cattle from our local producers and severely impact on the two meat works in Rockhampton.  Rockhampton is the Beef Capital of Australia. This Defence threat to farmer’s land will hand this title to Casino in NSW.

The Defence Land Grab Lie

To put the omission of the compulsory acquisition of farming land into perspective of the infamous “Carbon Tax Lie” is that the Coalition rests on just 76 seats. Just enough to form Government. The Carbon Tax Lie was touted by the Coalition and by the media as the lie that denied Abbott the Prime Ministership.

In Queensland the Coalition won 21 seats. There are quite a number of seats in QLD that the coalition holds onto with very slim margins. Michelle Landry’s seat of Capricornia scraped through with only 1111 votes, with the majority of Liberal votes coming from the rural areas via postal votes. The nearby seat of Flynn, saw the local Labor candidate, Zac Beers, almost decimated O’Dowd’s comfortable seat, leaving O’Dowd with a swing against him of -8.96. Capricornia was one of the deciding seats in the election. Flynn now sits on a margin of 2.08, 1,814 votes.

These are just some examples of regional seats in Queensland, where the Liberal National Coalition and indeed the local LNP MPs fighting to keep their seats would know full well that attacks on our farming community and a farmers land grab would have banished at least Landry and O’Dowd into oblivion.

In Regional Queensland regardless of whether we live in town, or out on a property, or what our traditional political beliefs are, everyone is united in standing up for the farmers. No doubt, many Australians feel the way regional Queenslanders do and would have voted accordingly.

Announcements Before the Election

As detailed above in March, the Defence Minister met with Singapore to discuss mutual aims for Defence, including access and development of training facilities. From May, the Coalition were spruiking their deal with the Singaporean Army, which would bring 14,000 Singaporeans to the region for training.  The ADF website details that:

“Identifying a remote parcel of land for Singapore Armed Forces training was considered during development of the agreement, but was dismissed due to the limited benefit for the Australian Defence Force.”

Therefore, in May, the Coalition knew full well that an expansion was required. In no instance, did Michelle Landry or Marise Payne identify the expansion and what land was to be (initially) used. They simply implicitly stated that they were ‘upgrading existing facilities’ to house the increase of Singaporeans.

The revelation that the Liberal National Government had no contingency plan if this ‘parcel of land’ detailed above fell over and that would mean forced acquisition of farming land, speaks to the either a cover up and deceit to voters or blatant incompetence.

How the LNP Duped Voters – Psychological Projection

Psychological projection is a tried and true campaign style of the LNP, particularly in Queensland. Psychological projection is when someone takes their undesirable feelings or beliefs and projects them onto others. This takes the focus off them and project it onto others, with the intent to have others believe it is the target who has the undesirable feelings or belief and not them.

For example, if the Liberals stated the opposition would ‘harm families’ but knew it was their party and not the opposition, that had a plan to abolish funding that would harm families. This is psychological  projection. This technique is also used by Republicans in America.

Setting up for the Campaign

On the 4th May, the Member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry posed a question to the Agriculture Minister, Barnaby Joyce. This question was put forward to demonstrate how much the LNP invest in helping farmers. This is such a contradiction in terms to the real truth that an expansion would heavily impact on Beef production and supply for the Capricornia region. Landry had already established a platform that LNP supports farmers and Labor does not prior to the election. That smells very much like a precursor for the campaign strategy below.

At the Norman Road booth in Capricornia, where I handed out HTV cards, Landry’s fly-in campaigners from down south (because her local volunteers do not appear to be in abundance) were screaming:

“Labor Hates Farmers!!!” 

They were also telling voters not to vote for the Katter Party or Glenn Lazurus as “they are funded by the dirty filthy unions.”  The absolute hatred for the worker by the LNP in Capricornia also runs deep.

If this was the campaign style at one booth, then it would stand to reason that this was the campaign strategy at many booths.

The truth in this, is that whilst Landry’s mob were screaming “Labor Hates Farmers!!” it was indeed Landry’s mob who were getting set to do the dirty on farmers in the Capricornia region.

Labor Supports Farmers

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, QLD Minister Bill Byrne, QLD MPs Jim Pearce and Brittany Lauga and Federal Senator Murray Watt, have organised forums and rallies to give these Farmers a voice.  Brittany Lauga also organised counselling services for local farmers as, readers would appreciate the impact on their emotional health with this decision is heartbreaking and as Lauga said, quite urgent.

Please see the video below from the Rally, including a brilliant speech from local Farmer, Pip Rea.

Never Underestimate the Vote in QLD

We have already seen what happens in QLD when the Government defies the wishes of the electorate.  In 2012, QLD Labor were banished to seven seats, for selling QLD Rail. In 2015, the LNP were thrown out of office after one term, with Labor taking 37 seats from the opposition for a total of 44 seats. Our assets are not for sale. Not now. Now ever.

Similar anger would have been felt from Queenslanders, on July 2, if they knew about the compulsory acquisition of farming land. This would have most certainly resulted in a very different parliament than we have today.

What You Can Do

Yesterday, the Federal Government said they would look at ‘alternatives’ due to the outcry from local farmers. However, local farmers are not satisfied, with some suggesting this is just to take the heat off of the first week in Parliament.

Bill Shorten has written to the Prime Minister personally and The QLD Premier has requested COAG be held in Rockhampton.

“IF he has any guts he will come here and face you.”
Annastacia Palaszczuk, QLD Premier, commenting on the Prime Minister “The Rally” Rockhampton 1st February, 2017.

However, that is not a victory.  A victory is no forced compulsory acquisition of farming land.  That is the outcome local farmers want.

To support Farmers you can like and encourage friends to like the Marlborough Defence Land Grab Facebook Page

Sign and share the Stop the Australian Farm Land being Blown Up Petition

Write to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce, Defence Minister Marise Payne and your local member and insist upon no forced compulsory acquisition of farming land for Defence Training to accommodate the Singaporean Army

Listen and Share Ray Hadley’s scathing interview with Barnaby Joyce linked below:

Renting our Land to the Singaporeans

Barnaby: If we say we will never forcibly acquire anything, we will never build another road, we will never build another dam…..

Hadley: Yeh but they are not giving it to the Singaporeans…….

Hadley: Barnaby, Barnaby, the one thing we never get involved in is BS…..

One thing Hadley is right about – this entire thing is B.S. 

 

The Sentient Adult

From F. Scott-Fitzgerald: ‘The Crack-up’

“This is what I think now: that the natural state of the sentient adult is a qualified unhappiness. I think also that in an adult the desire to be finer in grain that you are, “a constant striving” (as those people say who gain their bread by saying it) only adds to this unhappiness in the end — that end that comes to our youth and hope.”

It doesn’t do to become too cynical at a young age, THAT is best left those who reach the “winter” of one’s life and can “cheerfully” find justification for cynicism alongside their other trophies of other disappointments in life. It is one of the privileges of living a long life where one can, with experience (no matter how twisted that experience is!) talk-up justification without a youngsters interruption for one’s opinion….it’s called “booorinnng!”

Sneering Cynicism: Are you guilty?

I am hearing, especially in these rural areas where I live, an ironic twist of cynicism and naivety from the same mouths at the same time.  For example, like in these cases of parliamentary privileges rorting by certain ministers.

Many in these rural areas, being “welded-on” LNP. Supporters, curled their lips in sneering cynicism when a Labor minister stepped down from his post for a $1600.

Bill-pay done for him by a company..mumbles of “It’s what you’d expect” spat in disgust from those parched conservative lips.

Even one of “their own”, the Speaker of the House in the Gillard years; Mr. Slipper, was hounded from his position in disgrace for a cab-charge of; circa $900. Dollars!

But THEN, when conservative  ministers (that’s plural !) are caught red-handed with their pilfering arms plunged elbow-deep into the proverbial “ministerial entitlements” cookie-jar, there is this eye blinking, ashen-faced disbelief that “one of their own” could do such a thing, even when one of their own is a fervent follower of that philosophy that believes in self-enrichment for the greater public  good.

You have to wonder what the conservative public expects from the people they voted for…: Mother Theresa in a banker’s suit?

I would offer a bigger fish to fry.

The underpinning foundations of political personality

In my trade of building, one learns from bitter experience (hopefully from others!) that certain types of soil can only support certain types of buildings without an injection of significant amounts of money!

For instance, the extremes of expansion and contraction of “Bay of Biscay” soils of the Adelaide plains made for the invention and development of “brick-veneer” construction after those earlier houses of solid-brick developed cracks in the walls you could drive a Mack Truck through!

One lives and learns..the same could be said (metaphorically) for people; only a certain quality of judgement can be expected or “built on” of a certain type of personality.

Which brings us straight to politics!

Cynicism: Creating an unfair imbalance

This cynicism about the intentions of politicians from BOTH sides of the House, creates an unfair imbalance between two opposing philosophies. The Conservative philosophy could, in fair comment, be considered both hypocritical and cynical in its twisted ideology of providing through Bills and Legislation passed through the House when it has power, of providing largesse and speculative opportunity for the Capitalist ideal and then laying claim to being the best friend to those in need of community support for the social welfare demographic…a contradiction in terms of intention and action, surely?

To sneer cynically at the attempts by Labor when in power to swing the public purse from Right to Left principles of governance, against extreme prejudice of conservative media broadsides that concentrate their fire to “expose” and to “ridicule” and to “demoralise” those attempts by the Labor party to bring about social equality by incremental shifts (so as not to “scare the horses” of public opinion), has to be in itself a most disgusting exercise of political cynicism bordering on sedition.

In some cases this is outright sabotage of vital communications infrastructure that benefits a foreign Media baron, and could be classed as outright treason against the people AND the State.

Then to use the Parliament to undo vital programs that give real benefit to the majority of citizens both young and aged has to be the lowest act of cynicism by the conservative parties.

Your sentient adult should stop and think

So when I hear those snorts of: “They’re both (parties) as bad as each other.” I have to wince in despair, because there has to be a time when the “sentient adult” in all of us has to stop for a moment..think about it a moment..and then realise that there IS a vast difference in both the political goals, the background lives and the policy aspirations to benefit whom and how many citizens of this nation between the two parties.  It is clearly defined by the scale of outrage against the amounts of rorting and the number of failed and dismissed ministers and members of the LNP as against Labor in these accusations..

Let’s get THAT straight.

There is a VAST difference between the arrogance of expected entitlements, the length and scale of rorting and the lenience of punishment against the scale of the crime that marks the Conservative Parties as the one most deserving of the public’s cynical “curl of lip”.

This article was written by Jaycee and originally Published on Freef’all852

The Red Window Blog – 2016 in Review

“If you jail a man for striking, it’s a rich man’s country yet.” These words had the biggest impact on me in 2016.  These simple words cut through the distrustful MSM, the spineless rhetoric of Prime Minister Turnbull, Trumpism, Hansonism and me-too-ism. They silenced the noise, propaganda, discombobulation and the head spinning mind blowing ‘post-truth’ lies.

As I fought my way through the narratives or dishonesty, distrust, jingoism, cronyism, nepotism, elitism and divisiveness in our fractured society; these few words made it all clear. They were truly “my light on the hill.”

Regardless of what politicians throw at us. Regardless of how the media want to spin politics to play their own game. Regardless of the diversionary tactics of racism, nationalism and sectarianism. Regardless of how the public are closing their eyes and ears to facts and rejecting the reasonable, sensible debate of ideas. What will always remain is the same struggle that has always been. The words in my opening paragraph define this.

The struggle between the capitalist class and the working class. The struggle to maintain the rights of the worker and to protect those who are not engaged in work, regardless of the reason. This struggle underpins every single political thought, word and deed.

May aim for 2017, through this blog, is to keep this focus. To cut through the noise. To bring the worker back to the table.

Before, I post the summary of my year in review; I would like to send a heartfelt thanks to everyone who has read any of my blog posts in the past year. Readers who have taken the time to read my thoughts and who have taken the time to comment, like, subscribe and share. Your support is invaluable and greatly appreciated.

Anything in the public view such as blogging, can and does have an ugly side and at times, it can attract the less than friendly commentariat, weirdos tracking me down on Facebook or email who share their vile thoughts about me more privately and the going does get tough.

In 2016, I will be honest. I struggled at times. Sometimes it was dealing with negative and very personal commentary. Sometimes it was struggling with the exasperation I constantly felt with real people being harmed and feeling so helpless all because of Government decisions. Part of the struggle was whether blogging even made a difference. I have always just written because I simply have to write. It is something that I can’t control. I’ve never stopped to think about making any difference. However, I began to struggle with the purpose or the reason of doing this publicly.  

As they say, a change is as good as a holiday. So I refocused and renamed. Polyfeministix, which has been the name of this blog since the beginning; had a restyle and a name change to “The Red Window Blog.” It is a better reflection of who I am and my writing style. I also made a decision to actively label myself a laborist rather than a leftist.

I cannot end this year, without expressing my deepest and sincerest gratitude and thanks to two incredibly selfless, kind and generous men who I am honoured to call my friends and my comrades. These two fine, fine men propped me up and gave me confidence and strength every single time I was so close to throwing away my writing and my blog.  

So Biggy and Corny, I raise my glass to both of you and send you my deepest thanks for your kindness and support and your tireless listening ears.  Your invaluable guidance and your treasured friendship. May 2017 deliver to you your hopes and dreams for you and yours.

Happy New Year from me at The Red Window Blog to all of you and I wish everyone a safe and prosperous 2017.

A recap of my articles and other political media for 2016 is listed below:  

Thanks again for reading!

Blog Posts

January, 2016

Join the Protest to Re-elect Turnbull

Power Rules, Men, Sex and Politics

February, 2016

A dirty deal to drown out our inner voice

Are we Turnbull’s unpaid focus group?

Ten things more reckless than funding Gonski

March, 2016

IWD: A most exciting time to be a woman

Marriage Equality. How Tolerant?

April, 2016

Mums & Dads – Malcolm wants YOU as a new recruit

If Malcolm was a homeless youth

May, 2016

No posts of my own. A reblog of “Should I quit writing” by Josephine Moon  – the question on my mind at the time! and a petition about the changes in the publishing industry.

June, 2016

Australian Voters – What are you afraid of?

Shorten’s Labor: Fair Go Mate!

Plebiscite. NOT a civil and respectful debate

Pauline just attacked women and I don’t like it!

Ten Kids Poorer than Malcolm

July, 2016

After plummeting into deep despair after the election and losing all faith in humanity, I zipped up my pencil-case and just read Stephen King and Dean Koontz for a whole month.

A guest blog by Redcuchulain

Why we need an Iraq war Royal Commission- Sign my petition

August, 2016

The Taxed Nots. Who are they and what should we do with them?

Will you Lean on me or are you an indi-bloody-vidual?

September, 2016

Welfare Bashing the NEETS: The new team in the sport of welfare bashing

Have the Greens just divided the Nation?

No! I don’t defend your right to say it

Turnbull – A Friendly Mushroom and a Destructive Seagull

What have you really noticed about Bill Shorten?

Cashless Welfare – Enough is Enough!

Australian Political Reporting: Explained by Movies

So… You call yourself a Leftist?

Innovative PM? No Malcolm! You’re doing it wrong!

October, 2016

Who Defines Patriotism? The Politicians or Us?

This Could Change Politics Forever

One Nation Voters – Hate the Worker. Hate the Poor

One Nation Voters – Hope. Fear. Racism.

One Nation Voters – Nationalism, Patriotism and the ABCC

WE DON’T SERVE THE GAYS HERE! Innovative Marketing solutions

Abbott & Turnbull – It’s on like Donkey Kong!

When Christensen Talks You Better Listen to Him

Politics Driven Fear and the Pain it Brings

November, 2016

Cameron Slaps Down Anti-Worker Party One Nation

Oh Do Shut Up! The Lib/Lab Duopoly is Bullshit!

A Casual Conversation about Politics in Regional QLD

Dutton, Turnbull, Hanson and Veruca Salt – How Tolerant?

Steve Price & Others Blaming “The Left”

The System isn’t Broken – We Are.

Follow Morrison’s Lead – Boot Them Out!

Women are just a Political Game for the QLD LNP.

The Poli-Stakes Cup (Warning Satire!)

December, 2016

Family Court of Australia – Men’s Experiences

The Ballad of Auspol 2016

2017 – It’s Time to be like Gough

Fishing R Us – The Best Aussie Advert Ever

and of course – The Red Window Blog – 2016 in Review.

Some Red Window Political Memes of 2016

HAPPY 2017!!!!!

The Ballad of Auspol 2016

Mr. Harbour-side Mansion, or so he’s been called, waved and smiled at those below him
Leather jacket gone, I lean to the right, I’ll do whatever you say, He told ’em
Two Thousand and Sixteen, I’ve been the selfie-Queen, everyone will recognise me
‘Cept that lady on the train, who was clearly insane, “Mr. PM” is how they baptised me.
Continue reading →

2017 – It’s Time to be like Gough

Today, 5 December, 2016 marks 44 years since Gough Whitlam broke 23 years of conservative rule. In 2016, we saw a mark in our history where so many people are screaming for change. In 2017, It’s time to be like Gough.

Continue reading →

Cameron Slaps Down Anti-Worker Party One Nation

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has agreed to sign off on the anti-worker ABCC Bill. Labor’s Senator Doug Cameron has hung up One Nation’s dirty laundry out to dry for everyone to see.

Labor’s Senator Doug Cameron fought the anti-worker parties yesterday in the senate. He pointed out One Nation’s hypocrisy as the ‘Party for the Average Australian.’ The Average Australian does not have a helicopter pilot like Ms. Hanson; they go out every day and slog their guts out for a weekly wage.

Continue reading →

Oh Do Shut Up! The Lib/Lab Duopoly is Bullshit!

To quote Crowded House “They come, they come, to build a wall between us.” Well, this wall already exists between us and it has existed for at least 125 years in Australia. This wall is the wall between the employer and the worker. The very existence of this wall explains why the so-called Lib/Lab Duopoly is Bullshit…..and I do wish that people would really just shut up about it.

Continue reading →

Steve Price & Others Blaming “The Left”

No, I did not predict this at all. I am not just talking about Trump’s win. I am talking about the vile response to “The Left” and the placement of blame on “The Left” within Australia.

Yes, “The Left” the two words pronounced by the right-wing with such venom that it gives rise to a vision that “The Left” are fetid stains on society – just parasitic bots wrapped in ribbons of shit.

Last night as I saw this video land in my news feed, I was pretty annoyed to be honest. This epitomises exactly why “The Left” (in this instance, leftist women in general), are plain exhausted and why we are responding emotionally to the result of the US election.

A Rampant Underlying Disease

Throughout the entire campaign, women from “The Left” endured a rampant rise of misogyny, sexism, an entire video demonstrating how men perpetuate the notion that men can just claim our bodies whenever they want, that women are nothing but an uncessary appendage to their sexual parts, how we should be jailed for abortion and the biggest message of all that a woman cannot be trusted to be the President.

Trump played this card because this ingrained distrust that women can be strong leaders is a rampant underlying disease. This is evident not just in America, but in Australia as well.

Women are angry, emotional and distressed at the outcome and rightly so. The championing of Trump’s sexism and misogyny impacts on women at different levels.

If you have been a victim of sexual assault or rape the impact of Trumps words are more painful and bring to the surface the fear of powerlessness and the reality and horror of sexual assault and rape happening again and reinforced as “okay”.

If you are a survivor of domestic violence, Trump’s words make escaping seems so much more harder, as who will believe you? You are just a woman.

If you are a woman of colour, Trump’s words added a quadruple layer to the extra layers of discrimination faced every single day and the terrifying reality of civil liberties ignored at an even deeper level.

If you have to face the agonising decision of abortion, Trump’s words make this not a personal decision, but label you in the lower echelons of society as a jailed criminal.

If you aim to be the boss and not just the secretary one day, or if you aspire to lead a board, a company or the country, your dream changed from a dream of hope and possibilities to a nightmare of climbing the highest mountain on earth and probably dying before you reached the top.

Every time Trump opened his mouth and every time people cheered it on, it chipped away at our agency. Agency we have fought for, that we marched for, that we slept out in the dark and reclaimed the night for. Agency we hold dear because we value and understand that women before us were tortured, abused, force fed, sexually assaulted and died so we have the agency we have today. Agency that is so far from complete agency that we are still fighting for every single day.

Women are NOTHING

Women know there are plenty of people who support women’s rights and are very aware there are plenty that don’t. However, I think we have come to a point where we feel that men who truly hate women, or men and women who do not believe women should have equality and agency, are in the moderate level of minority.  I would hope to think as a whole, we respect the efforts of women before us, and we recognise we have come very far; and many men and women have joined this crusade.

To sit and witness millions upon millions of Americans champion Trump’s contempt for women, and endorse him by rewarding him with the Presidency and legitimising that his treatment and contempt for women should be the new norm; sent us through a time warp of pure hell and it was a chilling and terrifying awakening.

This was a terrifying awareness because, regardless of all of our progress and the fights we have endured, there were millions upon millions upon millions of people thumping the table and screaming “WOMEN ARE NOTHING!!!!” “MINORITIES ARE NOTHING!!!” when they cast their vote. Yet you stand there bewildered wondering why we are angry.

Lecturing and Hectoring

On The Project, the panel asked a question to Jamilla Rizvi about the election result and how she was feeling about it. Jamilla detailed how excited she was when she woke up and it was a big moment for women, but now it has all changed.

Steve Price, a right-wing commentator, interrupted Jamilla’s answer, by jumping in before she could speak to a follow-up question about the demographic statistics of voters, of which white women factored in the Trump vote quite highly.

Price jumped in (no, he doesn’t need to lean in) and started putting his point across. His point that this was about ‘Real America.” Jamilla cut him off and asked him to “Cut the Bullshit about ‘Real America’.

Jamilla wanted to stress two points. That ALL America is real America and that ‘Real America’ is not just the parts where Trump supporters exist, but ALL Americans are Real. A very valid point. The other point she made as he was having a go at her for ‘interrupting him’ (after he interrupted her) was the question was directed to her. Jamilla is a strong woman. Strong women make concerted efforts to claim back their rightful place when men try to take it away. Her rightful place was simply to be given the respect to answer a question that was directed at her.

Every woman sitting at home watching, even if they didn’t see this coming, have witnessed and experienced the next blow. The ire, wrath and fury that rises up within a contemptuous man, when he is in a face-off with a strong woman. The desperate and surging need that rises up from within to put the woman back in her place.

Price hit back with the “put her in her place triple whammy.”  He hit back with the intent to apply blame and words to evoke self-doubt.  The triple blow was that this was a two pronged barb. One aimed at women and the other aimed at “The Left.”

Price replied with this virulent retort:

“This is the reason why Donald Trump won, because people like YOU lecture and hector people.”

When Will Men Take Responsibility?

I predicted that Trump supporters would gloat and I predicted they would ridicule and I predicted they would name call. However, I did not predict the blame that they would put on “The Left.”

There are many on the left calling for ‘calm’ in their response to those who are salivating over the Trump win.  Instead of insisting we call it out, now we are being told to respond with kindness and acceptance.

When will the women who fight for equality, ever get to take a rest from absolutely having to defend our position? Will it ever be over?

When will the ‘Anti-women men from the Right’ take responsibility for their own behaviours?  If they took responsibility for their own words and behaviours, women would not be forced into a position time and time again to speak out against the abject misrepresentation, stigmatising rhetoric or other degrading nonsense they project.

In 2016, women have now endured hundreds of years of men speaking over the top of women, interrupting them, invalidating their views, telling them that they are wrong and that it is all their fault.

Why does it constantly need to be explained to men like Steve Price, that the actions he displayed (interrupting, correcting, criticising and blaming) are a constant women face on a daily basis.  When will they understand that these words and behaviours lessen the value of a woman’s point of view and deligimitimises her true existence?

When comes the point in time that these types of men, clue onto the fact that it is their behaviours that invoke the response from women that they see as hectoring and lecturing. 

When will they ever remain silent and listen quietly and patiently, (as we are expected to do) and reflect on their own behaviour?

Will there ever be a point in time where they say “I didn’t realise that my words and behaviours are actually quite damaging to women. I’m Sorry.”

Will there ever be a time when these men carefully consider the opinions of women instead of striking back and deflecting blame back and/or pushing a woman into the corners of self-doubt?

Men like Steve Price occupy a completely different space in society than women do. A space where they have been given the legitimate right to cry foul and throw tantrums if 100% attention is not focused on them at all times. Where their power is reinforced because everything they say is always validated, or it is an underlying expectation of the dyadic exchange.

They are in a self appointed position of privilege and power and they are so fearful of letting that go. In a classic fight or flight response, they fight back.

When will the time come when men will stop letting the fear of losing the position of power and privilege take hold and take flight from their own fears instead of fighting back?

I have found this applies very strongly to men who sit on the right of the spectrum, not just towards women, but towards minorities, but most severely towards “The Left.”

Blaming The Left

Since yesterday, I have had three men approach me about the Trump win. They know I am very pro-Labor and very much against right-wing views. All approached me as Trump supporters in different ways, but the message was the same: to “Put the Lefty-woman back in her place.”

One did it with the ridicule approach. His tactic was to force me to concede how wrong I am and that my views are not the correct views and so many more people disagree with me and not just him. He made accusation after accusation of how wrong the left is. How it is the fault of the left because they chose Hilary.

He then said:

“Everything that has happened today – Is your fault. The Left created it.”

To be frank, I lost my cool. All I saw before me was a man who had endorsed and gave legitimacy to the contempt Trump has for women. I also saw a man who was part of a powerful system who openly and willingly enabled a very dangerous place for women and minorities. On top of my feeling of terror I had been lugging around since the Florida count, I was then dealing with a very deep level of disgust and disbelief towards this man before me.

The upset was the reality of seeing Trump emerge as the winner. The words and sounds of everyone trying to find their position to accept and respect, never question and obey, or to revolt, was like watching one of those old movies with Hitler and Churchill, but it was in colour. All of this gave rise to a day of accumulative negative affect, which simply combusted into a critical negative affect.

I directed every single emotion in a long tirade of beratement towards this man, who emerged as the first man who thought he had the legitimate power to ‘put me back in my place.’

Just like Steve Price and just like the other two men who approached me, this man placed the blame of the divided country, and the acceptance of xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, misogyny, ableism and sectarianism as the path to a better world of “The Left.”

However, the Right need to take flight from their own fears instead of fighting “The Left.”

Born to Rule

Those who sit on the right elevate themselves into a position of legitimate power. Not legitimate by position of actual authority, but legitimate power because they believe they are in the true position of authority over “The Left.”

“The Left” must obey or they will be punished when we do obtain legitimate power of authority.

The Left must bow down and apologise for not following the perfect plans of the right and ruining society. (It’s all Labor’s fault! The Greens are Terrorists!” Echo…Echo..)

The belief of ‘born to rule’ and the reinforcement that “The Left” are the dregs of society and the right are the societal elite; is deeply, deeply ingrained in their psyche and culture, through their ideology of Individualism, the ethical framework they adopt of egoism and their vengeful hateful stigmatising rhetoric against every single group “The Left” stand for.

The Fear that really gave us Trump

Just like men who need to take responsibility for their words and behaviours, when will the time come when the right wing will stop letting the fear of losing their self-appointed position of power and privilege take hold and fight their own fears instead of fighting and blaming “The Left?”

When will they look deep and hard at their own back yard that Individualism and egoism are the antecedents for punitive welfare policies, harsh cuts to public services and welfare, their war on the collective right to bargain for a fair wage and fair conditions and the stigmatising and debasing rhetoric that has shunned and cornered the lower and working middle class?

When will the time come that they reflect on their own behaviours and sincely enact change, just as they are demanding “The Left” should do?

If the Right reflect on how individualism and egoism underpin some of the most destructive outcomes for society, they can actually bring themselves down a level and sincerely listen and work on real solutions.

If the right decide to not reflect, but remain on the trajectory that they must be obeyed and followed, as the world needs their Paternalistic guiding hand; this divide will continue to grow.

Individualism and Egoism drive the Right’s sense of legitimate power. The conundrum for the Right is; if they recognise Individualism and Egoism as the cause of abject poverty and divisiveness, the only solution is a collective and unified approach with the Left, adopting a socialist viewpoint with socialist solutions.

That in turn, would create a fear of losing ‘legitimate’ power. That is the moment where they need to decide flight or fight. Do they run away from Individualism and Egoism or continue to fight “The Left?”

If the Right are truly concerned about the growing swell of people in abject poverty and despair who have risen to elect Donald Trump, then those on the Right need to fight their own fears, and stop fighting “The Left” and make a serious attempt to address inequality.

The System isn’t Broken – We Are.

The system is broken. This is a common response in many political discussions across social media. I disagree. I believe we are broken. Not the system.

Over the years we have seen many right-wing parties rise up across the world out of what I would describe as the bottomless pit of apathy and agitation. Analysis of the voter demographic these parties appeal to are largely the low socio-economic working class, welfare recipients or a mix of work and welfare. In addition, this demographic is usually described as having a lower level of education and most likely live in regional and rural areas. Essentially, individuals within these groups have barrier/s of disadvantage.

Marine Le Pen like Pauline Hanson, leads a right-wing Conservative-Nationalist party. Le Pen in France, Hanson in  Australia.

Both Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Le Pen’s Nationalist Front, target high unemployment, low-income areas, where the lower-middle working class are struggling to make ends meet.

Once the voice of the anti-worker and champions of Austerity take hold, it gets harder and harder but much easier for parties such as these to take hold.

Tactical Trump Manoeuvres

As we see with Trump’s tactical objectives in the USA campaign, Trump can easily be completely devoid of any real solutions. Solutions do not matter. The main objective is to bring to the surface the abject feeling of despair and find a target to blame that despair on. The target is always a minority group.

The game play then is to just pop up and say he will fix it. How, is not important. A way out of the feeling of frustration and anger is. This is consistent with the right-wing conservative-nationalists parties making headway through populist politics. 

In all cases, Trump, Hanson and Le Pen, the target for blame are Muslims. Other cultures and particular races can be mixed in as well. However, the key objective is that the voter-target demographic are not familiar with these groups. Members of these group are most likely not prevalent in the demographics of the voter-target regions. They are not usually known as close friends, or family members of the voter-target demographic.

They key is to divide us. The key is to make us broken.

The Appeal of One Nation in the Regions.

Taking this into consideration, there should be no surprise that One Nation votes are high in Regional Queensland. Regional Queensland ticks all the boxes for the target voter demographic.There are very few Muslims and these areas do not have a heavy concentration of multiculturalism. This makes these groups easy targets for blame, as members within these groups appear foreign and not familiar. 

Unemployment is rising, wages have stagnated, parents worry constantly about their children’s future, water is scarce in some places and if you are sick, you may need to travel more than twelve hours to get treatment and stay thousands of miles away from those who love you and support you. These things take a toll on people. It really is not fair.

The reason these target groups are selected to place blame on; is it is much easier to dehumanise a race, or a particular group if there is no personal connection to that race or group.

It should be no surprise that One Nation has backed off attacking and degrading Aboriginals as ‘the other lot that get everything we don’t’ as was her key mantra her first time in office.

That is because times have changed and there is much more acceptance and a lot of divisiveness from the 80s, 90s and early 2000’s has healed. A lot of lifelong friendships have been made and mixed families are the norm today. 

The same applies for Asians as a target. It would be ridiculous to state that we are being swamped by Asians, when it still has not come true 20 years after Hanson campaigned on this the first time.

Consistently, Pauline Hanson, just like Pen and Trump, deflect blame to minority groups.

If anyone tells me that Hanson is not taking aim at a target demographic to exploit their vulnerabilities and anxieties for her own financial and political gain…I call B*llshit!

The System isn’t Broken – It’s Us.

The link between Trump, Le Pen and Hanson, is that people are turning away from the policy makers and turning to the populist makers.  Policy is complex. It needs to take into account the interests of multiple stakeholders and other factors. Policy isn’t three word slogans. Seriously, what has Jobson Growth done for you since July 2?

I am not saying by any means that all policy is where it should be.  However, a true progressive would never be satisfied with the status quo. Otherwise, they would be a conservative. That is why regardless of past hurdles to achieving  marriage equality, even within Labor; the voices who believed in this change, stayed there and advocated that change. They did not quit and join a splinter party or chucked in the towel.

Today, the hateful and divisive plebiscite was voted down and Labor guarantees to legislate for marriage equality within the first 100 days, if when they win office, in 2019 2017.

It is only by strong voices staying there and fighting that fight, that they remained unbroken.

It’s Born in You.

I read two sentences today that really, truly affected me. Deng Adut – NSW Australian of the Year, said:

A person was not an Australian because they were born in Australia but because Australia was born in them.

What a person did for their country was what made it meaningful.

Not only was it one of the most powerful quotes ever in our history, Adut’s words made me reflect on my decision to join a political party.  That is, that regardless of whether you agree with my politics or not (Labor), I am engaged at a level as much as I can be. From a very young age, when I saw how my parents struggled under Fraser, and I listened to the contrast of Hawke, politics was born in me. I’ve bled red since. 

I have no aspirations to become a politician (I would love to be a researcher for a politician, but that is as far as it would go). However, I get engaged in politics, with like-minded people and we collaborate and share ideas to put forward. 

I cannot speak for other parties, but I know in the party I chose to join – Labor,  we have policy discussion as a standing agenda item, we have a Regional Conference, where everyday people like you and me, put forward our policy ideas, this then goes onto State Conference and Federal Conference. That is democracy at work. That is grassroots. It is being heard. That is the bottom up approach and I am proud to be a part of it.  

The noise in the media about political parties, the personalities within, the factions or divisions, is not what it is about. Politics is about a wider cause. Every party gets there in a different way.

If you are looking to have a voice, make it heard. Don’t just wait for someone to listen. We have free agency in this country. Well, no not all of us. Some of us don’t. If you know people who have trouble speaking up, or minority groups that are not heard, be an ally and ask if you can assist with advocacy. Also, join activist groups. Get involved.

We are broken because we are turning away from the collectivist roots that have bound us and allowed us to achieve progress for many years. We are broken because we are fractioning off. We still have voices, but they are fractured and quiet. Not loud and united.

We see this fractioning so strongly in the USA right now, just within the left itself. Here we have the most dangerous USA Republican Presidential candidate in my lifetime and the only party who can stop this, is the Democrats.  We have seen Bernie supporters still dedicated to someone who will not be in power. Who has no possible way to stop Trump. Yet, this loyalty is more important than joining in the SAME party and doing their very best for the cause.  Or the third-party voters who are also doing absolutely nothing to stop Trump. Just championing their cause.

Sometimes it is more important to stop someone so destructive, than be a ‘champion for your cause.’  This scenario is no different in Australia today.

A political party cannot effect change, if they are not in power. Evil will not be stamped out, if they are always in power.

The Birth of Liberal and Labor

The Liberal and National Coalition and the Labor Party are the ONLY two parties that can form Government. They were born from two competing view points and still are two competing ideologies. They are not the same. FriendlyJordies will explain why.

The Labor party was born from unionists standing collectively side by side and fighting for their rights. A simple fair days work for a fair days pay. Today, that is not such a radical idea, because this fight – the real bloodshed and jail time of everyday workers, gave us that. The fact that unions are out there every single day fighting for our rights, also gives us that. But the battle is still on.

The Liberal party was born from the idea that non-Labor parties join together to fight against those who fight for the worker and advocate Individualism and the Free Market. As we can see with policy positions such as the ABCC, privatisation of public services, abolishment of penalty rates, reducing or abolishing the minimum wage, punitive job seeker frameworks and other attacks on welfare. That this battle is still on.

It is a simple equation. For the middle and lower working class, work is central to everything we do. It puts food on the table, it buys school uniforms, it pays the rent or the mortgage, it puts petrol in the car, and it gives us choices of leisure to name a few. 

For people who are not in receipt of a working wage for whatever reason, it is our responsibility as citizens to make sure that those who are for individualism and austerity, do not have louder voices than the ones who are for unity and solidarity.

Decent wages and fair conditions and a supportive welfare system, do not just come wrapped up in a bow at Christmas. They are fought for. Long and hard by so many today and before us.

Be the Glue that fixes the system

Whatever your political persuasion, I fully encourage you to join a political party. If not Labor (which obviously I’m biased and I’d recommend), choose a major party who can form Government and effect change, which has the same democratic bottom up approach to policy and member’s voice that Labor has. 

No, Labor does not have perfect policy in all areas. However, members are given a voice for change on serious platforms. To progress, political parties need the people to be champions of that change. As Obama has said:

Obama does not belong to a third-party or a splinter group.

If you want the system to not be broken, get amongst it and be the glue that fixes the system. Have a louder voice than the voices who are putting forward the policies you don’t like. Be part of the change you want to see.

Don’t just listen to someone who says they are listening but have no real solutions. Be the solution.  

Even after knowing a third-party, splinter group will never gain power and can never effect real change and you still decide to align yourself with a splinter group or a third party; fight the bloody enemy for goodness sake. We don’t need a replica of Sanders vs. Clinton in Australia when there are Orcs to slay! Take a leaf out of Albo’s book and “Fight some Tories.”

Unity is Key

Unity is the key. Not splintering off into smaller groups. This is the only thing that can beat the loud voices of Populism, Nationalism, Conservatism and Austerity.

John Howard showed us this when he forced us to use Australian Workplace Agreements and tried to abolish collective agreements. His policies were purposely built to break us.

One voice  – your voice to stand alone to negotiate your wage, is pointless, especially when he abolished unfair dismissal laws at the same time.  Never. Ever. Forget.

As Albo said tonight on Qanda, The Liberals and the Nationals – always, always try to divide us. It is their key strategy always. Splintering off into smaller groups, or deciding politics isn’t worth it, divides us even further. It is in their interest to make us broken. Hanson and parties like her’s are the bots that feed off the negative emotions that bleed out from all of this.

Hanson may not have been voted in on this platform, but everything her party has backed so far in the Senate, shows what they actually stand for. That is joining with the Liberals to create more and more division and more and more hardship for the worker and those on welfare. Working against the very interests of her voter base.

The Trump experience shows us how powerful and ugly the anti-worker, anti-socialism, anti-environmentalism, anti-woman, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist, nationalist populist can be, when they have a huge following. We don’t need that here.

I believe we are at the cusp of that tipping point in Australia. Right here. Right now.  We do have the power to change that. Together. Unbroken. In Unity.

Women are just a Political Game for the QLD LNP.

The encouragement of women into the political sphere and the development of current women MP’s should be a genuine intrinsic motivator for all politicians, across the political spectrum. However the Queensland State Liberal National Party Opposition have chosen to participate in political games, rather than engage in political progress for women. 

The QLD LNP State Opposition have denied a pair for attendance at the Commonwealth Women’s Parliamentarians’ (CWP) Annual Planning Meeting. Queensland Representative, Brittany Lauga, MP (ALP) is now unable to attend and Queensland will have no representative. A pair is required as QLD has a hung parliament. Ms. Lauga said that, “Pairs are granted all the time for Ministers and Members to attend different meetings.”

This is an indictment on the leadership and values of the LNP. It clearly shows that the LNP view women’s representation in politics as something frivolous to be scoffed at and something to play games with.

Commonwealth Women’s Parliamentarians

The CWP plays a vital role in the devolopment of women to enter into politics and also for the women who are currently in Office. The statement from the CWP website, describes their purpose as:

The CWP Steering Committee believes Australian political and party behaviours and cultures need to improve if we are to achieve equitable outcomes for women in Parliament. Moreover, women who are elected to Parliament deserve to be heard on policy and governance issues, especially gendered issues such as domestic violence where our laws and programs have tragically failed too many women.

It is essential that women politicians are given every opportunity to participate in any forum, conference or committee, which will enhance the role of women in public life.

Women’s representation in the State and Territory Parliaments is low and needs vast improvement.  The LNP have only eight women MPs out of a total of 42 MP’s in the QLD State Parliament (19%).

A Show of Good Bipartisanship

Ms. Verity Barton, MP (LNP), was the CWP QLD representative from 2012 – 2015.  Ms. Lauga wrote to the former CWP representative in the spirit of bipartisanship on the 25 October, 2016.

Dear Verity and the Broadwater EO,

On Thursday 3 and Friday 4 November 2016 the CWP is holding a face-to-face meeting in Hobart. I have negotiated with the CWP to allow an observer from the Queensland Opposition to attend and I wondered if Verity would like to be that representative? The Clerk of the Parliament and the Speaker have both approved this. Travel would have to be arranged using the Member’s GTA through Travel Services. Would you be interested in coming along?

Ms. Barton advised she was unable to attend.

Ms. Lauga then wrote to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Deb Frecklington MP, on the 27th October, 2016, to extend the offer to any other woman in the LNP Opposition.  However, to date, Ms. Lauga has not received a reply from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Barton was afforded every opportunity to attend CWP events as the Queensland representative from 2012 to 2015.  This includes attending the Pan-Commonwealth Conference for Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, Houses of Parliament, UK,  in June 2014 and the 3rd Pacific Women’s Parliamentary Partnerships Forum in Fiji, in May, 2015.
(pictured below).

 

 

An ALP Junket and Upgrades to Business Class for LNP

In a statement to The Rockhampton Morning Bulletin on Wednesday 2nd November, 2016, an LNP spokesman advised that:

“Ms Lauga does not require leave from the Opposition to attend a parliamentary junket at taxpayers’ expense”

To describe a conference, which underpins the vital and crucial development of women representing women, in a country where Domestic Violence is an epidemic; as “A Junket” is beyond offensive to ALL women.

The statement from the LNP spokesperson is not only offensive, but the LNP may need to look in their own backyard before casting aspersions on others.

All MPs who undertake international travel are required to submit a report.  I have been able to source Ms. Barton’s report for her international travel to Fiji, but there appears to be an absence of a report for Ms. Barton’s international travel to London for the CWP Conference UK, 2014.

In addition, Ms. Barton’s Fiji report lists upgrades to business class equating to $1300. This exceeds the cost required for Ms. Lauga to attend the CWP Annual Planning meeting in Hobart.

If Ms. Barton has not submitted a report for her international travel to London, this may be a matter for the ethics committee.

Encouragement from the Speaker

The Speaker of the House, Mr. Peter Wellington, MP (IND) (and also chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of which CWP is a sub-branch) raised the matter today in the spririt of encouragement and fairness at a meeting between the LNP and Labor. However, the LNP still refused to grant a pair.

Ms. Lauga wrote to the Speaker on Tuesday to express her disappointment.

Dear Mr Speaker,

As discussed today, a meeting of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians is planned for Thursday 3 November (dinner) and all day Friday 4 November.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I sought approval from the CWP for an observer to attend so a woman from the Opposition can also partake in the meeting.

Once approval was granted by the Chair of the CWP Michelle O’Byrne, I wrote to the former CWP Queensland Representative, the Member for Broadwater Verity Barton MP to invite her to take up the observer position (see attached email).

Further, I also provided the Member for Broadwater with a copy of my itinerary in case she wished to take the same flights and stay at the same hotel as I had planned. The Member for Broadwater refused the invitation (see attached email).

I subsequently wrote to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition Deb Frecklington MP and extended the offer for her, or another female member of the LNP Opposition to attend the CWP meeting as an observer (see attached email). To date I have not received a response to this offer.

My understanding is that it is unlikely the LNP will agree to a pair for me to attend the CWP meeting in Hobart, despite the offer for the LNP to send an observer to the meeting. It would be an embarrassment for Queensland not to be represented at the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians meeting considering all other States, Territories and the Commonwealth will all be represented.

It would be particularly disappointing given that the Member for Broadwater was offered every opportunity to partake in CWP meetings and activities as the former CWP Queensland representative. Queensland, and indeed all of the women members of the Queensland Parliament, deserve to have active representation at the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians.

The LNP’s refusal to allow a pair to the meeting would be a State shame, but it does highlight the LNP’s failure to acknowledge the importance of women being represented in our Queensland Parliament.

Kind regards

Brittany

A National Statement of Disappointment

Any woman reading this, will have their own personal story about their lived experience of denial of opportunity due to sexism or gender discrimination. The level of disparity is further ingrained for women of colour, women with a disability, women in regional an rural communities, women in poverty and the LGBTIQ community and other minority groups.

It is not only important for all Queensland women to be represented, by their state MPs at these important events, but more so for women in these groups.  As inequality is a serious issue throughout Australia as a whole.

The Australian Chair of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, Michelle O’Byrne MP who is also the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, made this statement on behalf of all women.

‘It is extremely disappointing to see political game playing interfere with this important role that supports women in parliament and works to increase the participation of women in political life.

Unfortunately I note that this view is not held by the LNP for male attendance at national committees and events not was it their view when the Queensland role was held by a LNP member. It is disappointing that Queensland will not be represented at this national meeting’.

Men in Blue Ties

The LNP appear more interested in playing political games to harm the progress of women, instead of supporting and encouraging participation of women from both sides of the house.

An interesting question to raise is; have the ‘Men in Blue Ties’ also denied the participation of women in their own party, so they could play games with the hung parliament?

What would Malcom Turnbull Say?

The Federal Leader of the Liberal and National Coalition and Prime Minister famously said:

“You’ve heard me say this before, but it’s worth repeating. Not all disrespecting women ends up in violence against women. But that is where all violence against women begins,”

I ask in all seriousness, would the Prime Minister approve of his State counterpart purposely playing political antics with the opportunities of women MP’s to participate in a forum who have one of their key purposes as:

“Women who are elected to Parliament deserve to be heard on policy and governance issues, especially gendered issues such as domestic violence where our laws and programs have tragically failed too many women.”

The State QLD LNP are disrespecting women at the highest level. That is, preventing women parliamentarians to attend an event that is integral in working towards a progressive future where women’s experiences of legal discrimination and discrimination by default are rederessed.

I encourage everyone to urgently place pressure on the Prime Minister to stand up to his State counterpart, the Leader of the QLD LNP, Tim Nicholls, to ensure that a pair is granted in the QLD State Parliament, to enable participation in CWP and similar events from LNP and Labor women MPs, at all times.

If the Prime Minister implies that “This is up to the QLD LNP” or places blame on the QLD ALP, then his attendance at the CWP Conference in 2015, was nothing, but for show.

What have you really noticed about Bill Shorten?

With so much of the same old, same old meeps about the Lib-Lab monopoly/duopoly and the clatter of mismatched voices who want something new, but can’t articulate what that is; the question is “have you actually taken the time to notice what Bill Shorten is about?”

Is it possible that for some, the inner voices of cynicism and pessimism developed by participating in the mob culture of screaming against a two party system, automatically disregard even the most progressive and positive reforms from Shorten’s Labor, just because they are a major party?

Is it possible that some are so fixated on the decisions of leaders of the past they did not agree with? Is it possible that due to this, they are not yet ready to notice Labor in 2016 and view them with a clean slate? Turnbull has been afforded this opportunity, but I do not notice this being extended to Shorten.

Is it possible that this is just a rant by someone who is dedicated to the Labor cause? Possibly. That is for the reader to decide.

However, all I can talk about is what I have noticed from my own perspective. So I will outline a few things that really strike me about Bill Shorten and his leadership and the direction he has been taking Labor thus far.

I will do this as counters to two distinct areas of the narrative I have noticed in the context of myth breaking,  of “Both Parties are exactly the same” as I see it – “Underpinning Values” and “They are selfish and out of touch and just don’t listen.”

 

Myth: Both the Major Parties are exactly the Same

Underpinning Values

I personally always find this statement extremely confusing. I will begin with the underpinning values of both parties, as I see them.

Liberals – The Liberal’s values are underpinned by individualism. In terms of public social policy, they believe that everyone is born equal and it is up to the individual’s inherent propensity to ‘make it in life. They believe, this in turn this develops the country as a strong and prosperous country.  Liberals believe in small Government intervention as they see Government intervention makes individuals lazy and reliant on Government and this weakens society.

Government intervention is usually paternalistic with punitive measurements seen as a guiding hand, that is required to motivate those without an internal propensity for self-development.

They believe in low taxes and favour a user pays system instead of major investment in Government funded services. The Liberals are semi anti socialism of the public sector and favour privatisation and outsourcing of the public sector where they can achieve it.

They believe in the free market and the balance of power in favour of the employer is the best result for the economy.  Liberals have a disregard for the value of a person’s labour and believe low wages and low cost to employers create more jobs and are drivers for the economy.

Liberals do not promote Government intervention in high unemployment as a large surplus labour force drives wages down, as opposed to a tight competitive labour force.

The Liberals believe in maintaining the status quo through conservative and nationalist values.

Malcolm Turnbull and his predecessor Tony Abbott, continue to champion their commitment to these values. Abbott being more vocal and committed to these values than Turnbull, who is committed to these values, but remains largely silent on the intent or values which underpin his policies. 

Malcolm Turnbull’s reason for going to a double dissolution election, was a policy which has star chamber type elements and strips away the civil rights of the worker, including apprentices. He saw this as so important, so vital to the progress of the nation.

Malcolm Turnbull continues with Tony Abbott’s abhorrent budget cut regime progressed and championed by Turnbull, with all the pomp and ceremony of an entitled King.

Labor –  Labor’s values are underpinned by a form of collectivism and solidarity. Their valued are based on democratic socialism, egalitarianism and laborism. Labor recognises that not everyone is born equal and that it is the Government’s duty to intervene and provide assistance to those who need a hand up to achieve equality. They believe in a Welfare State to provide protection and social and economic benefits to the nation’s citizens.

Government intervention is incentive based and with a propensity towards proactive rather than reactive measures. (Such as investment in preventative health measures and needs based education funding).

Labor believe in the socialism of the public sector as opposed to the privatisation of the public sector to provide the best services to the community.  They believe the right assistance can develop individuals into strong, productive citizens, able to engage in the community, and break down the hindrances that were preventing them from doing so. Labor’s values consider external factors to the individual’s inherent drive and personality, and do not seek to place blame on the individual, but seek to address these hindrances and strive to provide an egalitarian society.

Labor’s overarching philosophy is Laborism, which values the labour of the working class. Laborists believe in the protection of safe work, rights and wages. They also believe this drives productivity and keeps the economy strong. They strongly believe that everyone should have equal access to work and a fair days work for a fair days pay. They believe in the Fair Go for workers.

Laborism is consistent with Government intervention in job creation projects to bring equal opportunity to everyone through the ability to access secure work, self development and career progression. They strive for low unemployment as this also creates a better standard of living though higher productivity and higher wages.

Labor believes in collective progressive policy which seeks to challenge the norms of the status quo. They are the leaders of every major positive reform contemporary Australia has ever had, such as: Medicare, Superannuation, Collective Bargaining, Fair Work Tribunal, Gonski, NDIS and NBN  

Under Bill Shorten’s leadership, his message is clear that he has returned to the true Labor values ingrained in Laborism which distinguishes Labor as a defiant opposition to the conservative alternative.

His very vocally championing egalitarian values and laborism as progressive solutions. His rejection of the increase to a GST as it would hurt the most vulnerable, his damning rejection of changes to Medicare and tenacious protection of our universal health system, his rejection of the removal of penalty rates and his submission to the Fair Work Commission to protect same.  His endless counter attacks on the Government to protect pensioners and families from harmful cuts and to stop the Liberals making the unemployed starve for six months!

His policy for protecting workers from underpayment, from exploitation and ensuring clarity of the term “Internship” to separate this from an essential learning or training activity from one of exploitation of the working class. In addition to policy for mandatory quotas of apprentices in Federally funded projects and investment in upskilling and training in new technologies.  There many more examples of this differentiation between Shorten’s Labor and Turnbull’s Liberals, and they can be found here.

Both parties are selfish and out of touch – they just don’t listen to the people

Liberals – The Liberals view of “the people” traditionally focuses big business as centric to their policy development.  A key focus of economic policy management is built around the rhetoric of welfare bashing of ‘lifters and leaners’ or ‘taxed and taxed nots’ so cuts will be met with little resistance from the public, through the stigmatisation of this group.

Engagement with the “community” is often restricted to attendance at high end functions, with high end priced tickets for high end donations.

As described in the section above, the attacks on families, welfare recipients and workers are a testament to how out of touch the Liberals are with the every day Australian and their families.

Turnbull’s “look at moi” empty verbose rhetoric, where he talks at people and not to them. An example of this is, his common phrase of, “We simply must remember….” in my view is a clear indication of class separation where the ‘people (a forgetful and unintelligent lot) need a gentle paternalistic guiding hand from those who need to remind us of our place.”

Labor – The Labor movement invests in grass roots activism. Under Bill Shorten engaging with the public has been a central focus.  Community Cabinets in QLD were introduced by the Labor Government and Shorten’s personal style is community forums, where he openly takes questions from the floor and answers questions in an open public forum.

Shorten has done about 150 public forums in the last 18 months and numerous live Facebook feeds direct to anyone on Facebook who cares to subscribe to his live posts.

As for if Shorten is in touch with the people. I will leave you with his budget reply address for you to decide.

My personal view on Shorten

I have had the personal opportunity to attend one of Bill Shorten’s community forums.

In my own experience, he fielded a huge variety of random questions and answered them in detail. He was relaxed and open and quite focused on the night being about the people and their questions and not about us listening to a speech about him or Labor.

I had the opportunity to ask a question.  He approached me after the event and asked me to write to him in more detail with my concerns and expressed genuine interest in speaking to me further. I saw him openly engaging with others with genuine interest as well after the event.

He did not have to do that. He did not have to seek me or others out. He had enough people around him to purposely avoid me, if he wanted to. It speaks to his genuineness as a leader. I wish everyone could meet Bill Shorten because until you meet him up close and speak with him, you don’t realise that much of the negative media portrayal and other people’s negative perceptions are so very wrong.

I have not been truly excited about the vision of a Labor leader in a long time, but I truly connect with Shorten’s vision and leadership. In my opinion Shorten is the real deal. His ability to remember names, faces and detail of questions at community forums is phenomenal. You kind of need to see this in action. He is a highly intelligent man with great compassion and a great passion for people and their concerns, which is truly visible at a community forum.

I truly believe he will win the next election outright and will go down as one of our greatest Prime Ministers in our history.  I have 100% faith in him and the direction he is taking Labor.

Conclusion

It is such a shame that for many engaged in ‘left politics social media commentary’ disregard the shift in direction under Shorten’s leadership.  It is disappointing that those on the ‘left’ who oppose Shorten’s Labor discuss him as if he has evolved from some 1980’s mindset where neo-Liberalism was forging it’s place across the world and judge him on the decisions made by former leaders, which really should be critiqued in the context of that time. It is also frustrating that the progressive policies and Laborist solutions he is putting forward, fall on already made up closed minds and deaf ears.

Whether you think post is just a rant from a someone who is dedicated to the Labor cause, or a genuine attempt to implore people aligned with the left to view Shorten and his modern Labor party with a fresh open mind and really critique his current direction which is ingrained in the values of laborism and truly engaging with the the people. As well as a plea to not to continue to compare and contrast with the decisions and leadership of Hawke, Keating, Rudd or Gillard, which many say they have issues with, then that is up to the reader to decide.

Labor’s policies will not suit everyone, nor are they perfect with no room for improvement. However, it is very, very evident that Bill Shorten making a dedicated effort to meet as many people across as many communities as possible and he is really listening and is open to positive and progressive ideas for change and he has already led substantial policy development as a testament to this shift to the left and laborism.

For those who genuinely and fiercely arguing to topple both of the major parties from power and who are insisting Shorten does not have ‘Leftist’ values –  have you really truly taken the time to noticed what Bill Shorten is about?

Cashless Welfare – Enough is Enough!

Yesterday I watched Bill Shorten’s address on the McKell Institutes Report Choosing Opportunity where he spoke passionately about equality and a fair go. However, to achieve real opportunity, the first thing we must acknowledge is that stigma and discrimination are not conducive to equal opportunity.

Income Management, Cashless Welfare and Basics Card all have the same aim.  The aim is a paternalistic approach of a ‘guiding hand’ to set those unfortunate enough not to have a job on the path to ‘wholeness.’

The aim of income management is to enforce a patronising approach which places the burden of shame and stigma on the unemployed, because the Government cannot be bothered to engage in job creation; because oh! that’s right, “the market will sort it all out.” Bullocks!

The aim of income management is to inconvenience, stigmatise, and label the unemployed as ‘others’ who are not part of the ‘normals’ in society.

The aim of income management is to conduct surveillance of the unemployed (Dee, 2013).

The aim is to extend a measure that was originally aimed at reducing alcohol abuse and child abuse in remote communities and now has extended to so many.  The current and previous Governments have placed control measures on those who do not need controlling. That is not the “Fair Go” Australians long to return to.

With the NT having more than four times the number of all the other income management sites combined, it really begs the question if this measure is indeed racist and the extension of this measure is to appear ‘not racist!’

The McKell Institute explains three types of welfare models in their report:

“The study identified three main forms of welfare state: the ‘liberal welfare regime,’ which emphasised market efficiencies and demonstrated limited government interventions; the ‘corporatist regime’ which is committed to preserving the traditional family, and invest in social insurance programs that encourage motherhood and provide benefits that encourage mothers to return to work; and finally the ‘social democrat’ model which pursues equality.“

If the underpinning construct of Bill Shorten’s speech and the McKell Institute’s report is equality; then income management simply must be high on the list to be abolished.

With donations reform and perks for politicians in a huge big glaring spotlight; Australians should be rising up and screaming about situations such as the excerpt below, instead of getting reeled into the agenda set by the media.  I’ve seen an overwhelming amount of people absolutely fixated on the Dastyari saga and counter-attacking with dodginess from the Liberals. Meanwhile, in the land of cashless welfare, people can eat plastic or starve!

It is time for change. It is time to stand up now. It is time to stand up for the jobless, the homeless, the disadvantaged, and the disabled, who have their income managed by the Government.  These are the people who matter.  These people. The innocent, the vulnerable, the labelled and stigmatised.

Enough is enough.  If you truly believe in a Fair Go. If you truly believe the Fair Go underpins everything we believe as Australians, please write a letter to the following insisting on the abolition of mandatory income management for welfare recipients in Australia.

Minister for Social Services
The Hon Christian Porter MP

Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services
Hon Jenny Macklin MP

Members representing your electorate
Your local MP

Senators in your state
Senators

Enough is enough!

 

Dee, M 2013, ‘Welfare Surveillance, Income Management and New Paternalism in Australia’, Surveillance & Society, 11, 3, pp. 272-286.

 

The Taxed Nots. Who are they and what should we do with them?

When the Government chooses not to participate in active job creation, the expectation on people seeking employment to engage in active participation welfare programs, is unfair, burdensome, stigmatising, demoralising and counterproductive.  Mutual Obligation under the Keating Government was developed based on the notion that the Government would also commit to job creation and increase vocational training. This is not the case today, nor has it been for some time.  The Government is not investing in job creation and vocational education has been largely privatised and is predominantly inaccessible and unaffordable to those who most need it.  Active Participation welfare programs are punitive and are underpinned by the assumption that the jobseeker is lazy and needs motivation by a paternalistic guiding hand to participate in society as a full human being. It is time for a new narrative and a new solution.

The latest narrative – The Taxed Nots. Who are they?

They are bludgers, rorters, welfare cheats, the undeserving poor, the drug addled, leaners not lifters, people with their hand out, a hindrance to the ‘national interest’, people who don’t try hard enough, job refusers, taking loans from the tax-payer, won’t get off the couch, lack participation, who go from the school gate to Centrelink’s front door, self-entitled, sitting at home playing X-box and eating cheezels and now the latest….The Taxed Nots.

The Taxed Nots – what should we do with them?

We need to drug test them, force them into unpaid labour, manage their income, give them a card to label them and not trust them with cash, push the welfare cops after them, get them moving, force them to live 45% below the poverty line and if they are poverty line newbie, we should starve them for six months whist the Government simultaneously breaches its human rights obligations. .

With the exception of John Howard’s gem, “the undeserving poor” and Amanda Vanstone’s “Don’t try hard enough and refuse jobs”, these are just some of the labels the Australian Liberal Party has given to those seeking employment and just some of the ‘solutions’ to assist the jobless to find employment, since 2013. Pretty confronting when it is wrapped up in neat little paragraphs, isn’t it?

The dehumanisation and the stigmatisation of those seeking employment must cease immediately and a new narrative and new solutions need to start today.

A little history

Mutual obligation has always existed within the jobseeker framework.  However, mutual obligation penalties were discretionary and mostly non financial (ie write on your dole form where you looked for work this week).  However, postponement of payment could occur for up to two weeks.  This was dropped in 1984 as it was causing hardship, but reinstated in 1987.  The widening of activity based breaches will be discussed in the next section. Active Labor Market Participation (ALMP) programs were the shift towards paternalistic and punitive measures and financial penalties for the unemployed.

Active Labor Market Participation (ALMP) programs commenced under the Hawke/Keating Government. The  original intention of the ALMP programs was to manage retraining and to assist new workers to move across industries in the new globalisation and at a time where long time unemployment was the new reality and had shifted from a long period of relatively low unemployment.

Zigarus ¹ (2004) sums up another driver as, “In essence, this approach holds that the unemployment rate is influenced by how actively the unemployed search for work. The more effort people make to find jobs, and the less choosy they are about what jobs they will take, the lower the overall unemployment.”

Regardless of how well intentioned ALMP programs were when they were introduced, the very essence of these programs are driven by the notion that the unemployed do not have the same desires to achieve a full life as the employed do and they are inherently lazy.   Paternalistic and punitive welfare measures are also the antecedents to enabling the stigmatisation of the unemployed. The era of the ALMP programs were the beginning of segregating the unemployed as separate citizens from those who are employed – the bludgers and the workers. Even within the cohort of the unemployed, the narrative was able to change from discussing welfare as a necessity for those out of work to those who deserved assistance and those who did not.  Those who needed a hand up and those who just wanted a hand out.  This narrative continues today and it has become increasingly more comfortable for politicians to use this stigmatising rhetoric with conviction.

Punitive measures intensified under Howard

The shift in ALMP programs under John Howard introduced the concept that unpaid labour should be imposed on those seeking employment. Howard’s notion was to deserve a hand out, the recipient must give back to the community.  This adds the public’s scrutinisation of the intentions of the jobseeker to the mix.  Work for the Dole and similar unpaid labour programs normalised the perception that jobseekers had to be forced to work, as they were not motivated to do so; and if they were working as unpaid labour, this would be the impetus to force them to look for paid labour.

Financial Penalties under Howard

The Howard Government dismantled Keating’s Working Nation (job creation, increased Labor market programs and training and mutual obligation, including breaching penalties). Financial penalties increased and the activity for which you could be breached significantly widened under the Liberals “Australian’s Working Together” policy.  The other notable shift from Keating’s policy to Howard’s policy was that financial penalties moved from discretionary to enforced by legislation and contractual obligation on the jobsearch provider.

The initial extremely punitive measures are outlined by Eardley et. al ² as:

The initial legislation proposed to strengthen breaching arrangements by extending the activity test non-payment period to six weeks for the first breach and 13 weeks for all subsequent breaches, while all administrative breaches would incur rate reductions of 25 per cent for eight weeks.

Welfare groups successfully lobbied and this initial bill was defeated in Parliament. However, less severe penalties were adopted.  This included an 8 week breach of 100% loss of benefit after the third breach. The Abbott Government put up a bill in 2013 which sought to exempt new Newstart recipients from payment for six months. This has been defeated/taken off the table and a bill for Newstart recipients to be exempt for six weeks, is still progressing though today’s parliament.  This shows the long standing determination of the Liberal Party to impose harsh and extreme measures on the unemployed.  This also shows the shift from welfare as a human right to dignity, to one of targeting the disadvantaged as a means for budget savings.

Other notable changes

Structural changes jobseeker programs to note (but not limited to) are:

• The inclusion and shift from other benefits to jobseeker associated benefits (Single Parents and Disability recipients shifted to jobsearch programs.)
• The increase in mutual obligation age brackets from 17-18 years, to 18-30 years to 18-49 years and now 18-60 years and over
• Intensive case management
• Enforceable preparing for work agreements
• Increased obligation to search for more jobs, or a breach is imposed
• The length of time travelled to search for job, or a breach is imposed
• Relocation expectation
• Implementation of Government approved doctors only (not jobseeker’s own doctor)
• Shift to a jobsearch payment from Disability pension if you can work 30 hours per week down to 15 hours per week
• Shift from Government provider to private contracted providers
• Obligation to jobsearch if not employed for more than 70 hours per fortnight  (jobsearch is a requirement although you have gained employment)
• Income Management (Basic’s Card – non-cash component imposed)

The jobseeker’s positioning in Australia.

The reality for the availability of a jobseeker securing work in Australia, is that there are 19 jobseekers for every job available in Australia (as of May, 2016).  That is however, not a true figure, as it needs to be considered that not all jobseekers are equally qualified for all jobs. Therefore, for some the jobseeker to job vacancy ratio is much higher.  In addition, vocational education and training has become less available and less accessible for those seeking employment; particularly in lower income brackets. Changes to eligibility for vocational training (ie The Certificate 3 Guarantee is for any eligible Queensland resident who does not already hold and is not currently enrolled into, a post-school Certificate III or higher qualification.) Therefore if you hold a cert III in one vocational area, for example beauty, you are not eligible to undertake vocational training at cert 3 level in business administration.

In addition, specialised services such as JPET (Job placement, employment and training for homeless and disadvantaged young people) have ceased and are now replaced with a one-stop-shop model of ‘streams’ of unemployment.

The Liberal Party’s small government, free market mindset, is an inherent propensity to shy away from job creation and allow the free market to ‘sort out the jobs’, rather than the socialisation of job creation projects.  Government’s who do not commit to job creation are not complying with their mutual obligation to the nation’s unemployed citizens.  The onus is completely on the jobseeker and the framework within the jobseeker must search for jobs, is unrealistic; secure full time jobs and skills development get increasingly more difficult to obtain.

It should also be noted that barriers to employment and the adverse outcomes of financial and other punitive measures are more severe for (but not limited to); Indigenous Australians, single parents, jobseekers with a disability, youth and homeless and disadvantaged jobseekers.

The new narrative and the new solutions

To achieve the re-humanisation and the de-stigmatisation of those seeking employment; the jobsearch model must shift to a jobseeker-centric framework and away from a budget savings measures framework where jobseekers are currently seen as a strain on the public purse and a dehumanised as a target for savings measures.

Therefore, the jobsearch framework needs to shift from one of mandatory participation to one of voluntary participation.

Jobseekers need to be allowed free agency to participate freely in jobsearch activities.  To do this, the narrative needs to shift from the stigmatising rhetoric outlined in the beginning of this article to a more supportive narrative. Jobseekers should be given the support and recognition by Government that they have the same hopes, dreams and aims as the employed and are actively participating in job search to improve their life circumstance.

This then shifts the narrative away from the current underpinning assumption that jobseekers need a paternalistic guiding hand to motivate them; to a narrative that has the underpinning assumption that jobseekers are intrinsically motivated to seek employment.

This then shifts the onus for outcomes from the jobseeker and the public expectation to punish them for non-achievement to the public expectation that the Government of the day has an obligation to perform and enable an environment conducive to an expectation that secure employment can be achieved.

This should put pressure on the Government of the day to engage fully in job creation projects and the public less likely to accept the promises of a free market, small Government intervention model.  This means that there would be an increase in the expectation that the Government would create jobs where it had the power to do so.  This may include Government intervention to increase positions in all Government owned, operated and funded entities at local, state and federal level.  This may also include Government intervention to make mandatory the requirement for quotas within Government funded infrastructure projects to achieve targets of employing those who are employed and underemployed.

This should also put pressure on the Government to ensure they meet the obligation of providing skills development opportunities for those seeking employment. This may mean the implementation of yearly quotas of trainees and apprentices for all Government owned and funded organisations.  This would also place pressure on the Government to provide affordable access to TAFE and other training for all jobseekers, both under employed and unemployed.

In regional and rural areas where there is a higher concentration of unemployment; this should also put pressure on the Government to decentralise the public sector at state and federal level. In addition, pressure should be placed on the Government to provide attractive incentives for SME’s and large corporations to invest in relocations or start ups in regional and rural areas.

Government change to enhance the current model would also require the adoption of a basic wage, which will shift the public perception of one that jobseekers are welfare dependent, to a perception of a human right to a basic wage for all citizens.  This will also enable the underemployed to be as competitive for jobs as the unemployed.  Currently some incentives favour only the long term unemployed and lock the under employed out of the labour market.   Punitive measures such as income management (basic card) and financial penalties would not longer need to exist.

The most critical shift that needs to occur is for citizens to reject the stigmatising narrative that currently exists around those seeking employment today, as this narrative is the antecedent for the entire burden of secure employment to fall on the jobseeker, rather than the onus of providing citizens with full, secure employment on the Government.

All of the above can be achieved and it can start with a rejection of the current dehumanising and stigmatising narrative surrounding jobseekers; and it should start with all of us today.

“Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity.”
―Erving Goffman

 

1 Ziguras, Stephen (2004) “Australian Social Security Policy and Job-Seekers’ Motivation,” Journal of Economic and Social Policy: Vol. 9: No. 1, pp 1-24

2 Tony Eardley, Jude Brown, Margot Rawsthorne, Kate Norris, Liz Emrys, 2005, The impact of breaching on income support customers, Social Policy Research Centre (UNSW)

Australian Voters – What are you afraid of?

The tight polls indicate that a number of Australians are afraid of what a change of Government will bring. However, the thought of remaining with the Liberal Government makes me very afraid.

I still recall that day in early high school so vividly. I was yelled at, embarrassed to the point of tears and pulled out of class.  I was ordered to sit on the verandah, because my parents could not afford the proper text book and the teacher decided I was not ‘ready to learn’. That experience, really drove home that the battlers could sit alone and cry red-faced in shame and be on the outside looking in, or they could use their voices to speak up.

I knew that public education in the early 1980s was considered free for all students and that I was entitled to an education.  (My Mother had told me time and time again “you don’t need money to be clean, honest, intelligent, kind, well mannered, etc., etc.,)

That day, I furiously marched to the Principal’s office at lunchtime and I made a formal complaint.  I stood up straight, looked him in the eye and asked him loud and clear, if I was allowed to be excluded from class because I could not afford the text book.

For a reason I cannot remember now, (possibly being thirteen and misunderstanding the political framework!) I threatened to report the school to the Governor General and guaranteed that he could stand me in front of class and ask me questions. I argued that it would be revealed that I knew more than most of the students who had text books. I was angry and offended that the school had drawn a line between my intelligence, my willingness to learn and the amount of money my parents had to buy a stupid text book!

After some scornful lecture reminding me that it was somehow a thirteen year old’s responsibility to ensure I had the right books for school and I was ‘ready to learn’, I was given a ‘loan’ of a second hand book.  I had to promise I would protect this book with my dear life until the end of the year and I was curtly reminded that ‘forgetting to return the book would be considered stealing from the school.’   That was also a stark reminder of how a low socio-economic background was an immediate negative judgement of one’s morals.

Two things were important that day: A rule existed to prevent unfairness and I had the courage to speak up. 

Rules and Societal Norms shape who we are

Legal rules and also societal norms shape who we are. They shape our nation. The democratic system of parliament is the system which enables the rules by which we live. If the school had a rule implemented that stated I could be excluded because I did not have the correct book, I could have sat on the verandah for the rest of the year. Not learning and not participating. Some kids would not have complained, as I did.  

An important point is that not everyone has the same levels of self-efficacy to use a complaints system, or to even question if they are a victim of unfairness. The rules should be there to protect people so they do not need to have an inherent self-confidence to right any wrongs.

This is the reason I take politics and voting so seriously.  The Liberals, time and time again implement ‘rules’ or laws, that not only make life hard for the disadvantaged, but also make it hard to complain and achieve fairness.  We see this in Education, in Health, in Welfare and in unemployment programs to name a few.

This is the future under the Liberal Government I see and what we have seen for the past three years and in previous Liberal Governments state and federal.  A system of rules, that makes life harder for battlers. A system of rules that makes it harder for battlers to have a voice.  A system of rules that is the antecedent to unfairness and a divided society.

The Liberals seek to make that verandah I sat on, even wider between the thirteen year old me and inclusion in that classroom.  

The Liberals seek to make rules, that would have the Principal tell the thirteen year old me, ‘that it was my fault, I can do better, get richer parents, shut up, sit down and do as you are told, or we may arrest you.’

The tight polls indicate that a number of Australians are afraid of what a change of Government will bring. However, the thought of remaining with the Liberal Government makes me very afraid:

I don’t want to live in a world where a Liberal Government works hard for a greater divide between the rich and the poor. 

Where the practices and policies of the Liberals ensure the working class have no rights and can be replaced by foreign workers in the dead of night.

Where the practices and policies of the Liberals make the disadvantaged choose between seeing a doctor or buying food.

Where the ideology of the Liberals does not see marriage equality as a right for all citizens.

Where the Liberals favouritism of austerity is implemented in times of severe, global economic uncertainty.

Where a narrative which harms and stigmatises people is encouraged and supported and sometimes led by members of the Liberal party.

Where Liberal/Conservative/austerity-laden budgets are designed to give the wealthy money and see the poor grasping for the trickling down of the scraps.

Where the spending decisions of a Liberal Government produces a health system so underfunded that death of Australians is realistic consequence.

I don’t want to live in a country where a Liberal Government makes rules to make life harder for the battler or makes it harder to protest against unfairness.

Another term of The Liberals. That is what makes me very afraid. 

If you are NOT voting 1 Labor, what are you afraid of?

• Does ensuring Medicare is in the safe hands of the Labor party  – the party that invented Medicare and the party that has fought against cuts to Medicare by the Liberals for years and years, make you afraid?
• Does ensuring that all children have the funding they need for more individual attention to excel in school, make you afraid?
• Does a party who fights for the rights of the worker, make you afraid?
• Does ensuring that our health system is properly funded, so Doctors and Nurses can do their jobs properly, make you afraid?
• Does ensuring transparency, KPIs for processing, independent overseer, child guardian, refugee tribunal and funding UNHCR camps to eradicate the need for boat journeys, make you afraid?
• Does ensuring that the party that got us through the GFC unscathed, managing the economy in a transitional environment or global instability, make you afraid?
• Does a history of delivering major reforms that have progressed this nation forward such as: NDIS, Enterprise Bargaining, Medicare, Superannuation and Gonski, make you afraid?
• Does the underpinning ideology of a fair go, make you afraid?
• Does ensuring that we have a fibre-laden, first rate technology National Broadband System, make you afraid?
• Does every citizen having the equal right to marry, make you afraid?
• Does the idea a party can have 100 positive policies, presented and costed before an election, make you afraid?

Vote Labor to put people first on July 2. Don’t be afraid.

 

Shorten’s Labor: Fair Go Mate!

The saying, ‘Fair Go Mate’ embodies so much of what Australians are about in three little words – a fair go. It sums up everything that is the backbone of who we are: to stand up to those who try to knock us down and don’t give us a chance – a fair go.

When someone judges us or our efforts unfairly or tries to knock us down and not give us a chance; in our beautiful, unique Australian vernacular we respond with “Fair Go, Mate!”

Every time I hear Bill Shorten speak, every positive policy he announces, he promotes something positive that will give Australians a fair go.

Woven into every rebuttal of the Liberal Government’s punitive, conservative, knock everything and everyone down rhetoric and policies, I hear Shorten say to Turnbull – “Fair Go, Mate!”

On July 3rd, we will wake up with either Labor or Liberals as our Government. There is no other choice. I understand that there is quite a movement of people wanting to vote for independent and minor parties; however, your vote will decide which one of the Major parties will rule us for the next three years.

We need to seek a clear majority for a Government to achieve good progress in their own right. Hung parliaments are not something ‘cool and trendy’ that teach anyone a lesson, nor are they something we should wish for. Being one seat away to the return of Campbell Newman/Joh Bjelke-Petersen type rule in Queensland, is not a pleasant thought. With 42 seats each, it is real fear. It is not a joke.

Please vote for a minor party or an independent, if you are truly dedicated to that party or individual. However, there are many people who state they will do this ‘to teach the majors a lesson.’ There seems to be a growing popularity that somehow this is a ‘trendy thing to do.’  Please don’t vote to be ‘trendy’ when so much is at stake.  We are adults. Politics does matter. It changes lives. Please take your vote seriously, because with this election being so close, your vote is powerful and you will be a participant in real choice.

Malcolm Turnbull is correct when he has implored voters

“To vote as if your vote decides the election.”

This election is so close, your vote might do just that.

That choice is a Shorten Government or a Turnbull Government.  That is it. No beating around the bush, no platitudes, no whimsical fancies of a minor party breaking history and winning 76 seats. Every single primary vote counts.  It is Shorten or Turnbull. Your choice.

A choice between a fair go and progressive policies with Labor, or a continuation of stagnant, conservative and punitive measures with the Liberals.

On July 2, you will either vote for a Shorten Labor Government to give you a fair go and to be given a real chance, or you will vote to be knocked down by the Liberals and not given a chance.

The Liberals won’t care if you scream at them “Fair Go, Mate!” The Liberals see punishment as an incentive to push people to improve. It simply does not resonate with them.

Here are some of the choices you will be voting for:

Bill Shorten is saying to Turnbull “Fair Go, Mate” because Turnbull wants to knock kids down before they can get a quality education, by not properly funding schools.

Shorten will give kids a fair go by properly funding Gonski.

Bill Shorten is saying to Turnbull “Fair Go, Mate” because Turnbull wants to knock sick people down who don’t have the money to pay a GP Co-Payment, or fees for pathology and scans that are essential for diagnosis, by putting extra taxes on Medicare and making moves to privatise our national health insurance system.

Shorten will give sick people a fair go, by protecting Medicare and lifting the Medicare rebate freeze , so more Doctors have an incentive to bulk bill.
In two words: Medicare Stays.

Bill Shorten is saying to Turnbull “Fair Go, Mate” because Turnbull wants to knock LGBTI people down by spending $160 million dollars on an plebiscite, which will give voice to the homophobic anti-marriage equality lobby, to shout their enraged hate at LGBTI people, just to decide if they should have the same rights as every other citizen in the country.

Shorten will give LGBTI people a fair go, by legislating for Marriage Equality within the first 100 days.

Bill Shorten is saying to Turnbull “Fair Go, Mate” because Turnbull wants to knock Australians down, before they can even begin to think about starting a business, or remaining competitive, or by preventing their education in a rural area, by giving Australians a second rate copper-laden National Broadband Network.

Shorten will give all Australians a fair go, by rolling out Fibre to the Premises and give Australians a first class technology fibre laden NBN

Bill Shorten is saying to Turnbull “Fair Go, Mate” because Turnbull wants to knock school leavers and mature aged students down, by deregulating some university fees, and locking some students out of higher education, based on their family’s wealth and not their hard work.

Shorten will give all University Students a fair go, by keeping higher education affordable and accessible for all students; creating STEM Scholarships and offering some places completely HECS Free.

Bill Shorten is saying to Turnbull “Fair Go, Mate” because Turnbull wants to knock jobseekers down by giving business a 50 billion dollar tax cut, which will only impact the economy by .01% – under the guise of “jobs and growth’ and offer $4 Internships.

Shorten will give business and jobseekers a fair go, by offering small business a $20,000 tax break if they hire, a ­mature-age jobseeker or someone under 25 and by committing that one in 10 jobs in Government infrastructure projects are apprentices.

Thank you Bill Shorten, for bringing the Fair Go from underneath the layers of political rhetoric voters need to sift through at election time and just placing it smack bang in the middle of the table, in arms reach, right next to the sauce.

Shorten summed this up nicely in his speech at the Labor Launch this morning when speaking of the fair go that underpins what Labor is about:

Today, my remarkable team and I offer ourselves as an new Government, dedicated to Australian’s oldest proposition  – A Fair Go all around. A Labor Govt that recognised that Australia has always grown stronger and richer, by including everyone in opportunity, and leaving no-one behind.

and

We will be a Labor Government that will always put people first, in the finest tradition of this great country we all love together.

You can watch more about Labor’s Fair Go Here:

Please make your vote count!

 

Plebiscite. NOT a civil and respectful debate

A Shorten Labor Government promises to pass Marriage Equality within the first 100 days if they win the election.   An Abbott-Turnbull Government favours a plebiscite. Both of these cases were argued at the first Facebook leaders debate last night.

Leadership Debate 17 June, 2016 – Marriage Equality Plebiscite

Malcolm Turnbull:  I support same-sex marriage, if we are returned to Government, there will be a plebiscite, then all Australians will get a say on the issue.  I’ll be voting yes. Lucy will be voting yes. We will be urging people to vote yes.  I am very confident it will be carried.

Bill Shorten: Now the argument says, Oh Plebiscite, it’s very democratic.  But the truth of the matter is that this is a debate where I don’t believe that people’s relationships and love for each other need to be submitted to a public opinion poll.  I think we have seen two terrible events in the last week that shows hate and extremism exists in modern societies. And I don’t want to give the haters a chance to come out from underneath the rock and make life harder for LGBTI people.

Malcolm Turnbull: With great respect to you. I believe Australians are better than that. I believe we can have a discussion about marriage equality. It can be civil. It can be respectful and we will make a decision as a nation and then, as a nation we will respect the outcome.

The debate on marriage equality so far, has been anything but civil or respectful. Therefore, one can conclude Turnbull is one or more of the following:

• Outright lying
• Responding with empty platitudes
• Playing semantics with the words ‘can be’ and ‘will be’
• Intentionally arrogant and insulting towards the people who have already expressed they have been harmed by this debate
• Ignorant and out of touch with the commentary already occurring within this debate
• Supportive of the hateful and harmful commentary from the Anti-Marriage Equality lobby and considers this commentary, a civil and respectful debate.

Let’s take a look just a small taste of how the marriage equality debate has developed thus far. It has been far from civil.

*Warning: This post contains comments and pictures that may be upsetting and hurtful to LGBTI people, their families and allies. 

A Taste of the Respectful and Civil debate thus far:

Leaked pamphlets, to feature in an upcoming campaign against same-sex marriage, suggest children of gay and lesbian parents are more prone to “abuse and neglect” and more likely to be unemployed, abuse drugs and suffer depression.

The pamphlets, obtained by Fairfax Media, have been prepared and funded by Chris Miles, a former Liberal MP and member of the Foreign Investment Review Board.

“Not only is the information on this flyer wrong, it will put the lives of young gay people and the children of same-sex couples at risk by reinforcing the message that they and their families are broken.” (Croome, AME)

The Rainbow Noose

Australian Marriage Alliance advertisement opposing marriage equality

The group is claiming that same-sex marriage will increase suicide because people who are against it will be bullied over their views if it becomes law.

What About the Children?

Australian Marriage Alliance television advertisement opposing marriage equality. The central message that only children who have a mum and a dad “Miss out” on a real family.  

Alexander Regan, a 17-year-old boy with two lesbian mums, said on the petition that he was deeply offended by the commercial.

“I’m signing this because I’m a child of two absolutely loving lesbian parents and I’m really offended that this advertisement blatantly slandering same-sex parents’ ability to be parents simply based on their homosexuality,” he wrote. “My mums are amazing and I honestly need nothing more than them and their love in my life.”

Australian Marriage Equality national director, Rodney Croome, said,

“This booklet denigrates and demeans same-sex relationships and will do immense harm to gay students and students being raised by same-sex couples.”

“The booklet likely breaches the Anti-Discrimination Act and I urge everyone who finds it offensive and inappropriate, including teachers, parents and students, to complain to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Robin Banks.”

Mr Croome said he has received several complaints from teachers in Catholic schools who were horrified to learn at staff room meetings that the booklet will be distributed.

Comparing Marriage Equality to Animal Sexual Activity

A federal Nationals MP has drawn a comparison between same-sex relationships and two rams having sex in a paddock, provoking condemnation for the ‘offensive’ and ‘inappropriate’ statements, with the Greens calling on him to apologise and retract them.

Educating Children and Parents about the dangers of Marriage Equality

 

Parents took to social media to express concern over the event some described as “highly offensive’’, “extremely bigoted’’ and “totally inappropriate to be sent out through a Catholic school parent email list’’.

In a plea sent to the school, obtained by the Mercury, one parent said: “Although the teachings of the Catholic religion is one of husband and wife I find it inappropriate that the Catholic Diocesan of Wollongong  would find it appropriate to be “informed” about this topic by a (group) with a clear agenda leading up to a federal election.’’

“There are many families within our school community that would be extremely offended by this type of ignorant propaganda as they are not a ‘family’ as is defined,’’ the email said.

The Australian Christian Lobby has compared same-sex marriage and the Safe Schools program to the Holocaust, dubbing them all “unthinkable things” that happened because societies lacked strong moral guardians.

Peter Madden is running for the Tasmanian Senate with the Family First party and his campaign is anti-marriage equality and anti-Safe Schools.

On Monday he made a comment on Twitter: “Though Orlando is abhorrent, it doesn’t change the real & present dangers of the gay marriage agenda to Aus children.”

People have condemned the insensitive tweet and even called the hopeful politician “scum”.

“Absolutely disgusting. Completely offensive,” one commented.

As I live in a Regional Town, I am dedicating a section just to debate within regional communities. 

There are extra complexities to consider in regional communities for LGBTI people. There is no Mardi-Gras. There is no wide-spread community support. Young LGBTI people often move away from the area quickly and there is a high rate of suicide. A harmful and hurtful debate only places further stress on young LGBTI people in regional communities.

Mr Christensen, the Member for Dawson, posted a photo on social media showing a gun loaded with a rainbow coloured magazine.

“My point is that people saying ‘let’s follow America’ in their argument for same-sex marriage … well what about the right to bear arms?” he said.

“I mean, you wouldn’t follow America on that one.

George Christensen, LNP Member for Dawson.

 

“Many kids do flee Mackay straight after high school,” she said.

“I am sure this has something to do with it. People do not feel welcome here. You get shunned. So people leave and go to places where it is acceptable.”

BuzzFeed News asked Christensen (QLD LNP MP) what he thought about LGBTI teenagers in the area feeling as though a program like Safe Schools is needed.

He (Christensen) likened it to children wanting to eat ice cream.

“Kids love everything. Kids would love free ice cream at school,” the MP said. “Is that good for them? Y’know. Of course they are going to defend something they are being told is good.

“But is it good? Is it social engineering? I think it is clearly social engineering.”

Using the plebiscite as campaign fodder.

The Capricornia Young LNP accuse the Labor candidate of vandalising the LNP member’s office.  (The Labor candidate responded in the original thread that she was there to support the rally and was writing “Love is Love” on a heart-shaped post it note.  The other person in the photo is the gorgeous Ben Norris from Big Brother, who spoke at the rally.

I attended this Equal Love Rally.  We held a peaceful rally. Marched a distance to the LNP Member’s office and those who desired could place a post it note on her door with a message in support of marriage equality.

SMS to the Editor – Rockhampton Morning Bulletin

This is such a small sample from the commentary within  the debate against marriage equality thus far and it does not do justice to the plethora of uncivil and disrespectful commentary from the Anti-Marriage equality lobby found within this debate. 

This quote from Shirleene Robinson, spokeswoman for Australian Marriage Equality calls for people to understand that language and narrative can cause deep hurt to people.

“Words can inflict terrible harm sometimes and we would ask that people of all opinions remember that,” she said. “The use of intemperate language can cause deep hurt among LGBTI people and their families.”

Deciphering the Leaders Debate Comments.

A plebiscite – Abbott-Turnbull Government

I refer back to Turnbull’s comments within the leadership debate:

“….then all Australians will get a say on the issue”
“….we will make a decision as a nation”

Normally Turnbull palavers on with great verbosity and his words can be deciphered and reduced to something quite simple.  On this occasion he used a few words, but it translates to much more:  That is:

“When considering marriage, Australia currently recognises two groups of people: heterosexual people and LGBTI people. Australian law currently only respects the right to marry belongs to heterosexual people and excludes LGBTI people and discriminates based on gender.

The Abbott-Turnbull Government thinks the appropriate way to redress this gender based discrimination is for Australian citizens to decide if LGBTI people are the same as them, or a lesser class of citizen.  LGBTI people belong to a minority group.

The Government will ask LGBTI people (the minority group the current law discriminates against) to vote on this.

However  we will ask the majority – their friends, their allies, people who are apathetic and indifferent, but we also think it is important to ask people who do not consider LGBTI people ‘the same’ or ‘normal’ and should not have the same rights and also those who harbour a deep-seated hatred and contempt for LGBTI people.  

These people will make up of the majority group who will decide whether to uphold discrimination towards the minority group.

To ensure people are informed before they vote, as part of this, we will force LGBTI people and their families, loved ones and allies, to listen to the hateful rhetoric from people who argue that we should uphold this discrimination and LGBTI people should remain as a lesser class of citizen, which could cause deep hurt and harm to this group.

To ensure enough information is out there to decide whether LGBTI people are a lesser class of citizen or not, this will cost approximately 160 million dollars of taxpayer money.

It should also be noted that if a majority votes to continue discrimination towards the minority group, then discrimination based on gender should be fully respected and upheld. “

End Translation.

The Legislative Approach – Shorten Government

The legislative approach states that: Discrimination exists within our marriage law and separates citizens and discriminates based on gender. We will move a bill to redress that discrimination and ensure every citizen is equal under the eyes of the law.

Marriage Equality NOW.  Say NO to a plebiscite.

A dirty deal to drown out our inner voice

Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.”  Steve Jobs, 2005

 

Voices, opinions and narrative shape a society in a free democracy.  This is a crucial underlying construct of our ‘Australian Culture.’  It is one of the essential freedoms we enjoy as a country. Our voices, my voice, your voice shapes us.

The right to use our voice to protest. The right to use our voice to use social media  and other platforms to speak up loudly for or against issues. The right for journalists to report on sensitive issues and to criticise the Government. The right to nominate as a voice in our parliament and the right to vote for that voice.

Sometimes debate in our country is a lovely, manicured clear pathway and sometimes our debate is a thick forest with bruising scrub, dry arid land, harsh conditions, thorns that cut and grab and where we have to step around snakes with fear and angst.

However, it is our inner voice which allows us to block out the loud opinions of others and look up above that noise to the wisest of owls who will guide us out, beyond the snakes and to the other side to a place of peace and tranquility.

Every single person’s landscape of peace and tranquility is not the same. Some will find that peace in a conservative landscape, an authoritarian landscape, a socialist landscape, a (small l) liberal landscape or a libertarian landscape. For some people, depending on the issue at hand, they might find they have unfolded their deckchair and soaked up the sun in different landscapes over time.  For example, some may sit in the socialist landscape for worker’s rights, but will also sit in the punitive and conservative landscape to advocate for the death penalty.

There are also some people who don’t fight through harsh scrub and snakes, they have no wise owl to guide them to their landscape, they are trapped forever in a 70’s disco doing ‘The Shrug’ to the tune of ‘meh, meh, meh, meh, meh.’ Sometimes they might reach out and take a few steps down the easy manicured path of debate, but you will never get them near the forest.

Sadly, today, there are still many loud voices which drown out the opinions of those in minority groups who are suffering from harm. More and more people look to the wise-owl of their inner voice, to guide them and set themselves down in the landscape of the minorities in solidarity and that is a good thing, because it is so important that these voices are the loud and heard.

I do not support the argument that the only voices we should have in our parliament are the Independent voices and that the parliament would be better without the major parties.

I do not believe a parliament of independents is the panacea to some of the issues we have in parliament today. There are only so many frames of political ideology and to have the necessary legitimate and at times coercive power, blocs would be formed, representing that ideology.

The theories which explain power in relationships and politics are complex. Power can see people struggle over finite resources, some have the ability to use referent power, some can use power to make other’s dependent upon them and some can use coercive power. A party of Independent MPs or Senators is not the nice walk down the manicured path, some believe it to be.

What I strongly advocate for, is that all citizens should have the freedom to vote for a party who has either a solid platform they agree with, or a vote for an independent voice, which may take a myriad of conflicting positions.

My strongest argument is for informed voting. Although I am not a supporter of the Liberal party, I would prefer to see a voter vote conservative/LNP who has a truly informed conservative position they align with. They are informed and fully understand the damage that this party’s ideology and policies will do to certain groups of people, how their authoritarian nature will aim to suppress our voices and that they favour punitive measures above all else. I support that this voter is comfortable with being a bastard and owns it and wears it on their sleeve with pride.

I would rather this than just voting because of the aesthetical appeal of an individual politician, or they find a slogan catchy, without knowing what that party or person is really about. I want to turn the music off at the “Meh, meh, meh” disco and fill the disco full of owls to be followed right out of there. 

I argue strongly for this, because this is critical in shaping who we really are. The voices who end up on the other side of power (whomever that may be), end up battling through the forest and/or sitting in solidarity with groups of minorities.  They know their collective needs to grow stronger and their voices need to be more persuasive and louder. This enables robust debate and shapes our country. This is important as we do not want to just stretch out on a deckchair and catch a few rays in our ideal landscapes, but to build a house on it for life.

In the debate of democratic voting, the majority of people have built their house on the landscape of democracy. The Greens, the Xenophon party and The Liberals want to knock down our democratic houses. They have done a dirty deal to silence the voices of the independents in the Senate.  They are essentially forming a bloc on this issue to use legitimate power to drown out the inner voices who sit in their landscape and in solidarity with the Independents.

The Greens, the Xenophon party and the Liberals want to knock down your house of democracy by relying on the voters who are bopping away to “The Shrug” to the tune of “meh, meh, meh, meh.” This is the key to their success and the key to suppressing the independent voice.
.

Bill Shorten’s Labor is sitting in solidarity in the Independent’s landscape of democracy.

As a member of the Labor party, I am glad that this is where my party sits, as it is where I would be sitting regardless.

I will end this article, not with my own conclusion of why this is so wrong, but I will leave you with a must watch video of Anthony Albanese speaking out against the changes to the Senate Voting system. I hope that the voice in this video, encourages you speak up against these voting reforms with your pen on election day.