Category Archives: Politics – Australian

Separating political comment from bigotry

Posted on by
Reply

What an excellent government we have. Its ability to see clearly and understand the need to protect free speech and political debate while at the same time protecting individuals from vilification in the public sphere is exceptional. I discussed this in a post on Andrew Bolt and Mark Liebler. This is what I concluded then:

Free speech is about allowing the freedom to say whatever one believes in the midst of political discourse. If an acceptance of racist rants is defended as examples of free speech then the very notion of free speech will be discredited by these very claims in the eyes of anyone who wishes to live in a decent society where individuals are protected from the kinds of racist abuse that has no part to play in a civilised community which seeks to promote peace, order and good will.

And it is exactly this distinction that has been made in the coming legislation.

The Government Party Room this morning approved reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (the Act), which will strengthen the Act’s protections against racism, while at the same time removing provisions which unreasonably limit freedom of speech.

The legislation will repeal section 18C of the Act, as well as sections 18B, 18D, and 18E.

A new section will be inserted into the Act which will preserve the existing protection against intimidation and create a new protection from racial vilification. This will be the first time that racial vilification is proscribed in Commonwealth legislation sending a clear message that it is unacceptable in the Australian community.

The coming debates in this country over the course of the next few years will be about political views that mascarade as religious or racial views. We now have legislation that will allow such debates to take place in public without spurious claims of racism being allowed to cloud the discussion. An exceptionally well thought out piece of work.

Australia still has the world’s best healthcare system

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting submission on the healthcare system in Canada beginning with this:

Many healthcare reform advocates, political pundits, and policymakers point to Canada as a shining example of the advantages of a state-run, single-payer healthcare system.

Canada is, in fact, one of only a handful of countries with a bona fide single-payer system. Government officials set the total budget for what can be spent on health care every year.
Provinces and territories administer their own insurance programs, with additional funding from the federal government.

Private insurance is outlawed in several provinces.

This is the sort of system that many are calling for here in the United States. They want to abolish private insurance and leave government as the sole source of health coverage.

Read the rest if you think free healthcare is any kind of an answer. Because we have a dual system, there are more resources in the Australian system than there otherwise would be and everyone ends up with better healthcare than they otherwise would have. There’s more illness than the ability to treat it all but from what I can tell, Australia’s is the best there is.

Via Powerline.

Just don’t do it

Posted on by
Reply

Two articles at opposite ends of today’s AFR both discuss public spending on infrastructure but with a different message from each. There is firstly on the front page, Project spree risks AAA rating ,which begins:

The government’s AAA credit rating may be at risk if it embarks on major infrastructure initiatives before sweeping changes to how projects are funding are made, according to the ­Productivity Commission.

The rest is behind the paywall but the article discusses the views of Peter Harris, the Chairman of the Productivity Commission, who is trying to get the government to think long and hard before it spends our money. Infrastructure is seldom the best use of our resources and before we commit to such spending there needs to be a very thorough cost-benefit analysis undertaken with a real intent to ensure we are getting value for money.

Pet projects have been an ongoing disaster. There is only one reason for a government to enter into such expenditure and that is because there is a net dividend to the economy. If you think, for example, that Building the Education Revolution contributed anything at all to the Australian economy, you should not be making infrastructure judgments. Only if you are able to articulate why the BER was an almost total waste of money and resources could you be trusted to assess our future infrastructure needs.

Then at the back of the paper we have Peter Sheehan with an opinion piece, The new Keynesians: accident or design?. And his point: however it may have come about the Abbott government is about to launch into a Keynesian stimulus which he thinks is a great idea. As he writes:

Strong underlying growth cannot be assumed. The Keynesian response is clear: there needs to be a major program of infrastructure investment. This should be large-scale additional spending of 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent of GDP a year for five years.

If the government listens to this kind of thing they will end up as bad as Labor. They should dwell instead on this before they start spending money as if we are in some deep depression, also from today’s AFR:

Employment jumped in February by the most in almost two years, led by an oversized 80,500 surge in full-time work, Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows.

Some small part of government spending is productive, some is necessary because it provides assistance to those who are in need, but for the most part government spending is a drag on the economy not a stimulus. Cut the deficit. Get unions out of the road. Reduce unnecessary regulation. And leave recovery to the private sector which is already starting the process we need to continue along.

More news on the economy

Posted on by
Reply

From The Oz today, Tony Abbott eyes $5bn for new road funding:

ROAD funding will surge again in the federal budget in May as the Abbott government casts an “eager eye” on new projects to lift faltering economic growth.

The budget plans include billions of dollars to upgrade old road and rail infrastructure in outer suburbs, on top of the Coalition’s existing $35.5 billion list of public works.

The new spending will come with tough conditions on the states to hasten construction after a federal audit revealed $3bn in cash sitting idle in state coffers.

I guess with the state of economic theory being what it is, the worst that the ALP can say is this:

The Coalition agenda is being criticised by Labor infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese on the ground it ignores public transport projects such as urban rail.

Meanwhile:

Investment spending will dive from $167bn this year to $125bn next year, according to figures released on Thursday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, adding to the case within the government for outlays on public works.

If these are projects that can show a net positive return, then there is a case to be made. Otherwise it’s just more waste.

Shocked and disgusted and outraged

Posted on by
Reply

An illegal migrant was killed during a riot at the detention centre at Manus Island. Why were they rioting? They have found a safe haven from the repression they say they had experienced; in fact, surely they had that safe haven in Indonesia but I don’t know the details. But here is the story as told by the ABC, picked up at Andrew Bolt:

Thousands of people have held candlelight vigils around Australia for slain asylum seeker Reza Berati, who died in violence at the Manus Island detention centre last Monday.

A crowd of 5,000 people gathered in Melbourne’s Federation Square while 4,000 more rallied at Sydney’s town hall, with candles lit for the 23-year-old man.

And why the vigil:

I suppose what this represents is a catalyst or a flash point which has mobilised people all round Australia who are shocked and disgusted and outraged at the events that have led to this.

This seems very political to me since, as Andrew writes, these same people did not seem to worry so much about the at least 1100 people who drowned in trying to reach Australia by boat. And does anyone know what marketable skills Reza brought with him to Australia and whether he could even speak English?

A reminder to lovers of reason

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t know why this is news to anyone – Bolt Report back – and bigger – but it has not gone unremarked amongst those who somehow find this displeasing. From Andrew Bolt:

The Twitterverse has exploded in rage, but I trust lovers of reason won’t be displeased:

NEWS Corp Australia columnist Andrew Bolt is being given more airtime with his Network Ten show to double in length to one hour when it returns on March 2.

The new-look The Bolt Report will include a new segment, called News Watch, which promises “to put the media under genuine scrutiny”.

The fun starts at 10am and 4pm on Sunday, March 2.

I believe this is meant to be a complaint, but I shall treat it as a request:

gerard mcdermott on bolt

Among the guests for the first show: Peter Costello, Michael Costa and Gerard Henderson. We have invited Bill Shorten to come on the show on the very near future, of course, and hope the old Labor ban is lifted. I did think it counter-productive.

The people smuggling information agency – only eight cents a day

Posted on by
Reply

Andrew Bolt has more fortitude that I do. Since he left Insiders and began the Bolt Report I have been blessed with the most excellent starts to my Sundays, which will be extended to an hour this year. But this quizzing of Scott Morrison on illegal migrants is astonishing, even taking into account the previous standards set by the National Broadcaster. These are just the questions:

BARRIE CASSIDY: How many Australian naval ships entered Indonesian territorial waters in December and January?

BARRIE CASSIDY: Do you know the answer to the question?

BARRIE CASSIDY: Why can’t you tell us now?

BARRIE CASSIDY: But why would that piece of information be in any way, why would it compromise the Government’s position?

BARRIE CASSIDY: How much of that report then will be released?

BARRIE CASSIDY: Will it explain how it happened and why it happened?

BARRIE CASSIDY: And it will explain how it happened?

BARRIE CASSIDY: Will the unclassified section of that report explain to the Australian people how this happened, why it happened and why it won’t happen again?

BARRIE CASSIDY: And then we can back that judgment. The Indonesian Navy report argued the incursions may have been intentional, said in this era, navigation equipment is very sophisticated.

BARRIE CASSIDY: What’s false about that?

BARRIE CASSIDY: And what satisfied you of that?

BARRIE CASSIDY: There is a suspicion clearly in Indonesia that it was intentional. How will you disabuse them of that notion?

BARRIE CASSIDY: And do you think based on what you already know they will be satisfied with what you have to say, that without question, it was not intentional?

BARRIE CASSIDY: The Indonesian Navy report that I referred to had a photograph of burn wounds on a hand and it said, and this is the quote, “Resulting from being forced to hold onto the ship’s engine by the Australian Navy.” Does it concern you that an official Indonesian Navy report would make such an assertion?

BARRIE CASSIDY: Can you though dismiss just as lightly a report from the Indonesian Navy as you can a report from an asylum seeker?

BARRIE CASSIDY: How again will you disabuse the Indonesian Navy of their notion?

BARRIE CASSIDY: And you’ve established the facts, of course, without speaking to the person who made the allegations?

BARRIE CASSIDY: But you describe it as a normal process, wouldn’t a normal process, as part of that wouldn’t you talk to the person making the allegations?

BARRIE CASSIDY: What are the factors at work there? Clearly it’s the monsoon season, that’s one factor. How much credit would you give to the previous Government over its PNG (Papua New Guinea) solution?

BARRIE CASSIDY: But the PNG solution wasn’t in place this time last year.

BARRIE CASSIDY: The Indonesian Foreign Minister has, talking about the turn-back strategy, quote, “It threatens the negotiation of a code of conduct designed to repair the relationship.” Clearly he’s offended by the policy.

BARRIE CASSIDY: You are being true to yourself and true to your policy, as you say, but nevertheless it does seem to be offending the Indonesians, to the point where they’re now going to raise this issue with the US Secretary of State, John Kerry.

BARRIE CASSIDY: What do you think John Kerry would do about it anyway, even if he does regard it as a global issue?

BARRIE CASSIDY: And the other issue that they seem to displease them is the lifeboats issue and they say that that’s more severe than towing back boats; “We strongly protest.”

BARRIE CASSIDY: So you will go on utilising these lifeboats?

BARRIE CASSIDY: Well we’ve seen a video of those lifeboats.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Three days ago an Indian student took his own life at a detention centre in Melbourne. He was in that centre because he overstayed his visa. Could that have been avoided?

BARRIE CASSIDY: Is there a better way to deal with a student who overstays his visa?

BARRIE CASSIDY: So you’re saying there are factors at work here that go beyond the sort of conditions and stresses that come with being in a detention centre?

BARRIE CASSIDY: OK. Now on Friday at a Senate hearing there were 16 denominations, churches, who talked about the Government’s position on the migration act. You want to change it to give you more discretionary powers. Now they said, they say that would allow you to play God.

BARRIE CASSIDY: A former minister though, Chris Evans, said that it gave him too much power, the workload was too great and the churches are saying the taskforce, that if the minister gets it wrong there could be dire consequences for the individual.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Now just finally a report in The Australian yesterday, the Government is considering spending $3 billion to buy giant unmanned drones to patrol the borders that would be used, at least in part, to track asylum seekers and illegal fishermen. Is that under consideration?

BARRIE CASSIDY: If you were to invest that sort of money though in unmanned drones that would suggest you’d think this problem is going to be around for a long time yet?

Who, other than people smugglers, are interested in knowing the answers to any of these question?

I wonder what this was about

Posted on by
Reply

From Andrew Bolt:

People who airily deny that my free speech (and, by extension, yours) hasn’t been taken away in part by our courts should know that I have again been advised by my lawyers not to comment on a recent publication by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, or even to simply republish the DFAT item without comment.

This is far from the first time. Our laws against free speech are a disgrace. The effect is to allow people – in this case DFAT – to promote a certain point of view on a matter of great moral importance without fear of contradiction.

This post, then, is a bookmark to note where an article should have appeared.

What about cabinet solidarity?

Posted on by
Reply

Well there’s ABC independence and then there’s cabinet solidarity. From The Age:

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has strongly defended the ABC’s editorial independence in the face of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s attack on the national broadcaster, which he says ‘instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s’.

Mr Turnbull defended the Prime Minister’s right to critique the ABC but, in comments that could be interpreted as resistance to Mr Abbott, he said the ABC was rightly accountable to its board of directors, not politicians.

Do I get this right? The Government sets up a media organisation that has been captured by its ultra-left staff and staffing policies and that’s the end of it. This is not Fairfax or News Media whose life and death is dependent on earning an income in the market. This is a government-paid-for media organisation over which the government apparently has no control. Is that the point? Is that what he means? Doesn’t work for me. This works for me, from The Australian:

THE ABC’s $223 million Australia Network Asian broadcasting service is likely to be scrapped in the May budget to save money and end the pursuit of “soft diplomacy” in the region through television.

Federal cabinet has already discussed the option of dropping the ABC’s contract to broadcast Australian news and entertainment in the region, with the Government Solicitor providing advice on the ramifications of stripping the ABC of its 10-year contract.

Cabinet ministers believe the ABC’s coverage of Australia in the region is overly negative and fails to promote the nation as originally intended in the Australia Network’s charter by using the “soft diplomacy” of Australian news and cultural programs.

The ABC is unresponsive to what its market wants, more than half of whom voted for this government which the ABC is viscerally opposed to. No one says that the ABC has to be a government news service but it is also not supposed to outrage more than half the country with its approach to political issues.