Soliders marching in the street
are not soldiers marching to war.
Smart uniforms, shiny boots,
bayonets flashing, sharp and sinister;
they’re not soldiers marching to war.
Soldiers lying in crumpled heaps,
bodies broken beyond repair,
photos treasured, tears and grief;
worrying worrying, beyond despair
for the soldiers who marched to war.
Smashed streets where no one walks,
bloodied uniforms galore;
bayonets buried in their guts;
dreams buried beneath the gore.
These were soldiers who marched to war.
Soldiers marching in the street,
soldiers returning from the war.
Bodies broken, faces grim;
nightmares haunting them.
Soldiers marching from the war.
– Barry Tucker, 2014
The Sniper*
Australia is in trouble. Young Australians will have to save it, if you decide it needs saving.
Australia was a democracy. It has slowly become a Corporatocracy: government by Big Business. You will have to change that, if you think it is a bad thing. I will not tell you what to think.
You could argue that Australia is still a democracy. Australians vote in free and fair elections to decide who will run things until the next election.
You could argue that Australia believes in the principle of a free Press (or news media generally). The British parliament, the model for ours, recognised the Press as the Fourth Estate, granting it the right to sit in the parliament and report on the affairs of government.
You could argue that nothing has changed and all is sweet in the land of Oz. You could look more closely, dig deeper, and decide whether or not this is true. I will not tell you what to think. I will only ask you to look more closely, dig deep and decide for yourself.
It is true that Australians are free to vote in elections for people to represent them at local council, State and federal government levels. Who are these people? If they are locals you may know them personally, or you may have heard about them. You might have read about them in an online “newspaper” article, a blog, a Facebook comment or a tweet. You depend on the people who write these articles and messages to tell you the truth. Can you rely on them?
If you do not know who these potential MPs are, or who they really represent, should you be voting for them? Running an election campaign is an expensive business, if you really go for it. Where does the money for the advertising, posters, banners, balloons, travelling to attend meetings, hiring halls and so on come from? What do the people, companies or organisations providing election fund donations expect in return?
While we have the right to vote, we do not have the right to choose the Prime Minister; that is done by the caucus of the governing MPs. We do not have the right to choose the Governor-General; that is the privilege of the Prime Minister. Is that democratic?
We have no say in the fact that the monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch of the British Empire and therefore the monarch of Australia. Does that seem right to you? Is it appropriate considering that Britain threw Australian and New Zealand (ANZAC) troops into a disastrous invasion of Turkey in World War I and then used them as cannon fodder in Europe? Britain abandoned Australian troops in Singapore in WW II and turned its back on Australia as a trading partner when it joined the European Economic Community in 1973. I won’t tell you what to think, but I will ask you to think about these things when you are asked to decide if Australia should become a Republic.
I know most young people do not read newspapers. Do you think newspapers should be obliged to do their best to tell the truth? Would that be a respectful way for the Fourth Estate to honour the privilege that was granted to it by the British parliament in 1771?
When considering Freedom of the Press, please consider this: the bulk of your information about the world of business and politics comes from the journalists who report on these things initially. It may then get copied or interpreted before being passed on via your favourite internet sites. That’s how most of us get our information. Hopefully, in a healthy democracy, the information is accurate, honestly presented, without bias or spin. Some people, including journalists and professors of journalism studies, say impartiality (or a complete lack of bias) is impossible because personal interests and beliefs will always interfere with a journalist’s judgment.
If you cannot rely on a journalist’s reporting of events, who can you rely on? You could rely on another expert, or maybe a football hero, a movie queen or a musician giving their interpretation of events. Some of them are good at it. You might rely on your own interpretation, in which case you will have to know more than all the other experts put together. Is that possible, realistic or even practical? I will not tell you what to think, but I will ask you to think about what Freedom of the Press really means, or should mean.
Newspapers publish opinion polls. Some of the newspaper companies own some of these opinion polls. The people who give their opinions get their facts from the newspapers. The newspapers then publish the results of the opinion polls. Do you think there might be a problem here? Does this situation make it even more important that our newspapers report fairly and honestly in the first place?
Recall that I wrote Australia has become a Corporatocracy. Big multinational corporations are now deciding what Australia’s policies should be, what your rights should be, what your future should be. The big political parties that say they represent you actually represent these corporations. Is that fair and right? What can you do about it? What will this mean for you and your family in future years?
Australia has experienced boom times, usually when it has exported its produce to the world. These booms were based on wheat, wool, beef, gold, coal, iron ore, bauxite (the raw material for aluminium), uranium yellow cake and to a lesser degree timber, fruit and vegetables and fish or other marine produce, including whale oil. Do you see the picture? Natural products (all subject to damage due to environmental pollution and/or climate change) and raw materials, all of which (with the possible exception of timber) will one day run out.
Mainly because of its high wage structure (which leads to high prices for everything), Australia finds it hard to profit from manufacturing things that can be produced more cheaply elsewhere. This is why we are losing our car manufacturing industry. The multinational corporations want to run Australia because they want to profit from the raw materials and natural resources while they last. In some cases, they want to import their own workers on 457 visas. This affects your future and the future of your family and friends.
I will not tell you what to think. But, as you can see, there is a lot for you to think about.
=============
This article was first submitted to The Hoopla, whose editor deemed it not suitable for publication.
*The Sniper is Barry Tucker, a retired journalist. He operates the Truth in News Media Resource Centre and can be found on twitter, as Sir Loinsteak (@btckr).
Barry Tucker
The Abbott & Co “Open for Business” federal government is planning to amend media laws to allow more cross-media ownership.
In the now all-to-common kerfuffle that follows such an announcement, there is a variety of policy positions in the public arena for you to choose from – the Abbott wriggle room in motion.
Various Australian governments have caved in to pressure from Rupert Murdoch to relax ownership rules over the past few decades and he now dominates the news and entertainment media (who can tell one from the other?) in Australia.
He sometimes supports the ALP camp, sometimes the Liberals. Observers say he picks winners and backs them, or dumps them, as he sees fit. Others say his only interest is a commercial one.
Political interference from such a powerful media magnate is not in this country’s best interest, in my opinion. If the situation was more balanced, a variety of opinions would be possible. At present this is not possible. This is not healthy.
During early 2013 the federal Labor government made a pig-headed attempt to introduce and debate several media Bills. Some would have simply required the news media (newspapers mainly) to adhere more closely to standards they had already agreed to.
Talk of an overseer to monitor this was greeted with screams of “censorship”, “Nazis”, “dictators” and the like. There already are Codes of Conduct, Codes of Ethics, agreed standards and overseers, or administrators, in the form of The Australian Press Council, the Free-to-Air TV organisation and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA, which the Institute of Public Affairs, IPA, wants abolished).
Talk of introducing a Public Interest Media Advocate (PIMA) to oversee and rule for or against media ownership and consolidation was screamed about less, but was the real reason for all the other howling and screaming and carry on. Most of the noise, outrageous gutter journalism and derisory front page cartooning came from the Murdoch Press, News Corp, mainly The Daily Telegraph and The Courier Mail.
Now we have Abbott & Co’s “Open for Business” so-called government for all Australians in league with media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and the IPA all hot to trot for Murdoch being allowed to own more stuff while the only potentially independent and non-commercial news, current affairs and comment operation in the nation (the ABC) is about to get its guts kicked in when Treasurer Joe Hockey releases his Murder in May Budget.
For this we have to thank a pack of idiots that calls itself the Australian Labor Party.
We also have former IPA spruiker Tim Wilson installed in the Human Rights Commission (good grief!) on a salary and perks that total somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000 pa and Attorney-General George Brandis in his usual fatuous and pompous style struggling to explain why Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act should be rewritten to allow Andrew Bolt to question the racial identity of certain people and generally continue to stir up racial feelings because somehow or other it will be a good thing for freedom of speech – to hell with the race riots, we’ll deal with that when they happen. At least Brandis has now given me free rein to express my internal bigot by calling him a fat, bald-headed, pompous idiot and one of these days I will do so – but not today.
You should be rioting in the streets. Why aren’t you?
At least I took the time to write to the Labor Opposition’s media and communications spokesperson in the House of Reps, Mark Dreyfus QC. Apparently he’s still too busy dealing with correspondence from angry constituents to give me an answer.
I would write to my local Member, Whatsisname, but he’s a frocking Liberal. Fat chance.
Anyway, here’s the letter I wrote a month ago and the non-reply.
To mark.dreyfus.mp@aph.gov.au
23 Mar
Mark Dreyfus QC MP
Shadow Attorney-General
Shadow Minister for the Arts
March 23, 2014
Subject: Divestment Murdoch media holdings
Dear Mr Dreyfus
Like many other people, I am concerned about the extent of Rupert Murdoch’s media holdings in Australia. (Cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation)
It is possible that Abbott’s proposed changes to media laws will enable Murdoch to own even more Australian news outlets.
During the time of the Gillard government, fumbling of Labor’s media Bills prevented the installation of a Public Interest Media Advocate (PIMA), who would have examined and allowed or disallowed further media consolidation.
Federal government legislation has allowed Murdoch’s Australian media empire to grow, to such an extent that he controls an estimated 67% of newspapers (in addition to magazines and part ownership of TV stations, AAP news agency, opinion polls and more).
Various governments have allowed this situation to develop. I do not believe Murdoch’s extensive ownership of Australian news media is in the public interest or in the best interest of the health of our democracy.
Of course, from time to time, Murdoch has supported the election of Labor governments and has been active in their defeat.
1: Is there any chance that the Federal Labor Opposition could introduce a Bill in the Senate (before July) to bring about the divestment of Murdoch’s media interests in Australia?
2: Is is possible for an individual to challenge existing media ownership laws in the High Court?
I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully
Barry Tucker (@btckr)
[address and other contact details deleted]
I received this automated response and nothing since then.
Dreyfus, Mark (MP)
To Me
23 Mar
Thank you for contacting me via email.
While I try to respond to all letters, emails and messages as quickly as possible, I am currently receiving a particularly high volume of emails, many of which are form letters. As the Federal Member for Isaacs, my priority is responding to constituents who live in Isaacs and require assistance. Issues relating to my shadow portfolio responsibilities of Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for the Arts will be responded to as soon as possible.
If you are a local resident, please ensure that you have included your mailing address and a contact phone number with your email. If your matter is urgent and you live in Isaacs, please contact my office on (03) 9769 1955 for assistance.
For other matters, I appreciate your correspondence and the time you have taken to contact me.
Kind regards,
MARK DREYFUS QC MP
Federal Member for Isaacs
http://www.facebook.com/markdreyfus
Of course, the reality is that while such a Bill might pass the Senate, where the Opposition parties hold the balance of power at present (a new Senate sits from July 1, 2014), it would not pass the Lower House, where the Liberals and their National Party coalition partner have a large majority.
But, if the attempt was made, and if the slouches in the Press Gallery reported on it, a public debate may get under way. All of which is unlikely to happen. All of which is an unsatisfactory and, frankly, scary situation.
Farewell Australia’s Democracy.
Here’s a round-up of comments on the media laws announcement on Eleanor Hall’s ABC program The World Today; reporter Louise Yaxley. As you will see, typical of this government’s secrecy and obfuscation, no one really reveals the truth of what’s going to happen.
The contents of this file have been moved into a new blog which has been designed to allow comment on each separate policy.
Click here to go to the main page. A policy items menu should appear on the left-hand side and a comment box should appear below.
If those items are not visible, click on ~ Leave a Comment, below and to the right of the headline. More features, including those mentioned above, will magically appear.
Constructive comments, corrections, development, further ideas, new policy headings, possible references, etc, are welcomed.
This is a genuine attempt to develop policies and come up with ways to counter the dreadful state of Australian politics due to The Dreaded Duopoly, corporate interference and the truly awful news media. The site is not intended for the usual slanging off and whining that appears below political blogs. Such unhelpful comments will be removed.
Comment
Barry Tucker 10 April, 2014
Earlier this year federal government leader Tony Abbott spun a version of his intention to spend a week with a remote Indigenous community.
It allowed him to say he hadn’t broken a promise. He didn’t make the promise some claim he made.
It allowed him to avoid misleading the Parliament (something he regards as a serious crime).
He got away with it because there are two recorded versions of what he said.
At the annual Garma Indigenous Culture Festival, on Saturday, 10 August, 2013, Abbott discarded a prepared speech, turned to Elder Galarrwuy Yunupingu and said:
“Why not, if you will permit me, why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me, spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your country?
“People will say ‘You’re the prime minister, you can’t do that. You are goofing off. You are not doing your job’.
“But the fact is if these places are homes to the first Australians why should not they be home, if only for a few days, to the prime minister of our country?”
Galarrwuy Yunupingu nodded in agreement as Abbott spoke. It’s in this video:
Later that day, during a joint news conference with Indigenous Advisory Council chairman Warren Mundine, Abbott said:
“… as I said to Galarrwuy Yunupingu, if he is willing, I would like the first week that I spend in a remote indigenous community as prime minister, should that happen, to be here in this very significant indigenous community with the Yolngu people”.
It’s in this news conference transcript, prepared by Carers NT.
Notice the difference in the two statements. “… spend my first week …” in the first statement and “… the first week that I spend …” in the second statement.
Between the first and the second statement one of Abbott’s minders must have told him he would be too busy, “should that happen”, in his first week to be going walkabout in the Bush. Abbott did allude to this in the first statement. Perhaps that is why he phrased the second statement differently.
As often happens, social media picked up one version and ran with the story. Repetition made it stick; Abbott knows how that works.
It stuck so well that a few months after the 7 September, 2013, election, which Labor lost, it was being used as a broken promise.
In fact, on Wednesday, 12 February, 2014, Labor opposition leader Bill Shorten asked Abbott in Question Time about his “election promise”* to the Yolngu people.
In his reply, Abbott said he didn’t blame the opposition leader for the “construction” he had put on the statement he made at the Garma festival because some people had put that construction on it. He went on:
“But what I actually said was the first remote community I would visit and stay in as prime minister would be a community in East Arnhem Land.
“And that is exactly what I am going to do. I will spend a week in East Arnhem Land later in the year. It will be the very first remote Indigenous community that I visit in this way as prime minister.”
That’s in this video:
A couple of things to note. *Shorten is wrong about an election promise. Abbott did not promise anything. He spoke about a desire, first of all for his first week as PM and then for the first visit by a PM to a remote community at some indeterminate time. Abbott didn’t say exactly what he claims he said in his reply to Shorten. And he didn’t point out that he said one thing and then another. It would save a lot of chaos and confusion if he was more of a straight shooter.
Weasel words perhaps. Abbott is good at creating wriggle room and he IS hard to pin down, as we see this infamous encounter with the ABC’s Kerry O’Brien:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk
He did say in that interview that the only remarks that could be relied upon were his carefully scripted remarks. Remember he discarded his prepared speech at the Garma festival. Was that prescient?
Abbott might wish he had used carefully prepared and scripted remarks for this encounter with Leigh Sales on the 7.30 Report. Yes, it’s another one of those pesky ABC journos.
Sometimes Abbott thinks it’s best to say nothing.
Oops, that didn’t go too well.
Abbott might have signed some trade deals recently but leaders of those countries have nothing to worry about. Abbott didn’t negotiate them or promise anything.
He did make a lot of promises before last September’s election.
What a pity he didn’t stop to think about the make-up of the Senate at that time.
What a pity he didn’t use his crystal ball to see what the Senate would look after July 1 this year.
As they say, if his lips are moving …
The Sniper 
We seem to have a new tactic of having an outburst of infectious laughter — which I suspect may become disorderly — and I suspect it might begin with the Member for Franklin. — Madam Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop
Poor Julie Collins, doing her best to be the Member for Franklin, could not help being infected with laughter. Neither could any progressive, modern Australian, because …
the non-progressive, not very modern, leader of the supposedly Liberal government, Anthony John (Tony) Abbott had just reintroduced the ancient honours of knights and dames.
AFTER saying on 22 December that he wouldn’t.
His government expects you to take this seriously, but at least one former Liberal Prime Minister, the even more conservative John Howard, thinks it’s “anachronistic” and seven government MPs (that I know of) agree with him.
Ms Bishop is not one of them.
Madam Speaker: The member for Franklin is warned.
Mr Burke (Manager of Opposition Business): I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It had better be a proper point of order. [Bossy Boots]
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, are you ruling people out of order because they are laughing?
Madam Speaker: The member will resume his seat. The member for Franklin will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
If anything, Madam Speaker’s haughty approach to hilarity only made matters worse. The Member for Franklin, almost doubled up from side-splitting disruptiveness, struggled to get the EXIT door open. Watch the sequence of events. Sorry about the car ad. You can hardly blame Opposition MPs for cracking up over some hysterical historical honours. Laughter can infect even the formidable folks in the New York subway. Clearly, Mr Abbott did not see the funny side, as Pope’s cartoon demonstrates: 
Mr Abbott (or Mr Pope) is channelling his essential Dame Edna Everage — another pretender to royal hob-nobbing. Pretty soon he was channelling anger, glaring and yelling at Opposition Leader Bill Shorten (“The Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” – boy he knows how to rub it in) who had been humming Rule Britannia. Fair go Bill, our anthem is God Save the Queen, isn’t it? Or that Ode to Sheep Rustlers one. 
At least Pope’s Dame Edna/Caesar was milder than this effort by Shakespeare, who gives his impression of Anthony John (Tony) Abbott as King Somethingorother, mad with the lust for power. 
Here’s the real Mr Abbott, in his previous role as Opposition Leader, with his eyes on the real prize: the love and affection of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. They’re supposed to protect him from any silly nonsense, like people laughing at him. And not just because he is sensitive to ridicule. His boss, and theirs, Rupert Murdoch, demands that Mr Abbott be protected, especially from policy questions. Sometimes he has to run away to protect himself. 
And sometimes the Murdoch Press doesn’t follow orders, and does something naughty, like The Courier-Mail front page above. Fancy clashing with Mr Abbott and his new fancy for imperial gongs. Well, it could be worse. Like The Daily Telegraph campaign that had some Labor ministers appearing as Nazis or Stalin, for trying to get the newspapers to agree to what they’d already agreed to, a bit of constraint, not just in column content but in gobbling each other up. You didn’t hear about that last point, did you? Back to Bronnie, as I sometimes call her with all the affection and respect I can muster. Respect for the person, that is. There’s no question about my respect for her current title and its histeric historical grandnessence. MSM doesn’t get to have all the fun. The toughness of Madam Speaker, Bronnie, has been noted in SM memes, like the one below: Bronnie the Destroyer. 
Infectious laughter is one thing. Talking back to Madam Speaker is another. Later in the day Labor’s Mark Dreyfus got told his Point of Order was not a Point of Order. None of Labor’s is, apparently. Obviously. Mr Dreyfus became irate. He almost did one of them “J’accuse”es. (Same spelling in the surname. They might be related.) He did this instead: “You do have to listen! It’s your job!” Oh dear. Take a walk Mr Dreyfus. 😦 Things got worse the next day. No one tells Madam Speaker what her job is. And fair enough, because they shouldn’t have to. During Question Time Madam Speaker gave another ruling that displeased the Opposition. Mr Dreyfus called out, in exasperation: “Madam Speaker!” No walkies, not just yet. Some procedure first. Madam Speaker NAMED him! Twice. It was the first time Madam Speaker had Named someone. When a Member is Named the Leader of the Government moves for their suspension from the Chamber for 24 hours. Now Mr Dreyfus takes a walk. And the Opposition goes nuts. The Manager of Opposition Business, Mr Burke, brought on a debate, of sorts, that allowed the Opposition to record its displeasure with Madam Speaker in Hansard. It was the first such motion since 1949 — pretty serious stuff. I’m sorry this suddenly got serious. But I had to digress there to mention this: Government Leader in the House, Mr Pyne, defended Madam Speaker in the remarkably hypocritical fashion that the Liberals do so well. He said when in Opposition he was never disrespectful to Labor’s Speaker Anna Burke. 
The most booted man in history (his words, not mine) pokes his tongue at Speaker Burke as he goes off on another walkabout. And the devious little devil asserted that when in Opposition his side of politics was always well behaved. 
Yep. Those are all Liberals or NP partners being good little well mannered grown-ups, treating the Parliament with the sort of respect they all think it deserves. Oh, the hypocrisy. Well, when it comes to behaviour in the House, Madam Speaker has the last say — and the last laugh: 
insert cartoon credit
Or does she? The ABC’s National Affairs Correspondent for the 7.30 Report, Heather Ewart, thinks we might not have heard the last of this: 
The End (or not, we shall see) Update, 27 November, 2014 Speaker Bishop ejected 18 Opposition MPs under rule 94a during question time today. Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke said this was an all-time record for a single session of question time. Those ejected included, for the first time, Melissa Parke. Her offence was quoting from Standing Orders. Speaker Bishop, in her former role as an Opposition MP, quoted parliamentary procedure during question time virtually on a daily basis. Since being appointed as Speaker, a role that is supposed to be impartial, Ms Bishop has ejected 285 MPs, 280 of them Labor members. The situation is so bad the Twitter meme makers can’t keep up with the numbers.
Update: June 2, 2015
Mr Burke moved another motion of dissent from Madam Speaker’s ruling yesterday. The Speaker had ruled a question out of order when the questioner got through the preamble but before the question had been asked.
Here is Mr Burke speaking to his motion of dissent:
Comment, editing and compilation
By Barry Tucker 29 March, 2014
On Thursday, 27 March, 2014, the Labor Opposition brought on a brief debate expressing its frustration with the hard-line rulings of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Bronwyn Bishop.
This is a continuation of the argy-bargy that has involved the position of Speaker since the tied election of 2010. Labor established a minority government with the support of two Independents. The Liberal National Party Coalition maintained the minority government was illegitimate and instituted a disruptive campaign in Opposition, until decisively winning government in September 2013.
Due to its critical numbers in the HoR, Labor replaced its Speaker, Harry Jenkins, with the then Deputy Speaker, Peter Slipper — a former Liberal disendorsed earlier when he accepted the Deputy Speaker role. He later became embroiled in allegations of workplace sexual harassment (case to be re-tried) and has been charged with misuse of CabCharge dockets (case to go to trial, and normally handled quietly and internally according to The Minchin Protocol).
The then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott moved a motion seeking the dismissal of Mr Slipper, a break with convention and disregard for the legal principle of the presumption of innocence. The debate that followed resulted in then Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s “misogny speech”. Ironically, perhaps, Mr Slipper is widely regarded as being one of the best (most impartial) Speakers of recent times.
Labor promoted then Deputy Speaker Anna Burke to Speaker. To be honest, Speaker Burke was just as tough with the LNP Opposition as Madam Speaker Bishop has been with Labor.
Bronwyn Bishop is regarded as a walking encyclopaedia on parliamentary procedure. During Question Time in the previous government I watched as she frequently rose to make Points of Order, which were rarely accepted. It may be that what we are now witnessing is some tit-for-tat. You will see from his response that the Leader of the House, Christoper Pyne, makes it clear that being in Opposition is tough. He should know. By his reckoning he’s been kicked out more often than anyone else.
I am grateful to my Twitter colleague @AussieRock for finding the Hansard transcripts that appear below. Some were provided by Opposition MPs.
Finding them is not as simple as it could be, which is why they are faithfully reproduced below, so that readers can absorb every nuance of the Motion of No Confidence debate. The news media has picked out the more sensational highlights. The text below and the additions of explanations, names, seats and party membership allows the reader to more closely follow the debate.
The Opposition’s motion, which it had been nurturing, was launched immediately after Mr Dreyfus was named (twice) for calling out “Madam Speaker!” Naming leads to the Member’s suspension from the House for 24 hours.
Mr BURKE (Labor, Watson. Manager of Opposition Business):
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion which has not been moved in this form in the House since 1949:
That the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker on the grounds:
(a) that in the discharge of her duties she has revealed serious partiality in favour of Government Members;
(b) that she regards herself merely as the instrument of the Liberal Party and not as the custodian of the rights and privileges of elected Members of the Parliament;
(c) that she constantly fails to interpret correctly the Standing Orders of the House; and
(d) of gross incompetency in her administration of parliamentary procedure.
The SPEAKER (Bronwyn Bishop, Liberal, Mackellar):
Before I call the Leader of the House, I would say to the Manager of Opposition Business that earlier today the Opposition was unable to call a division on a second reading motion because they had one member only in the House. Subsequent to that, they called a division on the question that the Bill be agreed to and then called the division off. Then, when we had a division on the third reading and all the members were present, they failed to provide a speaker on the next piece of business. I suggest they get their own house in order. I now call the Leader of the House.
MR PYNE (Liberal, Sturt. Leader of the House and Minister for Education):
Leave is not granted.
[Mr Burke then moved the Suspension of Standing Orders to enable debate of the original motion. He repeated the grounds for the motion and spoke in support of it.]
Mr BURKE:
I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker, on the grounds:
(a) that, in the discharge of her duties, she has revealed serious partiality in favour of government members;
(b) that she regards herself merely as an instrument of the Liberal Party and not as a custodian of the rights and privileges of elected members of the parliament;
(c) that she constantly fails to interpret correctly the standing orders of the House; and
(d) of gross incompetency in the administration of parliamentary procedure.
Madam Speaker, I note that this is an example of all the noise being on this side of the chamber. The reason these Standing Orders need to be suspended, Madam Speaker, is in the first instance …
Government members interjecting.
The SPEAKER:
Order! There will be silence on my right so that the speaker may be heard.
Mr BURKE:
Madam Speaker, what has just happened in this House is worthy of suspending Standing Orders. Never before in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia has someone been named for calling out “Madam Speaker”. That is what just happened in this House. Under no definition of what is within House Practice or of history or of anything that has happened in this parliament since 1901 has anyone claimed that the words “Madam Speaker” or “Mr Speaker” were unparliamentary. And, yet, the Member for Isaacs [Mr Dreyfus] did not just get warned or thrown out; he got named for calling you “Madam Speaker”.
[I interject here to point out that it was probably the tone of voice of Mark Dreyfus QC (Lab, Isaacs) that got him named and then suspended for 24 hours. It was in the nature of ‘Madam Speaker! For God’s sake‘ — a cry of exasperation. Mr Dreyfus was kicked out the previous day for disputing with Madam Speaker after being told he had no Point of Order. He then responded: “You do have to listen! It’s your job!”]
Yesterday, we had a member of parliament thrown out for laughing [Julie Collins, Labor, Franklin]. Madam Speaker, we have spent months watching you laugh at every joke from the ministers at the expense of members of the Opposition. But, somehow, that is an appropriate way to conduct the role.
Madam Speaker, I do not dispute what you said before that there are times in this chamber when things are cooperative. The example you gave this morning you articulated in a way that I would not disagree with one bit. But I do disagree with your decision to make that argument from the chair before the Leader of the House decides whether or not to grant leave. The comments you made, Madam Speaker, were reasonable comments for someone on either side of the chamber to make but not reasonable if you are meant to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, it is acknowledged on both sides of this House and throughout the country that you are a formidable parliamentarian. That is acknowledged. It is acknowledged that, for your entire time in Opposition and when you have sat on those benches opposite, you have been one of the people who have been able to come to the dispatch box and launch scathing and effective attacks on us as the Labor party. You are respected as a member of parliament for that. But we cannot support you continuing to behave that way when you want to sit in the Speaker’s chair.
In response to the claim of “stunt” that I heard from the front bench, Madam Speaker, we have not rushed to this. We raised concern on the day that you were elected as Speaker. The tradition referred to in Practice —and this is why we should be suspending Standing Orders — that non-executive members nominate and second the election of Speaker, and then bring the Speaker to the chair, is one of the powers of the backbench and the non-executive members of this House. That tradition was broken the moment you became Speaker.
We then found on 13 November last year that, despite the Prime Minister claiming that certain words specifically were sure to be considered unparliamentary, you decided that name-calling was going to be considered legitimate in this parliament. On 19 November last year, on issues relating …
A government member: Have you got a speech ready?
[Mr Burke’s reference to name-calling relates to the nickname ‘Electricity Bill’, a reference to Labor leader Bill Shorten.]
We prepare a sheet most days, I am afraid. Today is the day when, considering that for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth someone was thrown out for saying “Madam Speaker”, everybody has to acknowledge that this farce has gone on for far too long.
Madam Speaker, on 19 November last year, you reinterpreted a question asked by the member for Herbert [Ewen Jones, Liberal], who had made no mention of numbers in the question. I raised a Point of Order, saying that there was an issue of direct relevance, and your response was:
The question was one that was pertaining to numbers, as clearly was indicated by the questioner.
Notwithstanding that there was no reference to that in the question at all, you came up with a new question to get around Standing Order 104.
When we debated the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill, you waited until the moment when the Opposition were moving amendments and then decided that amendments which had been flagged and had gone through the appropriate processes of checking would be disallowed by you, denying the Opposition the capacity to put our amendments. We were not expecting to win the vote, but we were expecting to have our right to make our case.
Madam Speaker, on 2 December last year, we had a circumstance where the Leader of the Opposition after he was given the call for one purpose went on to seek leave for another. You claimed that you had called on him to resume his seat prior to him saying, “I seek leave”, and we asked you to check the tapes. You came back, allegedly having checked the tapes, Madam Speaker, and what you told the House was not true. You told the House that he, the Leader of the Opposition, again sought the call. The tapes do not reflect that. The tapes show the exact opposite. But, once again, the information provided to this parliament was changed so that you could pretend to be acting within the Standing Orders.
Madam Speaker, the issue of time limits has been one where time and again we have seen ministers in this House be allowed to continue their comments for quite a period after their speaking time has elapsed. But, when an Opposition member asks a question, suddenly the 30-second rule is enforced — and enforced completely strictly. If you want to provide a level of lenience for government members, that is fine; it is the impartiality of the way you do this job that is at issue, Madam Speaker. To have a circumstance where leave is not granted for this motion is extraordinary. As to the action that you took today, 98 people have now been thrown out of the House by you — every one of them from the Opposition. So it is 98-love. No Speaker in the history of Federation has a record like that.
We have had situations with amendments. I remember we had an amendment that I moved to a motion from the member for Denison [Andrew Wilkie, Independent], where you ruled, in answer to a Point of Order from the Leader of the House, that the amendment was too far away from the original motion — notwithstanding that on 2 December last year you allowed the Leader of the House to move an amendment to a motion from the Leader of the Opposition that completely reversed everything that was in the first motion.
Madam Speaker, if I stand to raise a Point of Order you wait until the minister has completed before you hear the Point of Order. At each issue, at each part of this, the practice that is followed is the same on every occasion. The Prime Minister is now laughing, but he will not be thrown out — nor should he be. But I can tell you that when he defends knights and dames it is really funny and we will laugh.
This motion today is not one that people rush to move. On every occasion that a motion of this nature is moved — whether it is a Suspension of Standing Orders or whether leave is not granted — it is carried forever in practice. When Opposition members get to this point they do not expect to win the vote, but they do expect to have a situation where everyone in Australia knows bias when they see it. Madam Speaker, we do not doubt for one minute your effectiveness as a warrior for the Liberal party, but that is not the job you chose to take on. Yet in the Speaker’s chair you have continued to act as though enjoying the victory for your own side is your job. Madam Speaker, the parliament deserves more than that. The parliament cannot have confidence in a Speaker who refuses to be impartial.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr ALBANESE: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr PYNE:
Madam Speaker, I rise to defend your position as Speaker and to speak against the motion to suspend Standing Orders moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. I would say to government members that we regard this vote as a vote of confidence in the Speaker. As far as the government is concerned, when the vote is taken, this will be a vote of confidence in the Speaker — and I am very confident that the Speaker will win.
The fact that this is a stunt is so clearly indicated by the fact that the Manager of Opposition Business came into the chamber with a prepared speech, which he then read from throughout his 10-minute contribution to the House. Madam Speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business has been building up to this since the first day that you were elected Speaker. I would remind him that, when you were elected Speaker on 12 November last year, the Manager of Opposition Business said: “When they all return to Hogwarts, Dumbledore is gone and Dolores Umbridge is now in charge of the school.” From the first day that you were Speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business and his cohorts on the front bench, like the member for Grayndler [Anthony Albanese, Labor], the member for Isaacs [Mr Dreyfus, Labor], the member for Sydney [Tanya Plibersek, Labor. Deputy Opposition Leader] and the member for Ballarat [Catherine King, Labor.] have been deliberately trying to create an issue around the speakership by being rude, by being aggressive and by behaving quite intolerably badly towards a woman in the chair.
The member for Sydney had cause to say in August 2012, about the then Leader of the Opposition [Tony Abbott, Liberal, Warringah], that perhaps he had trouble with strong women in public life. She said: “I think he does find it very difficult that he’s dealing with two women in positions of authority” — being then, the member for Chisholm [Anna Burke, Labor] and the then Prime Minister [Julia Gillard, Labor, Lalor. ret]. But, quite frankly, Madam Speaker, the former Leader of the Opposition [Mr Abbott] never spoke to either the member for Chisholm or the former Prime Minister in the way that the member for Isaacs speaks to you in the chair.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr PYNE: Not as badly, Manager of Opposition Business. The member for Isaacs is a bully — and an aggressive one at that — and he has deliberately been trying to be rude to you from his position, with his shouting and being over the top and loud. It was all, I think, part of a deliberate strategy.
May I say, Madam Speaker, that I am no sook. I was Manager of Opposition Business for five years. I was Manager of Opposition Business for three years in a hung parliament. I hold the record for being ejected from this place by Speakers in the parliament. But I never complained. I did not stand up like a great big sook — like the Manager of Opposition Business did today — and say, like one of my four children, that I had had my toy taken away from me.
I know Opposition is tough. Opposition is not challenging. It is not satisfying. You do not get to make any decisions. Paul Keating [a Labor Prime Minister, ’91-’96] put it very well in a debate on a matter of public importance in response to the then member for Flinders, Mr Reith, when he said: “Honourable members opposite have three more years of their lives trotting around in Opposition, three more years in the corridors at night wandering in and out of each other’s offices, having cold cups of tea at 11 o’clock.” And you have fallen silent, because you know it is true.
The sadness for the Opposition is that you lost the election. You have three years — hopefully more — in Opposition, and you just have to get used to it. When you are in Opposition, you do get thrown out of parliament more often than members of the government. When I was in government, I was thrown out of the chamber, as was the Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the House. You have to put up with it; that is the way it is.
You should hold the government to account because that is what a good Opposition does and the crossbenchers should do so as well. But when you speak to the Speaker, when you deal with the chair — the way you deal with the member for Mackellar [Madam Speaker] is utterly unprecedented in this place. I have been here for 21 years and I am shocked and appalled, as I hope a gentleman would be, by the way you speak to the Speaker. The member for Isaacs was named today and it was thoroughly deserved. For you to move this Motion of No Confidence the first time the Speaker names a member is bizarre; it is ludicrous; it is over the top; it is a stunt; it is designed to hide the fact that the Opposition does not have anything to say about the issues that the public care about.
The Opposition have nothing to say concerning issues the public care about: lowering taxation, cutting regulation, abolishing the carbon tax, reducing cost-of-living pressures on Australian families or returning the rule of law to the workplace. Therefore, the tactic of the Opposition has been one of trying to create distractions from the fact that they stand for nothing. My advice to the Opposition is: you have three years to learn why you lost the election in 2010 [sic] and why you lost the election in 2013. In 2010, you only hung on to power because you were able to negotiate with the crossbenches and after one term you had fewer seats than the Liberal Party and the National Party in this House. The Opposition have made no effort to do the hard work, to prepare policies, to think about what they stand for.
[In much of what follows Mr Pyne is not speaking to the motion. The Speaker does not ask him to speak to the motion, as she should.]
Graham Richardson tried to give you advice in The Australian a couple of weeks ago in one of his columns. You should listen to Graham Richardson because he was part of a successful Labor government. None of you were, I know; you were part of a very failed government. It could not have been easy for former ministers sitting opposite to accept that after three years they had fewer seats on their side of the House and after six years they were thrown from office in a landslide defeat. It is hard for them to accept that, I know. But quite frankly, they have to accept it and get on with it, if they want to serve in government ever again — hopefully, a more successful government than the last one. They have to do the work.
When we were in Opposition, the former member for Scullin [Harry Jenkins, Labor] was in the chair. He lost a vote on the floor of this House by throwing out a member — it was the member for Paterson, [Bob Baldwin, Liberal]. The Leader of the Opposition [Mr Abbott] immediately moved a motion of confidence in the Speaker — immediately, straight after. The then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had to second the motion because Labor’s instinct was not to protect the Speaker. Labor’s intention was not to uphold the dignity of the office of Speaker; it was to use it as a pawn, as a negotiating tool to get the then member for Fisher [Peter Slipper, Ind., former Liberal] to sit in the speakership and save one vote. That is how the Labor Party thinks the speakership should be treated. It did not actually work very well for them, I hate to tell them — another piece of advice. That did not go so well, did it? Unfortunately, the former member for Fisher did not measure up as well as you had hoped.
[Mr Pyne returns to the subject of the motion, the present Speaker.]
The Labor party’s tactics in this place have been chaotic from day one. Their questions are very broad and should be ruled out of order, but quite frankly the Speaker has been very tolerant. If the questions being asked by the Opposition had been asked by me when we were in Opposition, I would never have got away with them. They are full of argument; they are full of abuse; yet the Speaker has been very tolerant and very generous. The reason the Speaker has been tolerant and generous to the Opposition is that she was a very effective member of the Opposition over a long period of time and has been an effective member of government. She knows that, for democracy to work, question time needs to be allowed to run, to flow. Due to her innate understanding of how our democracy works, the Speaker has allowed the Opposition to get away with a great deal more than I was ever allowed to get away with when we were in Opposition.
Rather than trying to make a political point and distract the public from their paucity of ideas by moving this motion, the Opposition should be congratulating you in the chair, Madam Speaker, because you have been much more generous to the Opposition than I would be were I in your place. Woe betide that day, should it ever come!
Opposition members interjecting.
Mr PYNE: I have not prepared for this speech like you have. Mine are written notes, not the speeches you have. My advice to the Opposition is to get on with the job of opposition. As somebody once said: “Opposition is slowly boring through hard boards,” and it is. It is not something that you can just deal with. This is a tactic, this is a stunt, this is simply designed to distract the House, the public and the people from the shabby tactics of the Labor Party.
We have absolute confidence in the Speaker and, as long as the Speaker wants to serve in that role, the government will support her from this side of the House. The vote that we are about to take is a vote of confidence in the Speaker. I will be voting with the Speaker and I assume the government will be too. I ask the crossbenches to turn their backs on this shabby stunt and to support the Speaker.
Mr ALBANESE (Labor, Grayndler. Shadow minister):
I second the motion. We all know that this is a position that you coveted for years and years.
[Mr Albanese does not address Madam Speaker by title, but uses the pronoun “you”. Madam Speaker lets it pass unremarked.]
How sad is it, having achieved his ambition, that you [ibid.] have chosen the low road of partisanship, rather than the high road of independence that this office demands?
Madam Speaker, when you were the member for Mackellar [she still is, but is referred to by the title Madam Speaker] you were very fond of the big book, House of Representatives Practice. I draw your attention to pages 163 and 164, which state a very simple principle:
The Speaker must show impartiality in the Chamber above all else.
That is the fundamental principle upon which the reliance and integrity of this parliament resides. Those opposite say: “Oh, but we won the election.” That is absolutely true — there is a majority there. But there are millions of Australians voting for us on this side and they also deserve to be represented and not be treated with contempt from the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
It is one thing for this Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition to want to trash the 43rd Parliament and come in here every day and move to suspend the Standing Orders and engage in disruptive conduct as a tactic, but it is another thing, having won the election and achieved the high office of Prime Minister, for him and his team to trash the 44th Parliament. So addicted are they to negative tactics, they engage in them. We see it every day. We saw the Prime Minister last week, while the sand was going through the hourglass for a division, looking upwards and giving directions to you, Madam Speaker, saying: “Close the door. Close the door. Close the door.” We see, time after time, the Leader of the House give instructions to you as the chair, including today.
Madam Speaker, we have a penalty count at the moment. If this were a Souths-Manly game and the penalty count was 98 to nil in favour of the home team, they would be jumping the fence. What we have day after day in this parliament is partisanship from the chair, is abuse of Standing Orders and is treatment of those on this side of the House with contempt. We are seeing it by this very process. We are seeing it by the process whereby those opposite are not even allowing the motion to be debated. We are having to suspend the Standing Orders. What they should do is allow the motion, and then it will be a vote in the confidence of your speakership. As it is, it is left hanging as a result of them not even allowing the motion to proceed.
The SPEAKER: I remind the member that he must address the motion as he is drawing attention to it.
Opposition members interjecting.
[Mr Albanese was speaking to the motion. His remarks were more pertinent than those of Mr Pyne’s lecturing history lesson. Mr Albanese was directed by Madam Speaker, Mr Pyne was not.]
Mr ALBANESE: I am, and that is why Standing Orders should be suspended! You have just given a cracker of an example, Madam Speaker, of your partisanship. Here I am saying why they should be suspended so that we can have the proper debate and have a vote in your speakership, as to whether you have the confidence of the House, and you interject from the chair in order to slap that down.
Today we had, in the naming of the member for Isaacs, unprecedented action taken for such a minimal statement. I checked, Madam Speaker, if he said “ma Dame Speaker” because I thought maybe there was something that was a reflection, but there was not.
[There was. See my own interjection and explanation above.]
What we see in this chamber every day is the born-to-rule mentality of those opposite.
[It’s not recorded in Hansard, but there was loud opposition to the use of the phrase “born to rule”.]
We saw it from this Prime Minister just two days ago with his reinstatement of imperial honours and we see it with your behaviour, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, each and every day in this chamber.
The SPEAKER: The question is that so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Watson moving immediately that the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker.
A Division followed and the Opposition motion to suspend Standing Orders was lost 83 to 51. Official record of Ayes and Nos, including Members’ names.
I acknowledge the Copyright of Hansard, official record of Parliamentary proceedings and debates.
You will find all forms of contact details for Ms Bishop here.
Numerous videos of the rowdiness of this parliamentary session are available on YouTube and elsewhere.
Since Madam Speaker’s appointment, the Opposition has moved Motions of Dissent from her rulings on a number of occasions. Here is one of them:
Mr Burke seeks Suspension of Standing Orders to debate his motion of No Confidence in the Speaker:
Mr Pyne defends Madam Speaker (at 3.27, some repetition). Says vote will be a vote of confidence. Raises gender issue — the only speaker to do so. He alleges former PM Julia Gillard created gender wars.
Mr Albanese seconds Mr Burke’s motion.
For a shorter and funnier version of the above, see:
Madam Speaker is not amused — seriously
Update, 27 November, 2014
Speaker Bishop ejected 18 Opposition MPs under rule 94a during question time today. Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke said this was an all-time record for a single session of question time.
Those ejected included, for the first time, Melissa Parke. Her offence was quoting from Standing Orders. Speaker Bishop, in her former role as an Opposition MP, quoted parliamentary procedure during question time virtually on a daily basis.
Since being appointed as Speaker, a role that is supposed to be impartial, Ms Bishop has ejected 285 MPs, 280 of them Labor members.
Update: June 2, 2015
Mr Burke moved another motion of dissent from Madam Speaker’s ruling yesterday. The Speaker had ruled a question out of order when the questioner got through the preamble but before the question had been asked.
Here is Mr Burke speaking to his motion of dissent:
Barry Tucker 11 March, 2014
Mimosa Rocks National Park is well known for the rocky outcrops and headlands that separate its many beaches. The northern beaches of the park are remarkable for the rounded rocks, stones and pebbles that cover them.
It’s hard to find sand on the northern group of three beaches; it might exist beneath the rocks. In the area between the rocks and the vegetation at the back of the beaches, you can see how the sand is being made. It’s a coarse mixture of rock particles, sea shells and other debris that is slowly being pulverised by the grinding of the rocks, themselves being further shaped and rounded by weathering and the pounding of high tides, coastal storms and a persistent wind. Any fine sand produced is carried out by the receding tide and falls into the gaps between the rocks.
The castle-like Mimosa Rocks are the main feature at the northern end of the national park. The area is named for the paddle steamer Mimosa, which ran into these rocks and sank in 1863. The Indigenous name of Aragunnu applies to this area and a sandy beach just south of here.
The fishing and sea life that clung to the submerged rocks attracted Indigenous people for centuries, perhaps even many centuries. Three streams run through the park. For Indigenous people, for anyone really, the area where a stream or river meets the sea is usually a special place. Aragunnu was a meeting place and a training ground for the utilisation of resources.
The grass covered mound beyond the rocks is a midden, formed of discarded sea shells and bones. It’s more than 30 metres long and maybe three to seven metres high in places. According to the signage, middens may also be places of birthing and burial. At the request of the Indigenous caretakers, a boardwalk has been built along the far side of the midden to protect the area and its relics. A stream, usually dry, runs under the boardwalk and over the rocks at the northern end of this beach.
I want to focus on the beach rocks and speculate about where they may have come from. On my first of several visits I figured the rocks, because of their rounded appearance, must have tumbled down from the hill behind the midden and the stream. A closer look at the landscape during my last visit indicates this scenario is unlikely and the rocks must have been formed right where they are.
Shelves of rock, undulating hills, ridges, mountain ranges and volcanoes are thrust upwards to appear above the surface by the unimaginably powerful action of the collisions and movements of tectonic plates (the large masses into which the earth is divided) and by volcanoes themselves. In the picture above, the dark shelf of rock has been lifted at one end by several degrees. An eroding cliff face to the right (not visible here) is about 13 metres high and marks the southern end of this beach. The island which has formed just offshore is slowly breaking up due to weathering of its natural fault lines.
Fault lines are usually vertical, causing rock faces to break up into column shapes. Later horizontal fault or stress lines often appear, causing the columns to break up into smaller cube shaped blocks that eventually fall to the ground. The wave action of high tides would roll the rocks about, rounding them over time. Further weathering and erosion comes from blasting by wind driven sand and debris. I believe this is how the rounded rocks on the beach were formed.
Notice the many different colours of the rocks; different types of rock too. It is not unusual to find different types and coloured layers of rock in any exposed cliff face. As the cliff face breaks up, it produces rocks of different types and colours. Some of these rocks contain quartz veins. The molten quartz is created well below the earth’s surface. It has to go somewhere and it exploits fault lines or weaknesses in the surrounding rock. The same phenomenal pressure eventually brings the rock shelves to the surface and they are replaced below by new molten rock.
The cliff face above shows that it has been formed by regular layering, sometimes with material of a different type and colour. Each layer is about one centimetre thick. It is remarkably consistent and regular. When lumps fall off they contain sections or stripes of these different colours, eventually producing an intriguing rock resembling a child’s multi-coloured marble.
Obviously, natural forces have produced the rounded rocks of the northern beaches of Mimosa Rocks National Park. But Man, ever playful and creative, sometimes amuses himself and attempts to entertain or leave a message for others by rearranging the rocks. These balancing figures remind me of the carved stone Moai monuments on Easter Island, whose purpose may have been religious but whose message appears to have been lost. Some of the Moai were eventually lowered face down because they no longer served their purpose or were replaced by other beliefs. The beach rocks of Aragunnu invite wonder, play and creativity – a natural thing to some people but an objectionable thing to others. The balanced rocks I saw on my fifth visit to Aragunnu today are of a different style to those I saw on my first visit. On my second visit I noticed they had been knocked down. Some of these new figures have more substantial bodies – the smaller portion of cliff faces or hills that have split into pillars or columns and fallen to the ground. Over time they will break up and add to the rocks that surround them.
The vertical and horizontal fracture lines on the face of the outcrop above show how huge lumps of rock will eventually fall to the ground. Some will break up when they hit. Pieces will break off over time, be broken into smaller pieces and be rounded by weathering and the rolling action of high tides and storms.
As I walked along the rock covered beach, looking for signs of where the rocks may have come from, I started to form the idea that they were produced on the beach and did not come from another place. That is, they were not carried here by torrents of water (as you will find in a river bed) and they did not roll down the side of a mountain – there isn’t one close enough.
I found what I think is conclusive proof when I saw the walled feature in the picture above. These walls must be the remains of a cliff face that has collapsed to the front, the rear and all sides. The main clue is the accumulation of rocks in the centre of the feature; they are identical to the rocks on the beaches. They have been rounded by weathering and wave action – the broken front of the feature is open to the sea. The walled feature may also have an opening at the rear. This opens up the possibility that the rocks have tumbled down the hill, entered the broken wall at the rear and accumulated inside the feature. Somehow, I do not think this is the case. The feature is surrounded by the same rounded rocks you find elsewhere on these beaches. It’s more likely that the feature was once part of a ridge that ran along these rocky beaches and ended in a cliff face. Over time the cliff face has broken up, littering the beach with the rocks we see today.
By Barry Tucker
Government policies are formed to achieve a stated, predetermined effect. We could call this effect the consequences of the policy. But how much thought is given to the other effects of policy: the side effects, the collateral damage and the longer-term consequences?
Who are the policy designers and policy lobbyists? What are their qualifications? What is their political allegiance or agenda?
There could be a lot at stake in the adoption of a policy, attracting the attention of vested interests, political pressure, lobbying, bribery and threats. Political party members may put forward and promote a policy or policy change at state and national annual conferences. Once in power, a political party may adopt a policy on the run to meet new or changing circumstances.
In an ideal world, political policies would be thrashed out over a reasonable period. Expert opinions would be sought. The policy would be examined for flaws: conflict with existing laws, outright public opposition, a cost benefit analysis might be done. A policy that went through this process would have a good chance of being implemented and achieving its stated purpose.
There is one area where slow and careful policy formation is difficult, almost impossible. Anything to do with the national economy, especially in the case of a trading nation like Australia, is subject to internal and external events, such as a change in the economic or foreign policy of trade partners, disastrous or beneficial weather (good crops or poor crops), political crises and warfare.
So much for the preamble. What concerns me is the effects of policies beyond their stated objective. I often wonder how much thought, if any, is given to this aspect. You might recall what happened in the case of the former Labor government’s Mining Resources Rent Tax (MRRT). This might have been announced before the party won the 2007 election — I can’t recall. The MRRT seemed to pop up suddenly as a way of producing Treasury income to counter spending due to Labor’s way of dealing with the Global Financial Crisis (see reference to economic matters above). The MRRT was also going to pay for other policy initiatives.
The mining industry kicked up a big stink and I think it was justified in doing so. It was already paying a range of taxes and state royalties. Admittedly, the MRRT applied to only some miners and only to “super profits” – profit above a certain “normal” level. The big miners launched a multi-million dollar anti-MRRT publicity campaign, a public relations disaster for the government and a windfall boon for commercial news media and advertising agencies – two unexpected outcomes of Labor’s policy so far. To resolve the crisis, the government virtually allowed the miners to design the MRRT. When it first became payable it raised a fraction of the amount the government hoped for and expected to use to finance other policies and promises already implemented. Two more unexpected outcomes. The Opposition played the ongoing farce of the MRRT for all it was worth – causing the government considerable damage in the opinion polls, which are driven by the coverage of Mainstream News Media (MSM) — another unexpected consequence. You might argue that it is the Opposition’s job to oppose*, but it is plainly stupid to give it such a juicy target as the chaotic and controversial MRRT.
Largely as a consequence of some of Labor’s poorly planned and financed policy initiatives, and certainly as a result of former Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s unrelenting criticism and negativity, our federal government has changed hands. In a flash, we have gone from a progressive socialist government to an extremely conservative government whose policies do not appear to be well considered, fully formed and fleshed out. There will be unintended consequences.
The major unintended consequences are likely to revolve around the Liberal National Party’s (LNP) asylum seeker policy: Stop the Boats, deny asylum/refugee seeker’s citizenship, offshore detention. It could be said that the LNP (mainly Liberal) policy has evolved as a reaction to Labor’s policy which reversed the former Liberal government’s policy and then gradually returned to as it reacted to tremendous negativity from the Opposition, news media and opinion polls. This is policy formation on the run, in the heat of battle, to counter political opposition and perceived public reaction, using feedback mainly from the MSM. It has been and continues to be a human catastrophe, with negative consequences for Socialist Labor and now for the Liberals, although for different reasons.
In Opposition, the Liberal policy on asylum or refugee seekers evolved into an increasingly tougher stance. Anything would be done to Stop the Boats, including buying the boats, towing boats back when safe to do so, hiding the boats (limiting information about boat arrivals), labelling the military style campaign Operation Sovereign Borders (under a three star Army general) and talk of providing life boats to deliver refugees safely back to Indonesia — most of this opposed by Indonesia. In an outcome that shocked me, a recent public opinion poll showed that some 60% of Australian citizens favoured a tougher stance against asylum seekers, with most people seeing them as economic migrants (which would make them “aspirational” people, whom the Liberal party tends to favour).
It is also rather amazing that in Opposition Tony Abbott constantly named Indonesia as Australia’s greatest friend and most important trading partner, but when it comes to asylum seekers his government pushes this friendship to its very limits and, inadvertently, beyond. This cannot be the result of any careful forward planning and trouble-shooting, unless the intention is to wreck the relationship. As of today, Abbott has been obliged to write a letter of apology to Indonesia for illegal phone tapping for which his government was not responsible; Indonesia temporarily halted the live cattle trade and recalled its Ambassador; Indonesia suspended co-operation on asylum seekers and finally hit the roof when an Australian warship on asylum seeker patrol accidentally or carelessly entered Indonesian waters, resulting in another apology which, this time, was promptly delivered. A warship accidentally straying into someone else’s territory is no laughing matter – especially when the relationship is on a knife edge. Some of these consequences may be considered foreseeable and avoidable, but none is the result of a carefully considered and well planned policy to meet the needs of all the parties involved.
I am trying to keep this from turning into another anti-Liberal rant, but I can see a similar thing happening with our national education curriculum. The Liberal education policy was outlined, sort of, while it was in Opposition and firmed up, sort of, during the election campaign. What was offered initially was a return to a Conservative curriculum of an earlier era: God, Queen and Country, salute the flag, read more books and learn your sums proper. On the eve of the election, a policy flip-flop by the Liberals: if they won government they would support Labor’s “Gonski” or Better Schools financing model — basically more money for all students with special needs. Soon after winning government the Liberal policy flip-flopped again, and again, and again. It was not going to continue with “Gonski” exactly: “…that’s what you thought we said, or meant”, or something and something about a financing “envelope”. There would be a review of the education system by a panel of Liberal supporters and former Liberal MPs, a non-political reform panel of Liberals – back to the future for education, it seems. “Gonski” is Gone-ski. As many news media commentators and education specialists and practitioners have pointed out, this is not how you do policy. Where is the input from parents, from university lecturers and professors, from employers in industry and elsewhere? What will the consequences be – especially the unplanned collateral damage?
Increasingly, it seems to me, policies are something framed as a result of focus groups, probably reacting to policies that political parties think might fly, but purely for the purpose of winning the election. The real policies will be revealed later, once the election has been won. The election policies themselves are not worth the paper they are written on or the hot air that gives life to them.
* I do not agree with the perception of the role of the Opposition in the Westminster system as being purely to oppose. It is sometimes expressed as “holding the government to account”, which seems to me to be more constructive. Rather than pure opposition on anything and everything, I see the role of the Opposition as that of an alternative government with alternative policies rather than the absolute opposite policies. Unfortunately, Australia is increasingly moving towards outright opposition, which ultimately means a complete reversal of policies due to fundamental differences in our two major parties system.
Further to all of the above, you might like to read:
Oz govt secrecy starts to stink http://wp.me/p2QkUI-tL
Time for a third force in Ozpol http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/default.aspx
By Barry Tucker
I’ve solved a common household problem: how to remove tiny floating objects from liquids.
You have probably noticed that if you take a spoon, manoeuvre the object to the side of the cup or bowl and try to lift it out with the “pointy” end of the spoon, the liquid will flow to the outside edge of the spoon and the floating object will go with it. It’s frustrating.
The object floats on the surface because it’s not heavy enough to sink. As the liquid flows one way or the other, the floating object moves in the same direction — over the edge of the spoon.
The simple solution is to use the same tendency of the liquid to move to float the object onto the spoon. This is best done in the centre of the cup or bowl rather than at the edge.
Drag the object to the centre, tilt the spoon alongside the object and it will float onto the spoon. Allow only a small amount of liquid to flow with the object. Last step: lift it out!
Here’s another tip. This one avoids spilling liquid over the edge of your cup while stirring.
When you stir your coffee, say, around and around in a continuous circular motion you create what I call a centrifugal force “wave”. Centrifugal force causes any movable object or liquid to move away from the centre. If it encounters something immovable (the side of your cup) it is then forced upwards. Eventually the liquid you are stirring will spill over the side of your cup.
To avoid this overflow, stir the liquid back and forth around the left- or right-hand side of the cup. This avoids creating the centrifugal force wave. Of course, if you stir vigorously enough you will still create spillage.
I look forward to receipt of my Nobel Prize for Physics! Just stirring, of course.
The Sniper 