Tag Archives: Australian Labor Party

Labor’s plans for a highly skilled, smarter future for Australia

July 17, 2015
Written by: Trish Corry
11 Replies

Tonight in front of a capacity crowd at Trades Hall in Sydney, Bill Shorten MP laid out Labor’s plans for a highly skilled, smarter future for Australia at the Sydney Jobs Forum.

Transcript

Labor has a plan to create the jobs of the future for all Australians and it was fantastic to be able to present these ideas and our program for the future of jobs in Australia at the Sydney Labor Jobs forum tonight.

Australians are smart! We understand that if we want to create jobs we need to be a smart nation. So Labor will have a program at the next election – an economic program for jobs. That is what good Labor Governments do.

We understand that older Australians – they lose their jobs and face the ruthless discrimination of age.

We know that our young people in country towns and pockets of our cities face unacceptable levels of unemployment and people with disabilities are treated as second class citizens too often in the labour market.

So a Labor Govt will absolutely have policies that go towards helping these groups get equal opportunities in the market place and work. Our democracy has the ability for every person to contribute to it. Every one of us has the chance to challenge the status quo.

Labor believes that no Australian is expendable. I promise you that Labor will be guided by an economic program for jobs. We believe in unleashing the potential and possibility of Australians.

The mining boom was nothing compared to what a Labor Government can do with the great creative capacity of the Australian people. We need to win the next election because the Australian people deserve better than what they are getting now.

Jobs for now and the future!

Originally published on Polyfeministix

Video via NSW Labor

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

My Thoughts on the Week That Was

July 4, 2015
Written by: John Lord
6 Replies

Saturday June 27

1 Do you ever wonder what happened to the debt crisis? That time when Abbott and Hockey used every negative description they could to describe Australia’s budgetary position as a disaster. Well in less than two years in office, the Abbott government has added almost $100bn to the level of Commonwealth government debt. This is a 35% increase from the $273bn level of gross government debt at the time of the September 2013 election. This increase flies in the face of the Coalition’s pledge prior to the election – and occasionally since – of reducing debt and at some stage, paying it off.

By the time the next election is held, most likely in the latter part of 2016, the Budget papers indicate the Abbott government will have increased government debt by around $150bn in its three years in power and three years of implementing its economic policy objectives.

2 Now I ask you, if the ABC is as biased as Abbott and his acolytes reckon why would they produce a series as damaging as The Killing Season?

3 President Obama had two significant victories in the Supreme Court this week. Firstly they overwhelmingly endorsed Obamacare as legal. The Republicans had tried to bring it down 50 times in the Congress. This will cement him as a great President. Secondly the Court gave its blessing to equality in marriage in all States further enhancing the President’s progressive political views.

It is now difficult to imagine how our Prime Minister could possibly prevent gay marriage becoming a reality here. He has been on the wrong side of history on so many things. Climate change is but another.

Sunday 28 June

A Sunday reflection:

The Australian flag, for me at least, has little relevance. It is simply another nation’s flag with a few stars surrounding it. It speaks of our past and not our future. But of late, I must confess to being pissed off to see it, or more precisely, many of them being used as background for a Prime Minister to spew unwarranted divisive inflammatory language about national security.

The security of a nation’s people is of course a government’s first priority. There can be no doubt about it. How you go about it is another thing. John Howard was accused, when using the term, “Be alert but not alarmed” of being just that, a alarmist. Tony Abbott on the other hand with his inflammatory language “DAESH IS COMING, IF IT CAN FOR EVERY PERSON AND FOR EVERY GOVERNMENT WITH A SIMPLE MESSAGE. SUBMIT OR DIE” makes no secret of the fact that for nothing more than political reasons he is about not only scaring you, but making you petrified. His aim is to have the entire population in a high state of anxiety.

Why? Well history shows that people are inclined to support an incumbent government in times of crisis. So everyday Tony Abbott creates crisis with National Security. He places it front and center. He makes it his top priority to imply that at any time something catastrophic is about to happen. Making people feel insecure is of the utmost importance to him. Everyday there is a reason for new laws to be passed, more money to be spent on security with explanations scant or nonexistent.

If it were all true a leader with character, judgement and discernment would, without conflicting National Security, take the people and their well-being seriously by creating a comprehensive calming statement of fact and intent that the people could digest with trust. This of course is beyond a leader like Abbott who thrives on gutter negativity.

An observation: “If the Coalition has, as it’s fond of telling us, natural economic qualities superior to anyone else in its DNA, why is it hiding behind the cloak of national security?”

What then are the facts?

When using the language of terrorism, in my mind is a 9/11 or a suicide bomber – a car bomb. Not a couple of confused kids with a sword and a knife.

So without playing down the importance of vigilance I am trying to bring some perspective to the government’s alarmist language when talking terrorism.

ABS stats on deaths by terrorist activity for the period 1978-2014 show that 113 Australians lost their lives. Yes, that’s right. In 36 years 113 people have died from terrorism.

By comparison this year around 730 will die from Domestic Violence and around 2500 will take their own lives.

You be the judge.

For me I just wish we had a leader whose voice was as loud for the victims of child abuse, domestic violence and suicide as it is for terrorism.

An observation:

“You cannot possibly believe in democracy if at the same time you think you’re party is the only one that should ever win”.

In view of the rise of far right Neo conservatism I am currently reviewing my position.

Monday 29 June

1 The LNP should rename themselves the Lost Negative Party.

2 A decent, reasoned leader governing in the public interest would concede that despite his own views the momentum for equal marriage requires immediate action. My fear is that even with a free vote there are enough LNP MPs so influenced by religion that they will ignore the public’s overwhelming desire for change.

3 Malcolm Turnbull said on Insiders yesterday that under its charter the ABC has a higher duty of objectivity than any other media outlet. He is right of course and this is evidenced by the Q&A furor. It’s just a pity that commercial outlets are not subjected to the same rules of objectivity. But that of course would be infringing on their right to free speech.

For a belly laugh read this.

Tuesday 30 June

1 The Morgan Poll shows that Federal LNP support is up 1% to 46.5% down 1% to ALP 53.5%. No doubt Labor had a bad week last week but Abbott is still on the nose. 62% of Labor support comes from the 18-24 group. LNP is favored by 57% aged over 65.

Labor also improved its position in the Essential Poll and now leads 53/47.

You work it out.

The National Security scare campaign hasn’t worked.

2 Sad to see long-term head of the left-leaning think tank, the Australia Institute, Richard Dennis stepping down. Hope he continues to write.

3 Isn’t it ironic that while the LNP is facing a bitter internal dispute within its ranks about the science of climate change a new group has been formed to put pressure on them to come up with a reasonable emissions reduction target from 2020 onwards, warning against “piecemeal” policies and arguing that avoiding dangerous warming and reconfiguring the economy requires tougher and more urgent action from the Government?

Members of the group include the Australian Aluminium Council; Australian Industry Group; The Climate Institute; Australian Conservation Foundation; Business Council of Australia; WWF Australia; Australian Council of Social Service; Energy Supply Association of Australia; Australian Council of Trade Unions; and Investor Group on Climate Change.

When diverse groups such as these come together for a common cause it simply demonstrates just how far Tony Abbott is out of touch on, not only this, but many other issues.

An observation:

‘Change sometimes disregards opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making. With Its own inevitability’.

4 “This is not a question of a boycott” Malcolm Turnbull said referring to the fact that no one from the LNP is allowed to appear on Q&A. What is it then one might ask? An attack on free speech?

5 The children of terrorist Khaled Sharrouf are victims of the sins of the father and it amounts to child abuse. As such they should be afforded the same considerations available to other victims.

6 The proposed changes to the current successful management of Super Funds amounts to nothing more than Union bashing. Conservatives certainly know how to hate.

Another thought:

‘We would be a much better society if we took the risk of thinking for ourselves unhindered by the unadulterated crap served up by the media and self-interest groups’.

Wednesday July 1

1 Despite Bill Shorten’s horrendous week last week Tuesday’s Newspoll shows Labor is ahead of the Coalition 53% to 47%, nearly a direct reversal of the 46.5% to 53.5% result at the September 2013 federal election.

2 On Q&A the champion of free speech, Tim Wilson, the individual who goes to great lengths to protect the right of people like Jones, Bolt and other right media extremists to spread their hatred, denied it to someone he disagrees with. Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner has a very warped sense of what free speech is. As does Turnbull when it comes to the word independent.

3 Labor has left the door open for the caucus to reverse Kevin Rudd’s rule that makes it nearly impossible for the party’s elected leader to be toppled in a midnight coup. Its draft national constitution, published on its website, includes changes made to the way the leader is elected by an equally weighted ballot of caucus and party members. That’s more like it.

4 The Four Corner’s revelation that key Liberal fundraising body took Mafia money for access is of major concern. Shorten offers a bi-partisan approach to political donations but as yet Abbott hasn’t taken it up. Is it any wonder that politicians are so un-trusted?

5 Joe Hockey received $200,000 in a defamation case but the real problem is in the reason for the case in the first place. That is that for a fee of $22,000 you could be guaranteed attendance at lunches and other events with the treasurer. Reeks of . . .

6 Now out of the blue the PM has taken his unusual manner of talking into another zone.

“May God bless you, may God bless your work, may God bless the country you are helping to protect and prosper.”

Read about it here.

Thursday 2 July

1 I seems that documents obtained under FOI by The Australian Financial Review reveal that the Coalition Cabinet considered similar taxation on superannuation to that proposed by Labor but dropped it when Labor announced its policy.

So they dropped what they inevitably will have to do simply to avoid being embarrassed.

2 A question about National Security. Would you say our Prime Minister is seeking to calm our overblown fears or is playing them for all he’s worth?

3 The former well thought of Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson who was sacked by Abbott because he believed in the science of climate change, has heavily criticised the Abbott government’s renewable energy target and Direct Action policies, saying they will be a far costlier way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than an emissions trading scheme. When the truth comes back to bite you. And the truth is that we are being governed by untruthful fools.

An observation:

“Leaders who cannot comprehend the importance of truth as being fundamental to the democratic process make the most contribution to its demise”.

“Seriously, if our Conservative politicians go any further to the right they will be in danger of falling off”.

4 Has Labor Party morality sunk so low that it would support legislation that would see someone jailed for up to two years for reporting the abuse of asylum seekers? Have we really reached the point under Abbott that for revealing the truth, that someone is being ill-treated, even raped, you can be jailed? Shame shame. Without transparency democracy cannot exist let alone flourish.

Friday 3 July

1 The response to a Private Members Bill on equal marriage from the conservative side of politics is both predictable and illuminating. Reading between the lines of the Prime Minister’s statements it seems he is prepared to delay it for as long as he can.

And this from government whip Andrew Nikolic who heads the committee that decides on what legislation comes before the Parliament. “MPs who expect a vote on same-sex marriage any time soon must have “rocks in their head”.

2 When the Abbott government’s Energy White Paper was released it made headlines for its curious reluctance to mention climate change – but the looming Defence White Paper may prove to be a different story.

A report on community consultations associated with the Defence White Paper flags the consequences of climate change, extreme weather events and environmental pressures as a significant security risk for Australia – second only to the risks posed by terrorism.

It’s all catching up with you Tony.

3 In case you didn’t know, the Attorney General and Arts Minister, George Brandis, will have the final say on all grants allocated through the newly established National Program for Excellence in the Arts, draft guidelines published on Wednesday suggest.

4 Are Australians aware that yesterday was the start of the GP Tax by stealth? Yes that’s right yesterday saw a four year freeze on the Medicare rebate, meaning that doctors over time will be $8.43 worse off each visit so its expected they will pass it onto the patients.

And this is the week that was.

Anthony Albanese summed it up rather nicely when talking about Tea Party conservatives and Eric Abetz’s piece on gay marriage in the SMH:

“They are stuck in the past and they want everyone to go back there and keep them company”.

One last thing:

The fragility of life and relationship is once again demonstrated with the murder of Adelaide football coach Phil Walsh. I hope the greatest game on earth stands tall in the circumstances.

My Thoughts on the Week That Was

May 8, 2015
Written by: John Lord
20 Replies

Author’s note:

I have decided to convert what was my ‘A Month in Politics’ post into a weekly commentary: ‘My Thoughts on the Week That Was’.

Saturday 2 May

1. The Indonesian Government legally murders two Australian citizens and then apologises to the parents for their suffering. That’s strange diplomacy.

The Royal Commission into Unions may get itself into murky waters if it extends its inquiries into the Labor Party when it is not part of its terms of reference. A future RC into Ashbygate might be a fair retort.
Labors Justice Spokesperson, David Feeney asks a reasonable question “why the government’s opposition to the death penalty had been removed from the ministerial direction to the Australian Federal Police” He got the “How dare you” response from the Government. Sure his timing could have been better but it is a legitimate question deserving of an honest answer. And Feeney is right on the facts.

Sunday 3 May

On the Royal Birth. Thousands of children are born every day. Some into privilege and some into poverty. Why can’t they all be born into a society of equal opportunity?

“Surely the Monarchy belongs to our past and not our future”.

2. Budget leaks are beginning to appear. There will be cuts to welfare. The question of fairness will be paramount. So how will the Coalition justify cuts to welfare for the poor and middle classes while not being willing to tackle the tax havens of the wealthy?

3. An observation. In the United States, the Republican mantra for cutting taxes for the rich and other policy initiatives seem to flow from their adoption of radical Christian fundamentalist belief. In fact the GOP seems to be the mouthpiece for the extremities of right wing Christian belief. When you set your principles and ideas on religious belief rather than reason then the politics of fear erode the common good.

Monday 4 May

1.The assumption by conservative economists that reducing the tax of the rich will reduce their desire to avoid it, ranks with Margaret Thatcher’s “The poor shall be looked after by the drip down effect of the rich” as the two most proven failures of right wing economics.

Whilst the government is sounding tuff on foreign housing investment it must be remembered that the new rules only apply to houses out of the reach of ordinary Australians.
I am a fervent supporter of marriage equality but it is hard to argue that Labor should have a binding vote while at the same time insisting that the Coalition have a conscience one.
I’m a little upset that high income earners (threshold of $250.000) will have the assistance of nannies. At a cost of course. Oh well I suppose my wife and I will, as grandparents, continue to do it for free

Tuesday 5 May

According to former Liberal Leader John Hewson the tax cuts Howard and Costello gave are now costing (the budget) about $30 billion a year, and the deficit’s $40 billion. . Without these cuts and the 9 billion Hockey gave – unasked for and against the will of treasury-to the reserve bank. The deficit problem wouldn’t exist. And that’s without including some $40 billion in tax concessions for superannuation, which accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 20% of taxpayers. You can easily add it up to show that the deficit that exists today is a fake number, says Hewson. ‘’They’ve basically imposed it on themselves’’

Wednesday 6 May

AFP said it did not have enough evidence to arrest the Bali 9 before they left for Indonesia. How much evidence do you need to prevent a crime from being committed? And why isn’t Mick Kelty answering the questions.
Bill Shorten, I thought, made an impassioned speech at the McKell institute but I suspect those waiting for a Messiah will disagree.
When asked about a date for a surplus the PM said he had never put a date on it. If my memory serves me correctly he said we could expect one in his first term……His lying knows no bounds.
The Morgan pre Budget Poll has Labor at 53.5 and the Coalition at 46.5

5. Newspoll pre budget poll gives Labor a 52/48 lead over the Coalition. The Australian Newspaper announced that future Polls would be conducted by Galaxy. Could it be that they have finally woken to the fact that land lines, in an age of mobile telephony, do not give an accurate picture. Essential has Labor 53/47 Pre budget which suggests that Abbott’s budget would have to be exceptionally well accepted to get a bounce.

Thursday 7 May

When asked about interest rate levels and his statement in 2012 that they had reached emergency levels Joe Hockey denied he had said it. In the Coalition fashion of blaming Labor for everything he said that it was Wayne Swan’s description. A utube clip clearly finds him guilty. Poor memories make for bad liars.

2 In keeping with Green’s resignation tradition Christine Milne choose a time of her own. The new leader Richard Di Natale gave a press conference that the leaders of the major parties should emulate, particularly the PM. It was impressive. It was no-nonsense. Just be honest for God sake.

3 Kevin Andrews commented on Twitter:

Does it really matter who will lead the freedom hating @Greens? Their anti-family & community destroying policies remain #greenspill #auspol”

4 Andrew Bolt’s latest rant on the same subject uses misogynist witch imagery to depict female politicians.

5 The PM seems to be giving loads of advice to Europeans on their immigration problem saying there had been discussions. European Commission spokeswoman, Natasha Bertaud, denied there had been any official contact and said the “Australian model can never be a model for us”, because the policy involved the refoulement of people who could be genuine refugees.

Labor’s immigration spokesman, Richard Marles, said Abbott was using the boat crisis for political point scoring in Australia. “It’s the low-rent act of a snake-oil merchant and he should be called out as such.” He is probably correct.

Friday 8 May

1.The Government’s decision to revise pension eligibility is welcome. However it comes as a result of a lie. “There will be no changes to pensions” And of course their first option was to deliberately reduce the livelihoods of the least well off.

2 In a column in The Australian on Thursday, former Coalition adviser Nikki Savva reported that Mr Buchholz had told the Prime Minister’s office that Mr Abbott would have to dump his treasurer if the second budget went down badly.

Mr Abbott said he had spoken to Mr Hockey on Thursday to reassure him that the story was a “complete invention”. So Peter Costello’s former press secretary is telling lies.

The federal government will move to impose the goods and services tax on services such as Netflix, music downloads etc., under new rules included in next week’s budget.

It’s a pity they don’t do something about the tax the same companies don’t pay.

I think the spin the Coalition will endeavor to present following next Tuesday’s Budget will be that there’s no budget crisis even though it’s got far worse under their stewardship.

They will tell us that it is fair and blame Labor for their own mismanagement of the economy. They will say that no one needs to be hurt even though blind Freddy knows that some pain is required. They will leave in savings not yet passed in the Senate and spin that it is good accountancy to do so.

But big measures that offend large numbers of people will effectively be left off the table.

As Opposition Leader Tony Abbott convinced many that the GFC was only in people’s imagination. Now he will try to convince them that the budget crisis of gargantuan proportion that he and Joe Hockey manufactured wasn’t the crisis they thought. All smoke and mirrors.

As negotiations between the Government and the Opposition reach a conclusion on the RET, the PM’s Chief business advisor (and climate nut job) on Climate Change says it’s all a ruse.

“This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN”

It all fits in with Abbott’s “socialist plot” statements which can only be taken as representative of the governments true position. What nutters they really are.

This is the week that was.

Some thoughts on the gender pay gap

March 10, 2015
Written by: Trish Corry
48 Replies

Shannon Fentiman, QLD Minister for Communities, Women and Youth, Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Multicultural Affairs has announced today that she supports ‘positive discrimination’ to close the gender pay gap. Ms. Fentiman said this is ‘definitely something we should have a conversation about. This has struck up a fair bit of conversation across social media. There are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned that this will cause undue discrimination for men; and that there is not really a gender pay gap to consider. Life does seem pretty fair at times, right?

I have detailed at the end of this blog post some information regarding discrimination against women in the workforce. The information below was previously sent in a letter to the Prime Minister and Minister for Women, in 2013, but it appears he has made no progress on this matter and to my knowledge has not even attempted to start a conversation about this type of disparity women face.

I know there are a lot of jokes out there on social media about Abbott being the Minister for Women. It would be great if we can just stop laughing about it now; because it isn’t funny when he is stifling progress.

I have a few concerns with how we approach this issue of gender disparity in pay and the workplace:

The first issue is that it was very evident when I completed this research for the initial blog post; that Indigenous women experience more disparity than non-Indigenous women. I feel that this needs to have a specific focus from the Government.

The second issue is the high unemployment rate for Youth. Particularly in regional Queensland areas. For example, there are very limited administration opportunities in regional communities. The public sector, since the cuts from the Newman Government has seen a sharp decline in any recruitment for administration in the public sector in regional communities; particularly entry level administration. Small business has struggled since the GFC, with some improvements being noted in recent times; but small business needs a hand up to give young people employment opportunities as well. Not enabling our youth to access employment now, will increase the existing disparity for women; but also increase generational disparity for both genders in years to come.

The third issue I have is how we approach positive discrimination so that it does not enable disadvantage for men. When we view inequality, we need to view every step of the process and not just the end process of the ‘job interview’ or selection process. We need to view every step towards securing employment, rather than believing everyone is equal at every point of the process. For some who experience other social marginalization, the disparity inequity widens. This is where I feel the argument of “the best person for the job” does fall down.

In communities where there is little administration recruitment occurring and a lot of mining or laboring recruitment, it does create disparity for what women can apply for from the outset. Many women are not suited to the types of laboring or trades jobs advertised in regional QLD communities, but some women most certainly are suited. Where women are the primary care givers, it creates further hindrances to securing employment in a traditional male field. I acknowledge that there are many traditional male jobs and industries not suited to all men, and I also acknowledge that disparity exists for some men to enter into traditional female fields of employment. I also acknowledge that social disadvantages affect both genders.

Therefore, a holistic approach needs to be used to ensure that ‘equal footing’ at the point of application is achieved. This includes identifying hindrances to women and men in individual communities and tailoring Govt assistance to business, encouraging investment or examining the capital city focus of the Public Sector. In addition, the community sector lost a lot of funding in regional communities and this also needs to be looked at, to bring funding back to small local organisations, rather than granting of tender funding to larger national organisations, where most of the senior management, human resource management, accounting, administration or clerical work is done in their head office. Education and training opportunities from high school, vocational and university level also need to be scrutinized as contributors to hindrance.

The fourth issue I have is the differences between metropolitan, regional and rural communities. The Government needs to focus on individual communities, rather than Queensland as a whole to address the issues individual areas face. This goes back to my point that there are simply not the same administration and management opportunities for women in regional areas in the Public Sector as there are for women living in a capital city. No woman who wants to progress in the QLD Public Sector should have to consider moving to Brisbane to do so. This is inequity in itself.

The fifth issue I have is that we need urgent Industrial Relations reform to review the award wages attached to jobs identified as traditional women’s jobs; whilst not impacting adversely on these industries. However, this will be a challenge with a Federal Liberal Government at the helm and the length of time that these wages and industries have been seen as lesser value. This will require not only an Industrial relations change, but a cultural/societal change. This will not be an easy fix nor a quick fix.

I look forward to suggestions from readers on how we can address this issue in a positive and progressive manner.

******

For those who doubt that women experience discrimination within the workplace a pay; please view the information below:

Discrimination against women arising from casualisation in the workforce and high numbers working in insecure employment and

Discrimination against women through the continuation of lower wages in ‘traditional women’s industries’, and the general availability of fewer opportunities of penalties and overtime. Please note that in 2011, the gender pay gap was 17.2% for full-time workers and

Discrimination against women in the workforce, or who are job seeking who either cannot access or cannot afford childcare

More women than men in Australia continue to work in jobs that provide less security and stability
Some of the lowest paid industries in Australia such as Accommodation and Food Services, Arts and Recreation Services and Retail trade tend to employ the highest proportion of female employees without paid leave entitlements (61 per cent, 48 per cent and 34 per cent respectively
30 per cent of female employees who are lone parents with dependent children, are casual employees without paid leave entitlements
In 2012, the total cash weekly earnings by gender were $1189.00 (Men) $852.00 (Women) (Source Australian Bureau of Statistics)

Discrimination against women in achieving leadership and management roles and

Discrimination by default, due to under-representation in management and board positions in Australia

In virtually all sectors of the paid workforce, women are underrepresented in leadership roles.
Women account for over half of academic staff, however only 27% of women are Senior Lecturer or above.
64% of law graduates are women, however only 22% of women hold senior positions in law firms. Only 16% of women are on the bench in the Federal Court of Australia.
Women chair only two per cent of ASX200 companies (four boards), hold only 8.3% of Board Directorships, hold only four CEO positions and make up only 10.7% of executive management positions
In 2008, women held 5.9% of line executive management positions in ASX 200 companies; a decrease from 7.5% in 2006. Line executive management experience is considered essential for progressing to top corporate positions.
Women make up a third of members on Australian Government Boards and Committees.
Despite comprising more than half of all Commonwealth public servants, women make up only 37% of the Senior Executive Service. (Source Australian Human Rights Commission)

Discrimination by default suffered by women who, as primary parental care givers, end up with reduced superannuation earnings in retirement and

Discrimination by default suffered by women, will receive less superannuation over time, through the continuation of lower wages in ‘traditional women’s industries’

Only 60% of Indigenous women have superannuation coverage compared to 80% of women in the general population.
Many women work more than one casual job across different employers and do not receive super from any individual employer, due to earning less than $450 per month.
The mean super balance of men earning under $5400 per year is just almost double the amount for women in the same group. (Source ASFA)
Women have significantly less money saved for their retirement – half of all women aged 45 to 59 have $8,000 or less in their superannuation funds, compared to $31,000 for men.
Currently, the average superannuation payout for women is a third of the payout for men – $37,000 compared with $110, 000.
In Australia, women working full-time today earn 16 per cent less than men.
Women also receive less super across the board, due to the gender pay gap of 17.2% (Source Australian Human Rights Commission)

The under-representation of women in parliament, amounting, in the absence of any system to redress the imbalance, to discrimination

It is concerning that not only are women under-represented in Australian politics, but Australia is ranked number 43/142 countries for women in national parliaments.

The Australian Government Office for Women, which is part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; aims to ensure a whole-of-government approach to providing better economic and social outcomes for women. However, the analysis by Waring et. al. of the Inter-Parliamentary Union of women in politics; would indicate the Australian Government Office for Women is not well placed to achieve these aims, due to under-representation of women in Parliament, and an absence of a system to redress the imbalance.

I have outlined the reasons below:

If women are not present at policy and decision-making levels, there is a democratic deficit. Decisions taken without women’s perspective lack credibility in a democratic context
The participation of women leads to a new perspective and a diversity of contributions to policy-making and to priorities of development, and it gives the female population a role in deciding the future of their country and the rights and opportunities for their gender.
A democracy which excludes women, or in which women are represented only marginally, is not a real democracy. Women’s participation in policymaking is a question of justice and equality
Women’s greater participation would impact upon the traditional values held by men. Sharing of power and responsibilities would become reality. Political meetings and programmes would be scheduled to take into account domestic responsibilities of both men and women.

In the current Government we are now faced with very little representation of women in Government. Margaret Fitzherbert’s lecture (APH, 2012) outlines many reasons why the Liberal party lags behind in representation. The main reasons are:

No persistent pressure to pre-select women
Liberal party culture – a culture which largely tolerates branch members asking women candidates for preselection questions about their parental and marital status.

Margaret Fitzherbert sums up with, “It’s time for the Liberals to take a lesson from the past – acknowledge the problem, and stop relying on a blind faith in ‘merit’ to somehow provide a sudden increase in numbers of female MPs.”

I would like to end this post to give thanks to the Queensland Labor Party for making history for succeeding in appointing more female Ministers than men in a Queensland Government and the first female, indigenous woman MP and Minister in a QLD Government.

Abbott’s disaster relief payment cuts are a disaster

March 1, 2015
Written by: Trish Corry
50 Replies

The town I live in and surrounding areas have just endured a cyclone. The damage is heartbreaking. The stories from people and the hardship they are enduring are even more heartbreaking. Through this experience, I no longer believe we live in a lucky country.

The state of the economy and the focus on debt now over-rides the importance of providing people with a hand-up in times of need.

During cyclone Yasi three years ago, the people of Townsville qualified for Federal Government disaster assistance under the Labor Party. This is $1000 per adult and $400 for each child. During the fires in the Blue Mountains last year; Abbott in all his humanitarian wisdom changed the criteria, so only those who have had suffered significant damage to their homes or had injury or death as a result were eligible. So many in desperate need after this cyclone are not eligible for assistance through the Federal Government.

I know this may sound reasonable to those who support the Liberal’s ideology. Especially the ones who are being harsh and judgemental to those who are disadvantaged across social media. The ones who have the privilege of being able to scoot off to another town to live in air conditioned motel accommodation, afford a generator, had no difficulty paying for takeaway food every night and have no problem restocking their fridge; or who have never really experienced first hand a disaster, but can type their elitist annoyance and judgements via a keyboard; or the number of people who vote against their own interests, for reasons too psychologically complex for me to attempt to understand.

The loss of electricity for a week or more for some people has resulted in so many low income families unable to restore sufficient food to their homes to feed themselves and/or their children. In addition, families have lost important medication that required refrigeration and for some, this means paying for a visit to a doctor for script renewal as well as the cost of medication. We have had an army based field hospital here as the local public hospital and doctors cannot cope with the amount of infections and food poisoning that is occurring.

The newly elected state MP for Keppel Brittany Lauga, has tackled this head on and is personally advocating for people who are having difficulty meeting the criteria for the state based grant, which will assist people with immediate need for food. Ms. Lauga is doing this by making a list of urgent assessments and she has progressed these matters to the Premier and relevant Ministers. There have been glitches identified in the system, and subsequent changes and it is now being reported that people who were classified as ineligible on their first attempt have now been paid. People are still reporting issues, but Ms. Lauga is continuing to take up this fight on behalf of each individual. The community is praising Ms. Lauga’s efforts as outstanding all over local social media and deservedly so.

The LNP member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry has taken the opportunity to play politics during this disaster. I will use a very often used Liberal Party term for this behaviour – unconscionable. While the new state MP, Brittany Lauga has been visiting areas and offering first hand personal assistance to so many in need; the LNP member for Capricornia, decided to blame Labor and Ms. Lauga for ineligibility to disaster funding.

Ms. Lauga, Labor State MP, has immediately recognised inequity in the system set by the former Newman LNP Government and has stated her anger on this issue and progressed issues for disaster relief immediately to the Premier, and positive changes have followed. However, the LNP member for Capricornia has not once publicly announced she is appalled at the strict criteria imposed and the changes made by her Government for assistance.

Landry and the LNP’s position to leave it all up to the State Governments and placing full blame on the State Labor Government, who have only been in for a matter of weeks; is the mindset of a small, hands off approach Liberal Government. However, small, hands off approach Governments are never good for communities. This mindset simply oozes “I don’t want to help, I don’t care, I had to do it myself and everyone is equal anyway.” A Liberal Government so focused on debt does not care one iota for quality of life. That is why the costs involved in rebuilding a normal life, such as all the food lost and destroyed, just as one example, simply does not register for them.

Some areas of Rockhampton have a socio economic score of 899.7 (Berserker), 849.3 Rockhampton City & Depot Hill and 797.6 for Mt. Morgan, compared to Brisbane’s 1047.7 rating (SEIFA, 2011).

This punitive approach for the disadvantaged simply has to stop.

Ms. Landry always falls back on the “It’s Labor’s fault” mantra. So let’s have a look at if it is really Labor’s fault.

On October 18, the day after the bush-fires tore through the Blue Mountains, our Prime Minister (who was posing as a hard working volunteer fire fighter, full of compassion and community unity), changed the eligibility criteria. (I’m sure Mr. Abbott is the best friend that disaster victims have ever had, if we ask him).

NSW bushfire victims denied compensation under new rules (SMH 26/10/2013)

“The day after bushfires tore through the area, the federal government tightened the rules for disaster payments leaving hundreds of residents who were forced to evacuate without any financial help.

Eligibility for payments, available in disasters such as the January Tasmanian fires, were changed on October 18, so residents who did not lose their homes but had to relocate for days at a time would not receive assistance.” (Excerpt)

”Mr Keenan (pictured with Michelle Landry, MP above) has heartlessly removed assistance for people who have been cut off from their homes for more than 24 hours, or been without water or electricity for 48 hours,” Mr Dreyfus said. (SMH 21/10/2013)

Bill Shorten and Senator Doug Cameron just some of the very vocal members of Labor constantly pressuring Abbott to change this criteria. As we can see from Cyclone Marcia, to no avail.

Then when the bush-fires tore through South Australia, Tony Abbott clammed up and refused to comment (The Australian 7 January, 2015)

Then, because blaming Labor simply would not work, Tony Abbott resorted to denying the truth (Bill Shorten, MP November, 13, 2013)

In addition, the Abbott Govt has employed the productivity commission to recommend changes to disaster relief system, which includes a recommendation of a drop of Commonwealth funding to help rebuild from the current 75% to 25%.

Doug Cameron summed it up with, “I think the underlying position here is how do you do more cost-cutting? How can you penny-pinch more against people that are in trouble?” he said.

The Liberal National Government contests that this is not about budget cuts, but about encouraging mitigation. Until mitigation is fully implemented in communities, the cuts and changes do nothing but continue to inflict hardship to those in need who have survived a disaster. This is yet another punitive ideological view in its current form. “If you don’t do this, we will not help you.” Unfortunately, the Blue Mountains and the Rockhampton Region have not had time to implement mitigation strategies as required by the Abbott Government prior to their disasters.

Here is a very clear explanation of the changes by the Abbott Government and the timeline:

The Liberal National Federal Government removed the last three criteria which applied under aFederal Labor Government. This should clarify why people who suffered under Cyclone Yasi received the $1000 payment and $400 for each child received the payments. However, many who have suffered through the Bush-fires in the Blue Mountains and Cyclone Marcia in Rockhampton, Yeppoon and surrounds cannot access these payments.

Under the old criteria under Labor, which Michelle Landry, Michael Keenan and Tony Abbott and the rest of the LNP do not support and changed; everyone who had no electricity for 48 hours or more and lost all of their food, would have been eligible for $1000 plus $400 for each child post cyclone Marcia.

My understanding is that the state based criteria was developed by the previous Newman LNP Government and I understand the Labor party have only been in a matter of weeks, but the entire system for the state based disaster relief system also needs an urgent review.

As for the Federal changes, all parties and communities across Australia, need to stand up and fight against these cuts to disaster relief, and have them reversed as passionately as they are fighting against other harsh cuts imposed by the Liberal Government. No community should ever have to go through this again. I am, you are, we are Australian.

Should Michelle Landry, Michael Keenan and Tony Abbott hang their heads in shame? Yes, they should. How many people now across fires and cyclones have now suffered under cuts to disaster relief by the Liberal National Government?

I know a lot of people truly believe that it does not matter who you vote for, but as I always say, your vote counts. Always, always, put Liberal and Nationals Last for a progressive and compassionate Australia.

Originally published on Polyfeministix

Can it work the second time around for Malcolm Turnbull?

February 27, 2015
Written by: John Lord
19 Replies

Tony Abbott came to the Prime Minister ship with a mixture of negative malevolence, callous misogyny, lying, cheating and creating crisis when none existed. With the support of Rupert Murdoch he successfully deceived the Australian public into believing that the country would be better in his hands. The evidence of his unconscionable leadership is open for all to see.

Conversely, Malcolm Turnbull will it appears, obtain the office with a calculated mixture of personal charm, reasonableness, and consummate diplomacy. He presents a façade of calm confidence and understanding in stark contrast to Abbott who shows all of the traits of a man who has lost control of his emotions.

In December The Saturday Paper said this of Turnbull:

“He has worked up a lovely public persona: as cultured as Keating but blessed with a kinder sense of humour; as intelligent as Rudd but far from as malevolent. And somehow, with his green-froth-drinking diet success and his endearing leather jackets and business shirts, his Stephen Fry-like adoration of gadgets and mastery of social media, his raffish smile and mellifluous voice, he has formed the perfect personality for most popular, and probably most trusted, politician in the nation.”

It seems inevitable that one will replace the other. I for one, like many on the left, don’t subscribe to the theory that Abbott in power gives Labor the greatest chance of winning the next election. It may be true to some extent but the current state of our democracy demands that the tempestuous buffoon Abbott be removed and the matter is urgent.

But who is Malcolm Turnbull and can he succeed a second time around?

Born 24 October 1954 Malcolm Bligh Turnbull was educated at Sydney Grammar School and the University of Sydney where he graduated with a Batchelor of Arts and Batchelor of Laws. Later he obtained, as a Rhodes Scholar, a Batchelor of Civil Law from Oxford.

He has worked as a journalist and has been extraordinarily successful in many businesses including his own law firm and his success in the Spy Catcher trial is well-known. He established a merchant banking company with Whitlam’s son Nick. Later he became a partner with Goldman Sachs.

He became chair of Internet Service Provider OzEmail and later sold the company for an enormous sum at the height of the tech boom. In the 1990s, Turnbull was chairman of Axiom Forest Resources, which conducted logging, with a dubious record, in the Solomon Islands.

In 2008 as the Member for Wentworth he was elected leader of the Liberal Party. In December 2009 he lost the leadership to Tony Abbott by one vote with two of his own supporters absent.

He is also well-known for his work with the Australian Republican Movement and was its delegate at the convention. He later wrote a book on his experiences in which he described the then PM Howard as having broken Australia’s heart. Having worked on the referendum myself, I concurred.

He married Lucy Hughes in 1980. Their two children, Alex and Daisy attended local schools and have now completed University. Lucy and Malcolm have been partners not only in marriage but also in their many businesses. Lucy was the first female Lord Mayor of Sydney, a position she held until early 2004.

He is related to the famous actress Anglia Lansbury. Contrary to popular thought he is not a descendent of Captain Bligh of Mutiny on the Bounty fame but is a forebear of John Turnbull who was a supporter of Bligh’s during the Rum Rebellion. It became a tradition for sons of Turnbulls to take the middle name Bligh. Malcolm’s son likewise has ”Bligh” for his middle name.

His personal fortune is estimated in excess of $100 million.

But who is Malcolm Turnbull?

Undoubtedly he is a man, like Rudd, of prodigious intellect and charismatic personality who carries his superiority as an example for others to admire. Like Rudd and despite the veneer of public self-assuredness he is hated within his own party.

The National Party are on the record as saying they couldn’t work with him, such is their detestation.

Again like Rudd he has frequent displays of bad temper. Nick Whitlam said he was a “prick”. He doesn’t suffer fools and he lets them know it. He is a silver tongue, smooth urbane and charming. One of his colleagues jokingly said but he carries a knife with him at all time.

He is also known to be generous with his cash and readily splashes it around if he considers a cause worthy.

It was well-known that he would storm into the office of Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson and hurl abuse at him because he felt he wasn’t performing adequately.

So behind the public persona of the, mannerly articulate, polished Q&A debonair performances, there lurks the other person. The political animal who is just as ruthless as Abbott.

Let’s not forget that as an Opposition Leader last time around Turnbull was an abject failure. His polls as preferred prime minister were a disaster and he made a fool of himself over the Godwin Grench affair.

What might be different under Turnbull?

Climate Change

Remember these words?

“As we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion “climate change is crap” or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, it’s cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.”

“Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.”

There exists in the Coalition Party Room at least 50% of its members who are fervent climate deniers. They will have nothing to do with the science.

Malcolm Turnbull has hung his hat on a firm belief that it is real and that the party’s current policy of Direct Action is nothing more than a joke. He would have to show support for renewable energy, emissions targets and investment. If he compromises his hypocrisy will be difficult to overcome.

The Ministry

One of Turnbull’s first problems will be, as an intelligent individual, to form a balanced (I mean women) front bench. He would have to dispose of the likes of Pyne, who he detests, and others who have passed their used by date. It would be no good reinstating all the regulars of this untalented disoriented, characterless and anachronistic group or his credibility will suffer. He is a Liberal amongst neo-conservatives and a sprinkling of Tea Party nutters.

The question of sexual equality and gay marriage

As an outspoken supporter of gay rights it would naturally be expected that he would allow a conscience vote on the matter. In doing so he will confront a huge number of homophobic Bernardie type personalities. He would need to win the argument or again face charges of hypocrisy.

Budget Blues

Both of the following statements conflict with Turnbull’s publicly stated view of support for the last budget. I support it in its entirety he said. But both quotes address the question of fairness which means he goes back to the drawing or admits that it was unfair:

“It is vitally important, both as a matter of social justice and political reality, that structural changes are seen as being fair across the board.”

“That means not only must tough decisions be justified, but that the burden of adjustment is not borne disproportionately by one part of the community.”

Health

This raises the question of what will happen with the GP Co-Payment. He could retreat on it altogether arguing that it was an Abbott broken promise that he wanted nothing to do with. Labor would of course say correctly that it was one of many flawed policies symptomatic of a government devoid of ideas.

Education

Would he sack Pyne and move him out of the ministry or give him another portfolio. He is just one of many grating personalities hindering the public perception of the Coalition. Then he might take up independent Senator Nick Xenophon’s suggestion for a proper comprehensive review of the University sector.

Some might see it as a delaying tactic but Turnbull would have a solid argument for a fresh approach and it is right for the government to pursue reform of the tertiary sector. Labor would come back with a picture of a dysfunctional, out of control government.

Welfare reform

After John Howard’s spending spree years of vote-buying we now have revenue shortfalls that need to be fixed. Long term welfare reforms also need to be looked at and Turnbull would have an opportunity to explain all of the issues in detail and tackle the perception of unfairness.

Of course the ability to accomplish all of these things is a matter of timing. The Budget is due on May 12. If Turnbull is to change course, indeed change policy direction and influence the upcoming budget they would need to act soon.

As I see it though the three major challenges he faces are firstly his own ego which was Rudd’s downfall, secondly the public’s perception of his party as untrustworthy ideologues and thirdly to bring the party back to the center from the extremity of the far right.

As a party with a born to rule mentality together with an obsessiveness’ towards ideology and telling people what’s best for them they will find it hard to listen to people of constraint and reason.

For a party now so infiltrated with political nutters it might be a bridge to far, or at least a bridge over very troubled waters.

Seeing Abbott go may not, in election terms be what’s best for Labor but it is what’s manifestly best for Australia and that should be our first consideration.

Then if as Bill Shorten says 2015 is to be a year of ideas we might dare to dream that our democracy will come in for some badly needed repair.

Who knows? Between then they might, as has been done in Brittain form a consensus on climate change, organise a plebiscite on a republic and ban knighthoods. Well you can always hope.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Good Government Starts Today … Or Tomorrow, But We’re Definitely Committed To It!

February 14, 2015
Written by: Rossleigh
17 Replies

There’s an old cartoon where the couple in a car are speeding down the highway while there’s hundreds of cars stuck in traffic in a lane beside it. The wife says, “Look at the sign – we’re going the wrong way!” To which the husband replies, “Who cares, we’re making great time.”

Every few days someone in the current Abbott Government makes me remember that cartoon.

Of course, unlike the man in the cartoon, most members of the government seem completely unable to acknowledge that they are going the wrong way, even though that’s what the sign clear says.

“We’ve made great progress on the Budget!”

But the deficit is growing and it’s not predicted to get back to surplus any faster than Labor planned.

“But you’d be a fool to trust what Labor said. They promised to get it back to surplus a couple of years ago and they still haven’t done it!”

But you’re the government now; you’re the ones promising to have it back in surplus, then changing the date.

“Yes, but I’m not a quitter. I’m determined to see this through, as is the PM. He’s a nice bloke, you know. A terrific guy. Family man. Athlete. He pedals really fast. Firefighter. And he’s a fighter. He’ll get back up. Really, I can’t think of someone with more attractive daughters. No, he’s certainly the best person to lead the country. “

Of course, Hockey did acknowledge that having the highest unemployment since John Howard was PM wasn’t great, but attempted to argue that it could be worse. Basically, his point was that if there hadn’t been so many jobs created last year then unemployment would have been over seven per cent, so we were really, really lucky that we’d rid ourselves of that Labor Government who wouldn’t have grown the economy.

He went on to argue that the best possible way to improve the unemployment figures was to get the economy growing faster. Which, to me, is a bit like a mechanic saying that the best possible thing for your car is to get it moving again, because once it’s moving then you won’t have this problem with it stalling. And if it keeps stalling, well, that’s because it’s not moving. At this point, don’t be tempted to ask the mechanic how you’re supposed to get it moving again, because he’ll just tap his nose and tell you that he has a plan, and, though it may not be popular, the best thing you could do is to pay his bill.

In fact, that’s more or less what Hockey said:

“I’m trying to get it to shift and things that have been unpopular but necessary have helped.”

I’m still trying to work out how sacking large numbers of public servants is meant to stimulate the economy and lead to an increase in employment numbers in the short term, even if one accepts the rather dubious argument that it’ll help get the Budget back in surplus and once the Budget is back in surplus, all will be well. (And once the car starts moving, it’ll no longer be stalled. $739, please, for parts and labour!!)

But, of course, the week truly belongs to Tony Abbott. Now I’m not going to mention the war – in particular, I’ll say nothing about the holocaust; neither will I make cheap shots about him not being able to stop Japanese subs from coming to Australia. (Actually they’ve announced that it’s no longer the case that Adelaide can’t build them, and that the they’ll be allowed to put in a thing that nobody seems to know what to call, before the contract is given to the Japanese under the free trade deal that’ll lead to jobs, jobs, jobs in whatever part of the world we’re trading with, and now that we have a free trade deal, well, what benefits them, benefits us, because we’re all just one happy free trading partnership where we’ve managed to break down the borders. Actually, change that to barriers. We want STRONGER borders, but no barriers to the movement of money, trade and anything else you care to name, if your donation is big enough.)

So after we’ve had the barnacle clearing, the learning, back to work Tuesday, more learning, and good government starts today day, we were treated to the government’s attempt to bury a report by waiting six months then releasing it late in the day, only to have Tony attack the Human Rights Commission for all he’s worth (no, actually, probably a bit more than that!) A report that was apparently partisan against his government, yet Mr Abbott suggested only minutes later that he was doing the Labor Party a favour by not following its recommendations, because if he implemented a Royal Commission “… it would condemn them (the former Labor government).” Strange that a report that was so ‘blatantly partisan’ report should also condemn the Labor Government, but, never mind, Abbott’s attack on Gillian Trigg’s managed to create enough attention that the report didn’t go the way of so many reports: We’ve got it, thanks, we’ll read it and get back to you, unless it’s the Gonski Report which Christopher Pyne refused to read because there were no pictures.

But just to cap off the week, we had the sacking of Phil “Smiley” Ruddock. Undertaker Ruddock, the Father of the House (do we know who the mother is?), the third longest serving member ever, Uncle Phil, the Liberal Party Whip was sacked. Make no mistake, Abbott wasn’t going to give him the dignity of resigning to promote generational change, or because he wanted to spend more time nursing a family member’s ingrown toenail, the PM made it clear that the decision was his. (I don’t think that he added and his alone, because that may have necessitated another announcement about how he intended to be more consultative in future, and people tend to grow a little cynical when you announce the same intention to change on a weekly basis, instead of the monthly basis that we’ve grown used to.)

Yep, I’ve heard people argue that the term, “forward progress” is a tautology, because you can’t have “backward progress”. That, of course, was before the Abbott Government.

Cheers,

Rossleigh.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

“I’m with Stupid” man arrested; imagine if he’d been against Stupid!

January 8, 2015
Written by: Rossleigh
75 Replies

Photo: Word Art generator

Ok, for those of you who haven’t caught up with the Queensland man who was arrested for standing next to LNP supporters and waving while wearing an “I’m With Stupid” T-Shirt I give you the link “The Courier Mail”‘s report just so you know that it isn’t made up!

Now, because I write on this site, I’m often accused of being a lefty, which is ridiculous because I’m a Capitalist through and through. Any time I see I chance to make money, I’m there, and I’d be as rich as Gina or Rupert if it wasn’t for the fact that – like the current government – I suffer from poor marketing.

I read the article and immediately saw an opportunity to make a few bucks by marketing a t-shirt saying “I’m Not With Stupid – I’m Voting xxx”. Of course, The Greens would be too full of priniciple to replace the xxx with “Green”, and Labor supporters don’t have any money because they’ve put everything on the credit card, so the obvious person to approach with the idea was Clive Palmer.

Initiallly, his representative was very supportive and said that most of the members of his party wanted one. However, when it was discovered that the PUP members, in fact, wanted one with Clive Palmer’s photo instead of Campbell Newman’s, apparently Clive went cold on the idea.

Senator Lambie, on the other hand…

All right, I’m making it up. In a country where people are arrested for creating a public disturbance by waving while wearing a t-shirt, I feel that I have to make that clear. Just as I feel that I feel I need to make it clear that he was lucky that he wasn’t arrested under the VLAD laws.

And, while I’m at it, I also feel that I have to set the record straight on what I wrote about Abbott not visiting South Australia or commenting on their bushfires. He went there “as soon as he could” and offered them $4 million. Which is really extraordinarily generous. After all, he only offered $5 million to Iraq!

Perhaps, John Cleese should have the final say!

Stupidity.

P.S. For those who have pointed out that I posted the wrong link, I’m posting the accident as well, in case anyone is looking for it. (Yes, yes, it is ironic that I post a link on stupidity and it’s the wrong link, yes it is ironic, yes, this is why I could never be a member of Abbott’s front bench because I can actually acknowledge when I make a mistake, and clearly none of them can or we’d have mass resignations and by-elections!) This is the John Lloyd one which I accidentally posted which although it’s a little longer is thoroughly worth it: John Lloyd.

Let’s talk about privilege and single parents

January 4, 2015
Written by: Trish Corry
54 Replies

The Social Discourse and Welfare

Whilst doing my research for my most recent blog post, I analysed a range of opinions throughout social media on the topic of contraception and welfare. Naturally, these threads across various pages gathered the opinions of those not on welfare and those who are. Comments on social media give one an insight into the thoughts of a wide and varied demographic. Often thoughts on social media are contained to a particular thread on a particular topic; so it is always interesting to view the differences of opinion from many on that particular subject. This is particularly evident when it is a newspaper forum, or another general page which attracts a diverse range of people. People will group together on opinion and often there are long debates from those for or against a particular opinion. I love reading the opinions of people on social media, as narrative or discourse, gives us a glimpse of the social psyche.

Social discourse is a key element to social change. Many of the comments from people, as per my last blog post, painted those on welfare in a very negative light. In fact, the ones highlighted were of the very strong view that those on welfare “should not breed”. The Liberal National Coalition (LNP) Government has a very strong discourse on punitive measures aimed to punish people on welfare and sets this standard, through their unfair cuts to welfare and treatment of jobseekers.

Newspapers and media also seem to slant their stories to the negative. There were many comments highlighting that Sunrise had posted the ‘welfare and contraception’ story three different times on their Facebook page. In my local regional newspaper today, there is an prominent article with the headline “Hard-working Australian culture fading away” which has a 20 year old mechanic front and centre telling people to “not cry poor and go out a get a job” and “I don’t believe for a second there’s no work out there”.

This is in spite of the unemployment rate being 6.3% nationally, youth unemployment sitting nationally at 14% nationally and being as high as 29.3% in outback South Australia, 26.7% in south east Tasmania and 21.3% in Cairns. This is also in spite of skills shortages in 2014 identified in specialized and professional fields as external auditor, surveyor, sonographer, phsysiotherapist, midwife, software engineer and construction estimator. The jobs listed as skills shortages are not jobs that would be likely to match young people seeking employment, or unskilled jobseekers. This means that contrary to the social discourse occurring at present, job search is a highly competitive environment and those with little to no skills or experience, or who face any barriers to employment (including sole parenting), will find securing employment very difficult.

This does not even take into account age discrimination or Indigenous unemployment, which sits at 17.2% nationally and the Government’s changes to programs that will greatly affect this group. These changes show blatant changes which target people through race, which are discriminatory as compared to other parts of Australia.

What about Sole Parents?

The blog post I researched most recently discussed the argument that ‘People on welfare should be forced to take contraception.’ Single mothers were certainly a group raised for discussion. In particular, young mothers featured prominently, as did women from certain suburbs in Australia and another prominent single mother group attacked negatively were those ‘assumed to be refugees’ or from an ethnic minority background or non-white people.

Single Parents have only had to seek employment as part of Mutual Obligation since the 2005 – 2006 Howard Budget. This has continued to be evolved by successive ALP Governments since 2007 and remains as a focus for the Abbott Government. There have been calls from ACOSS that the inclusion of single parents in mutual obligation contravenes Human Rights Obligations. I strongly agree with ACOSS, not only for the economic affects outlines, but especially for point 2, which discusses discrimination against women:

The Bill violates the rights of single parents to non-discrimination under Art 2, paragraph 2
of the ICESCR and Art 11(1)(e) of the International Covenant on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Since the majority of recipients are
women, they will suffer indirect gender discrimination should the Bill become law. In
addition, sole parent families, identified for special measures due to their greater
vulnerability, will suffer discrimination through the loss of these measures.

As I delved into people’s conversations on social media whilst researching my last blog post, I noticed something quite prominent and thematic with young mothers and their arguments. I was becoming increasingly aware of the amount of young women (single mothers) who felt the need to defend their space in society. These young women felt the need to list every single effort they make to work in paid work, volunteering, job search or furthering their education through study or training. Often, they would write a long list of work and study they were doing at the same time, as well as caring for their child or children.

What this is saying to me, is that young mothers and single others feel the need to ‘reaffirm’ or establish themselves in the eyes of the privileged (those not a single parent) to be deemed worthy or accepted in society. My position is difficult here as I can only view the conversation and not seek clarity or construct any dialogue with these young mothers to further develop understanding; but I feel that these young mothers feel that there are societal pressures that say that being a mother 100% of of the time is not enough as set by the standards of society and in the eyes of those who view them as ‘sole parents.’

One theme that was quite prominent was when young mothers did list the whole range work or study activities they were undertaking as well as motherhood, people congratulated them on their efforts and ‘becoming a productive citizen.’ The comments resonated that being a mother was not being a productive citizen. Raising other little good citizens is being a productive citizen in itself.

I for one second do not take away any single parent’s choice to undertake any activities to better their future for employment etc., The key word there being choice. However, I question the need that there may be mothers who feel they cannot be a mother only, due to the strong social narrative that drives this pressure, which is enabled by the Government view of single parents. Something afforded by privilege to those who have this choice in a partnered relationship. I know many may argue that even women in partnered relationships need to go to work; but if a woman strongly wanted to be at home, they have the choice, through that partnership to adapt their lifestyle, so this can be supported on one wage in many cases. The fact of the matter is single parents do not have this choice even to contemplate, as that second wage is simply not there.

Some of the privileges afforded by those in partnered relationships or single people with no children, who set to condemn single parents are thus:

Single parents do not have the option to share the workload.

Single parents often have to do more than partnered parents, as all work, child raising and decision making are their sole responsibility

Single parents bear the brunt of sole financial responsibility. If they get sick, there is no second wage to fall back on.

There are forced expectations by the Government of mutual obligation on single mothers or fathers that is not enforced onto partnered mothers or fathers.

There is a great social stigma still towards, particularly single mothers being a purposeful burden on the system

Economic burdens, not affording take away, making all food, not affording childcare, or adequate medical care, including dental as compared to middle to upper classes

There is a great social stigma about child spacing for single parents “they just pop another one out when the youngest turns six” Child spacing is a privilege afforded to partnered parents.

Single parents have more likely high instances of low self-efficacy and low self-esteem than partnered parents

Illness is a privilege afforded to those in partnered relationships. A single parent who falls ill still has to maintain all responsibilities

There are many labor market constraints for single parents, including transport, available education, flexible work hours. In some cases partnered parents may face these barriers, but they have another partner to work with to reduce these barriers.

Often stigma is also with the ex-wife/ex-partner that if the father is raising them, there is something wrong with the mother, but that is rarely questioned about the father

Fathers are often perceived as heroes and pitied for abandonment, women are scorned, slut shamed etc.,

In most cases the onus of blame is placed on the woman in a relationship breakdown.

Single mothers experience stigma with employment, housing, applying for benefits, and community assistance afforded to most partnered couples (racial and disability discrimination acknowledged)

Balancing custody and career. Often promotion means more work and more time away from family sole parents, both male and female risk custody if they are not seen to provide enough care an attention to the child/ren through absence to the home. This is intensified if the other parent has another new partner who can does paid work. There is little research if this is more particularly burdensome for single mothers or single fathers. Career and progression is something afforded to parents in a partnered relationship, without the risk of losing custody of their child/ren.

I will break out of the bullet points to direct attention to one that I am most passionate about. I will speak to this for mothers only. I would value input from how single fathers see this in the comments below.

Forced removal of the right to care for children.

Due to the mutual obligations forced upon single mothers by the Government, single parents have no choice but to have another person spend critical and valuable time with their child. They do not have the option that this may be the person they are in an intimate relationship with as a privilege afforded to partnered mothers who desire to return to work and have a stay at home father. Single Mothers are forced to pay strangers to spend critical and valuable time and input in the rearing of their child. Not only does this take away from critical and valuable parenting time, but places an extra financial burden on women as it cuts into money earned from employment.

This also places an additional burden on women fleeing domestic violence relationships and fleeing violent partners. It forces a woman to be engaged in employment (sometimes with no phone contact as enforced by the employer’s rules) and it creates more worry, stress and strain on a woman already experiencing heightened anxiety and concern for the safety of herself and her children.

I find this absolutely abhorrent that this choice is taken away from single parents by force, rather than by choice. It takes away one of the most important and most treasured days of a woman’s life by force.

Single Fathers

Although the majority of single parents are mothers, single fathers make up 12% of single parents in Australia. Single fathers also face particular burdens based on how society positions gender and parenting, based on the notion that only women are the natural nurturers and men are the breadwinners.

Single fathers are the loneliest and socially isolated of all types of household situation.

Single fathers are deemed incompetent by others, due to the ingrained belief that women are the natural caregivers and nurturers.

As per listed above, it is also unfairly assumed that the father is not the best option for care of the child, but must be by default. Society seeks to lay blame on either the mother primarily, and pities the father, but does not ever assume that this may be an amicable solution or what has been decided as a matter of choice between the former partnered parents.

Single fathers have generally lower self esteem and depression issues than men in other households

Affect on single fathers with balancing work choice, decision making, key provisions for the family, restrictions in childcare availability and shift work for many labouring / trades jobs

Gay and Lesbian single parents – there is more of a story to be told.

There is also appears to be an absence of research on single parents from a breakdown of a same sex relationship. Statistics included for single parents are inclusive of gay and lesbian parents as statistics do not specifically also target sexual preference.

There appears to be an abundance of literature on same sex parenting as a dual couple. However, the absence of literature on gay and lesbian single parents, makes for a gap in understanding the full picture of single parents and their lived experiences.

Government Responses

The Howard Government in 2005-2006 budget papers set forth the foundation for including single parents in mutual obligation. Successive ALP Governments since, have not sought to enable single parents by repealing this legislation, but have sought to tighten this legislation and provide even more restrictions and obstacles for single parents.

The Abbott Government’s response is hinged on ‘family values’ but defines this family as the predominantly white, dual parent family, with more than likely Christian values. Often classified as “The traditional family.” This is not representative of all families in Australia.

The Abbott Government has injected 20 million to “strengthen relationships and help improve personal and family well-being—it makes social and economic sense.” Because, you know single parents are a burden on society and a factor for social decline.

The Abbott Government has chosen to fund only Christian Chaplains in schools as a pastoral mechanism. Christian Chaplains would only advocate for traditional heterosexual relationships and traditional forms of family through marriage.

There is a lack of investment from the Abbott Government on Domestic Violence and funding for shelters and other programs for both women and men and an absence of understanding of the need for shelters for men who have experienced domestic violence or intimate partner violence.

There is an agenda of stigmatisation from the Abbott Government for those on welfare, adding to the layers of stigmatisation experienced by single parents, indigenous, the disabled, immigrants, people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and people in other minority groups.

Where to from here

If this blog post has resonated with others, I would encourage everyone to write to the Government and to both the ALP and the Greens to advocate to have mutual obligation as a forced measure removed from single parents and be implemented as a voluntary measure only, with no penalties.

One of the reasons behind me writing this blog post, was that I get so disheartened from reading harsh and judgemental comments from those in a position of privilege. The other reason was that I really want people to start assessing their own narrative when it comes to passing judgement of others on welfare.

The Abbott Government through their agenda of stigmatisation has really created a strong narrative to enable and encourage others to stigmatise those on welfare. If you oppose the Abbott Government, but contribute to this stigma by adding your voice, you are really supporting the Abbott Government by becoming a part of their agenda. Their agenda for stigma is strong as it paves the way for even more harsh cuts and unfair treatment of the disadvantage as the discourse becomes more widely sociably acceptable.

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

Originally published on Polyfeministix

Whitlam eyed our conscience, not our wallet

November 4, 2014
Written by: John Lord
9 Replies

First of two guest posts by Race Mathews. Race is former chief of staff to Gough Whitlam and Labor leaders in the Victorian parliament, federal MP and state MP and minister.

Gough Whitlam’s objective was equality for all. He believed the proper business of politics was to secure informed public consent for necessary change, through objective information from trusted sources. He gave back hope to my generation of Labor Party members. Chifley’s “light on the hill” was re-kindled. The party’s electability was restored. His political career invites us to recall the words of Robert F. Kennedy: “Some see things as they are and say ‘Why?’ I dream of things that never were and say ‘Why not’?”

Whitlam realised from the start that in order for policies to be accepted by the electorate they had first to be understood. Medibank (later Medicare), for example, was explained constantly from 1967 until 1969, and again from 1969 until 1972, in Parliament and wherever public platforms or media attention were obtainable. He required the speeches that were prepared for him to be in part repetitious, in order for their proposals to become as near as possible universally accepted. Once a basic theme and content of a speech had been settled, drafts were exchanged repeatedly between him and whoever was doing the writing, until he was satisfied that the best possible outcome had been obtained.

Speeches such as the definitive “Political and Constitutional Problems in National Transport Planning”, which he delivered for the Department of Civil Engineering at Melbourne University in April, 1968, could take weeks to complete. His memorable 1972 election policy speech was a distillation of all the speeches which had gone before it, as far back as his entry to Parliament in 1952.

Malcolm Fraser mistakenly supposed that Australians would accept his abolition of Medibank – in defiance of his 1975 undertaking to retain it – because it had been in place for only two months prior to the notorious Remembrance Day Coup. The real strength of Medibank stemmed at that point from the fact that it had been explained to the electorate more thoroughly than any other Opposition proposal in our history.

A consequent Whitlam government innovation was the creation of the great Investigatory, reporting and recommendatory commissions, such as the Schools Commission, the several post-secondary education commissions and the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. Legislation for a Children’s Commission that would have revolutionised early childhood development, education and care was introduced, but lapsed with the dismissal of the government in November 1975. Like the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General the commissions were empowered to inquire as they saw fit into any and all aspects of their respective briefs and report directly to Parliament on the outcomes of their investigations and the recommendations arising from them. Their outstanding work opened up government services to unprecedented levels of scrutiny, facilitated forward planning and budgeting, and enabled informed and constructive public debate at unprecedented levels to occur. Their subsequent abolition at the hands of both Coalition and Labor governments has been a public policy and democratic enfranchisement setback of epic proportions.

The provenance is plain. Whitlam epitomised throughout his career the Fabian approach to politics and policy development. As he once said tongue-in-cheek of himself, “Among Australian Fabians, I am Maximus”. Each new piece of work he undertook started from the principles of social justice and egalitarianism that had given his career its whole motivation and direction.

Facts were then painstakingly and meticulously analysed, so that policy options could emerge and be tested. Once the final form of a policy had been settled, it was fought for with all the formidable force of his intellect and eloquence.

Australians are accustomed to having their votes sought through their purses and pockets. It is Whitlam alone in the memories of most of us who has addressed himself uncompromisingly to our consciences and intellects. He himself would not necessarily have regarded so sweepingly affirmative an assessment, as inappropriate, as a further flight of self-mockery attests.

Barry Cohen – elected to the House of Representatives on Whitlam’s coat-tails in 1969 and a Minister under Hawke – has a relevant story in his book, After the Party.

It reads:

I had heard that on the release of the massive tome The Whitlam Government 1972-1975 Gough was asked by an intrepid young reporter whether this was the third major work on his period of government, the others being The Truth of the Matter by himself, and A Certain Grandeur by Graham Freudenberg. He was reported to have replied loftily, “Yes, there was the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and now we have the Gospels”.

I had tried to check the authenticity of this wonderful story with the man himself but was unable to do so as he was away overseas for a considerable period, fulfilling UNESCO obligations.

I eventually caught up with him and repeated the story. He paused for a moment before replying, “I must say I can’t recall it, although it has a certain ring to it. However, I can tell you that I do keep ‘THE THREE BOOKS’ together on my office shelf”.

“The three books?” I inquired innocently. “Yes,” he replied, “The Bible, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare and The Whitlam Government.”

Tomorrow… Gough Whitlam remembered: gallows humour and monumental rages

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

With Gough’s passing, it’s time to think about where we are headed.

October 22, 2014
Written by: Trish Corry
58 Replies

Today’s passing of Gough Whitlam has left me today with a heavy heart, along with so many other people in this country. To simply reflect on how one man has progressed this country like no other, is overwhelming. I believe as a collective, we don’t really stop and appreciate what we have. We do take our wonderful country, our people and our existing social support systems for granted. So many things we would not have without Gough Whitlam. Thank you, to a great man.

Like many others, I spend my days and nights thinking about the Abbott Government and worrying about their next plan or policy that could harm us now and for generations to come. I worry about the deals in the Senate and what destructive policy may slip through for approval. I worry about the vulnerable, the disadvantaged. I worry about families, teenagers, the elderly and young children. I worry about our nation’s first people. I worry about our environment, entire communities, particularly in rural and regional areas.

I have realised, that I am part of a collective, that in reality is taking part in a war; but we use our voices, not guns.

I know this, as I know there are many like me, who stay informed and are active and do everything we can to prevent Abbott’s destructive policies and plans for our communities and country. (and to these people I say thank you.)

Last night, I was researching the IPA’s influence on our Prime Minister. For those of you who are not aware of the IPA., they class themselves as the “independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.” In a nutshell, they are a union. Not the type of union that fights for rights and equality, but one that aims to demolish rights and equality through their right-wing ideological view of what Australia should look like.

On the 4 April, 2013, Tony Abbott promised the IPA that he would adopt their ideas. Some of the IPA’s ideas adopted or flagged as intended by our Prime Minister so far are:

Repeal the Carbon Tax
Abolish the Clean Energy Fund
Repeal Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act
Introduce fee competition to Australian Universities
Cease subsidising the Australian Car Industry
Introduce a special economic zone in the north of Australia including:
a) Lower personal income tax for residents
b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers
c) Encourage the construction of dams
Repeal the Mining Tax
Privatise Medibank
Privatise Australia Post
Cease Funding the Australia Network

For those of you who may have thought that the Abbott Government thinks up their own ideas, sorry to break it to you, but…no…as you can see above, an un-elected party – IPA runs Australia.

The above list is from a more extensive list titled “Be Like Gough – 75 Radical Ideas to transform Australia.” The title is not admiration of the left, but the right’s intrigue of how Gough Whitlam radically transformed this country, with such a lasting legacy in such a small space of time.

With Gough’s passing, it is time to take a look at ourselves as a country and how we want to progress and what are we prepared to lose.

What struck me as I was completing this research was a quote from the IPA’s John Roskam, James Paterson and Chris Berg’s article:

Only radical change that shifts the entire political spectrum

AND

And the public’s bias towards the status quo has a habit of making even the most radical policy (like Medicare, or restrictions on freedom of speech) seem normal over time.

How will we be shaped by the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm to adopt and enforce policy under the direction of the IPA? So many people at the moment are up in arms about freedom in the current climate of war and ISAS; but so many of us calmly sit at home and not realise what terror is upon is on the domestic front.

The reason why it is so important to stop and really take in what is happening here is, what does this IPA list really mean and what should we take from Abbott’s eagerness to adopt this list?

Essentially, the IPA has requested Abbott push the country as far right as possible, so it then becomes adopted by the public as the status quo and becomes normal over time.

As we sit around complacent and taking for granted our University system, our health system, our industrial relations protections, our right to live peacefully and not be racially vilified, a social welfare safety net and a basic minimum wage; we need to stop and think that with the wrong Government it could all be gone.

Everything mentioned above, that we enjoy, take for granted and cannot simply imagine not being there are also on the list of the IPA to attack, destroy and disintegrate. A list that Abbott is so keen to ratify.

Stop and think for a moment. If Abbott & the IPA’s agenda pans out; right-wing, neo-liberal ideology will become the norm. Can you imagine one day for it to be normal to scoff at the idea of a Government wanting to introduce bulk billing doctors and free medical treatment? Stop and think about that.

Gough’s “It’s Time” campaign was central to motivating the people of the country to recognise it was time for change. Time to move beyond the selfish, stagnant, egoist policies of a Liberal Government and progress. Malcolm Fraser said today that the Liberal Party has jumped leagues to the right and the ALP has jumped leagues to the right from Whitlam.

It is time to speak up about progress, to want it, to desire it so much it hurts. It is time for the opposition to lead the country back to the left. To set a solid platform for strong change and progress. Real respect for Gough starts with respect and commitment to the legacy he left for us. It’s time for change.

Gough’s policies changed Australia forever, in a very good way. The best way and the way forward. It only takes one election to have us put our guard down. To be complacent, to donkey vote, or to take slogans as something meaningful and promising for our nation, rather than seeing them for the vapid, empty, soul-destroying agenda’s that they really are.

Gough Whitlam’s passing today really highlights how destructive the Abbott Government is. It is heartbreaking our country has come to this.

Originally published on Polyfeministix

“A Giant of a Man”. Yes he was indeed.

October 21, 2014
Written by: John Lord
17 Replies

Image from sbs.com.au

Gough Whitlam (1916-2014).

I recall the first time I laid eyes upon him. It was at a Labor rally at the suburban Greensborough Football oval in Victoria.

The “Its Time” slogan had indelibly entrenched itself on my political awareness. All that I thought decent about Labor and its reformist zeal was encapsulated in the words of this intellectually formidable man.

Having played both football and cricket on this oval its environs were familiar to me and we secured an excellent vantage point to view the proceedings. A social cricket match was in progress of which Bob Hawke was a participant and when I went into the club-rooms Bob was alone taking off his pads.

“G’day” he said in inimitable Hawke speak.

“Make any?” I replied.

“Yeah got a few mate”.

I visited the men’s room and when I came out he was gone. He had begun to speak when I returned to my wife. He spoke for an hour off the cuff, without notes, and with earnest enthusiasm.

As the sun was making its way to its place of rest everyone looked toward the park entry. The assembled comrades waited with anticipation. With his back to the sun standing in the back of a ute he rode toward the stage. I felt the awe of his presence. His charisma was something I had never, until that time, experienced in a man.

In contrast to Hawks raspy delivery Whitlam was all eloquence and style and he took me on a journey that had “It’s Time” engraved on every word he spoke.

It’s a journey that has lasted 52 years and adhered social justice, the collective common good and social reform on every fiber of my being.

Gough made it so that it would never go away. My hope in his passing is that the Labor Party might once again find those ideals that Gough with such clarity of vision, and force of personality, sought to execute and did.

To those who would be critical I say this. The best measure of a man is the legacy he leaves behind.

In his book “Crash through or Crash”, Laurie Oakes said this:

In his brief three years the Prime Minister produced profound and lasting changes – reforms which could not have been so broadly conceived and so firmly implemented by a lesser man. The Whitlam Government without doubt was the most creative and innovatory in the nation’s history. Under Whitlam, Australia’s foreign policy came of age. His Government made education its top priority and poured money into schools and colleges throughout the country. It created Medibank, set up community health centres, gave a new deal to pensioners, took an active role in urban improvement and development, provided funds directly to local government, and gave a healthy boost to sexual equality and aboriginal advancement. It promoted greater Australian ownership and control of resources, legislated against restrictive trade practices, introduced the most civilised and sensible divorce laws in the world, gave encouragement to the arts, and in its final budget implemented some fundamental reforms which made the income tax system considerably more equitable. Whitlam himself dominated both his party and the Parliament, and he commanded respect when he travelled overseas in a way no previous Australian Prime Minister had done.

His record:

1. ended Conscription,
2. withdrew Australian troops from Vietnam,
3. implemented Equal Pay for Women,
4. launched an Inquiry into Education and the Funding of Government and Non-government Schools on a Needs Basis,
5. established a separate ministry responsible for Aboriginal Affairs,
6. established the single Department of Defence,
7. withdrew support for apartheid–South Africa,
8. granted independence to Papua New Guinea,
9. abolished Tertiary Education Fees,
10. established the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS),
11. increased pensions,
12. established Medibank,
13. established controls on Foreign Ownership of Australian resources,
14. passed the Family Law Act establishing No-Fault Divorce,
15. passed a series of laws banning Racial and Sexual Discrimination,
16. extended Maternity Leave and Benefits for Single Mothers,
17. introduced One-Vote-One-Value to democratize the electoral system,
18. implemented wide-ranging reforms of the ALP’s organization,
19. initiated Australia’s first Federal Legislation on Human Rights, the Environment and Heritage,
20. established the Legal Aid Office,
21. established the National Film and Television School,
22. launched construction of National Gallery of Australia,
23. established the Australian Development Assistance Agency,
24. reopened the Australian Embassy in Peking after 24 years,
25. established the Prices Justification Tribunal,
26. revalued the Australian Dollar,
27. cut tariffs across the board,
28. established the Trade Practices Commission,
29. established the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service,
30. established the Law Reform Commission,
31. established the Australian Film Commission,
32. established the Australia Council,
33. established the Australian Heritage Commission,
34. established the Consumer Affairs Commission,
35. established the Technical and Further Education Commission,
36. implemented a national employment and training program,
37. created Telecom and Australia Post to replace the Postmaster-General’s Department,
38. devised the Order of Australia Honors System to replace the British Honors system,
39. abolished appeals to the Privy Council,
40. changed the National Anthem to ‘Advance Australia Fair’,
41. instituted Aboriginal Land Rights, and
42. sewered most of Sydney.

RIP Gough Whitlam.

Mark Latham: “The Political Bubble”

September 30, 2014
Written by: John Lord
10 Replies

In this hard-hitting analysis of Australian democracy, the political parties that inhabit it, and other important components necessary for its existence, Mark Latham leaves the reader with an “if only” thought to reflect on.

That’s what I did before writing my piece Seriously, Is Our Democracy Stuffed?

If only we could look beyond our party affiliations and see that our democracy is in deep trouble.

Latham does so, and along the way gives his own party a decent serve, particularly its inability to construct an effective climate change debate based on factual evidence. He persuasively argues that to put the case where people saw it as weather, rather than climate, was wrong and he forensically reasons the way it should have been debated. In the process he takes apart people like Andrew Bolt and others who can only ever argue from a position of limited knowledge and say that “environmentalism” is a code-word for “socialism”.

The chapter on climate change will madden both sides but provides a good analysis of why the issue has degenerated in recent years.

There are a number of single issues that he addresses like the attacks on Gillard, (a whole chapter) the role of the media and its declining ethics, and the cult of personality. He does so with considerable gusto calling a spade a spade, not sparing a thought for the niceties of diplomacy.

Richard Fergusion of The Australian:

In true Latham fashion, a lot a space in this book is devoted to ripping apart old enemies and sneering at opponents. It’s a shame because under the rage and the bile and what looks at times like pure hatred, he does articulate a manifesto for governance that may intrigue people with a love of politics, even if it sometimes lacks coherence.

As I said Latham writes with a degree of straightforwardness but never indulges in hatred. But then Fergusion writes for Murdoch press so one would expect a degree of perfunctory mockery.

However the central tenet of his highly readable observations is that people have lost their trust in the system. That trust has collapsed.

He reckons that the average punter has turned off to the spin cycle, the hyperbole and manufactured outrage of people like Pyne and Abbott. The partisan politics that has nothing to do with the common good.

“Australians once trusted the democratic process. While we got on with our lives, we assumed our politicians had our best interests at heart.”

When Abbott came to power he promised to restore trust in Australian politics. At the launch of a book by Paul Kelly he said when asked about the state of our democracy.

“It’s not the system which is the problem, it is the people who from time-to-time inhabit it. Our challenge at every level is to be our best selves.”

The assumption in the answer was now that Labor, and in particular Rudd and Gillard were out of the system democracy would right itself. Nathan contends and illustrates that it is indeed Abbott as opposition leader and now Prime Minister who, by his actions and policies, has made the major contribution in the corruption of our democracy.

“Tony Abbott promised to restore trust in Australian politics but, as with most of his promises, it was dispensable.”

Still Latham maintains that both sides of politics are guilty of inflated or broken promises that only contribute to voter disillusionment. He concludes that the disillusionment with major party politics had given way to contempt, and leaders must adapt to a new reality: a more self-reliant, affluent and educated community that was less trusting of institutions, sick of old-style politics, and more attuned to the scourge of “spin”.

“We are witnessing a major disruption in democratic practice” (Mark Latham. Image from 3aw.com.au)

Latham says governments across the western world are struggling to deliver improvements for their people, with technological change and globalisation neutering traditional policy areas. In Australia the delegation of utility pricing to independent regulatory bodies and the advent of national competition policy has further reduced the role of government in economic settings.

“We are witnessing a major disruption in democratic practice”, Latham writes. “The formal structures of politics still function by their traditional rules and conventions, while the people they supposedly represent have moved on to a new world of self-reliance and institutional distrust.”

For all his criticism of the system and the people who inhabit it Latham doesn’t shy away from solutions. He lists 10 proposals for change that include the introduction of voluntary voting, on the basis it could force parties to develop policy ideas that captured public imagination, along with caps on election spending, transparency measures to expose meetings between lobbyists and ministers, and expansion of community ballots to widen input into the selection of candidates.

His 10 proposals for change include a prescription for arresting voter apathy – “the cycle of apathocracy” – is based on the belief that Australia “will never return to an era of mass membership politics and democratic participation”. Instead, party politics should be brought into line with public expectations: “less obtrusive, less grandiose, less pretentious.”

This is a most serious subject and this book is worthy of a considered read. It guarantees to please those like me who are in agreement with his premise that our political system has lost the trust of the people. It won’t please those with a right to rule mentality and for those who sit on the fence it might provide some answers to the ‘’what if’’ question.

If you want to read the 10 proposals click here.

‘A brilliant analysis of Australia in the era of Tony Abbott and fanatical right-wing politics.’ ROBERT MANNE

Author Information:

Mark Latham was the Federal Member for Werriwa from 1994 to 2005, becoming Leader of the Labor Party in 2003. Prior to entering Federal Parliament, he spent seven years on Liverpool Council in south-west Sydney. He is the author of eight other books, including The Latham Diaries (2005) and Not Dead Yet (2013).

Since leaving politics, Mark Latham has been a columnist for the Australian Financial Review and worked on radio and television as a political commentator. He lives in outer-south-west Sydney with his wife Janine and their three children.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

New James Ashby scandal could ‘rock’ Abbott Government

September 5, 2014
Written by: John Lord
145 Replies

Author’s Note:

60 Minutes (Channel 9’s) current affairs program will on Sunday night air an interview with James Ashby. The promotional teaser doing the rounds of social media suggests that the program will reveal a secret plot that will “rock the Abbott Government”.

The language used in the teaser is provocatively inviting for those, like me, who have followed the case closely, and have been appalled by the alleged plot to dismiss an elected government.

In the teaser there is combined image of Liberal MPs Mal Brough, Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne and Wyatt Roy and the voiceover saying “what happened behind closed doors” before a cut to journalist Liz Hayes saying to Ashby “This is dynamite, you agree?”. Ashby says “yes”.

The interview is said to be pretty explosive, with references to a “secret plot”, new sexual harassment claims and the promise that “finally, the whistleblower reveals all”.

Often these sorts of promotions can fizz out to nothing of substance but it I hope for the sake of our democracy that all is revealed. What follows is the piece I wrote following the upholding of an appeal against Justice Rares’ findings.

It has remained a mystery as to why Ashby dropped the case when he could have had his day in court. My guess is that the conservative forces used James Ashby in an attempt to bring down the Gillard Government. They financed the plot and when it failed they left Ashby high and dry and in debt. Now it’s payback time.

Has Ashby Closed the Gate?

In 1975 as a youngish fervent supporter of Labor and democracy I was disgusted when an unelected Governor General sacked an elected Prime Minister. That constitutional crisis left me somewhat shattered and politically disillusioned. When it died down I thought I would never see anything similar again in my lifetime. But in November 2012 the shit did hit the fan again and my outrage was ignited once more.

James Ashby bought a sexual harassment case against the speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper. The Judge hearing the case Justice Rares found that in essence the case was politically motivated, vexatious, and among other things an abuse of process. In effect he said that the case was an attempt to bring down the speaker and damage his reputation.

I was outraged. I have been following politics for more years that I care to remember. Never in all that time had a political party been accused of trying to use the courts to destroy a government. I will repeat that in case the reader loses the magnitude of the statement.

“Never in all that time had a political party been accused of trying to use the courts to bring down a government”.

Justice Rares in his judgement determined this to be so.

Without wishing to labour the point. Does the reader fully grasp the implication of the judge’s ruling? He described it was an abuse of process. This was not only the conservatives trying to bring down Labor but democracy its self.

Why on earth if Ashby felt threatened by slipper wouldn’t he run it past all the available avenues open to him? And all he could ever hope for in terms of compensation would be $30,000 or thereabouts. There is after all a rule known as the “Genuine Steps Rule” This is a procedure introduced in 2011 that requires parties to try and sort out their disputes before taking court action. In this case, the Judge questioned why a relatively minor matter like sexual harassment claims could not have been settled another way. Why then would he be going to court knowing that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to redeem that amount? Simply doesn’t make sense. Or a bit sus as we say in Australia. Unless it has some sinister political motivation.

The claim by James Ashby was taken by the main stream media as an invitation to be rid of the speaker and a government they detested. Consequently the Murdoch Press went after Slipper like Pit Bull terriers to a bear. Thinking they had the bear by the balls they were all over the story painting Slipper as the villain with page upon page of despicable tabloid commentary.

Then came Justice Rare’s ruling. A ruling totality unexpected by the Murdoch press. The tabloids relegated the story to the back pages adjoining the sports columns never to be heard of again. By their silence and lying by omission the main stream media decided to join the conspiracy.

David Marr described it thus:

“This has been the great disappearing scandal of Australian politics”.

Then a leave to appeal notice was lodged with the full bench of Federal Court by James Ashby and his solicitor Michael Harmer against the ruling by Justice Stephen Rares. The Federal Court agreed to hear the Leave to appeal and the Appeal concurrently.

If the court were to uphold Rare’s original verdict the repercussions would have been very serious indeed. The Federal Police would be compelled to investigate. They had been reluctant to do so although there was nothing to stop them. It is yet another mystery in this sorry saga. Brough, Pyne, Abbott and many others (especially from Queensland) would have to answer some very pertinent questions and explain the many lies told so far.

David Marr wrote:

“Tony Abbott also has a stake in the appeal. He has stood by Brough despite his friend being caught trying to hide his role in the campaign to destroy Slipper. Abbott has never criticised his part in the operation. Despite Brough’s lies, he praises his candour: “I want to make it clear that Mal has been very upfront about his involvement in this”.

The involvement of journalist Steve Lewis and News Limited would certainly have come into question. On the other hand if they should decide to give Ashby his day in court the effect would be much the same. Everything would be revealed.

Then came the appeal ruling.

The full bench of the Federal Court in February of this year overruled Justice Rares finding that the case was an:

“abuse of process” designed to cause “significant public, reputational and political damage”.
“We are satisfied that the evidence before the primary judge did not warrant the adverse finding said to constitute an abuse of the court’s process on the two bases found and did not warrant the rejection by his Honour of the sworn and unchallenged evidence of each of Ashby and Harmer.”

The decision meant the case would now proceed to a full hearing.
Mr Ashby had this to say after the court’s ruling:

‘’The case has never been politically based’’
“I’ve always believed the original court decision was wrong. It was unjust and not based on all the facts,” Mr Ashby said.
“We will now continue with the legal fight and my chance to obtain justice for my original claim’’

Then on June 17 he dropped it all. Why?

He gave these reasons:

Mr Ashby said he was aware of reports Mr Slipper was mentally unwell and he did not want to continue lengthy proceedings that could cause further harm.

“After deep reflection and consultation with those close to me, I now have decided to seek leave to discontinue my Federal Court action against Peter Slipper,” he said in a statement.
“This has been an intense and emotionally draining time for me and my family, taking its toll on us all.”

What bullshit. Someone with deep pockets funded Ashby and if his case was well founded and his accusation of sexual harassment sincere why wouldn’t he proceed. There can only be one reason or perhaps two. He was reimbursed for not doing so and the LNP were shit frightened of what might come out in open court.

Ashbygate had the potential to be the greatest political scandal in Australia’s history. The public should have been outraged at this attempt to bring down an elected government. The Main Stream Media thus far have treated the scandal with a disinterest that borders on journalist incompetence or deliberate neglect.

I am still outraged by this sinister event in Australia’s political history. To think that politicians could so treat our democracy with such distain sickens me. Our citizens should rise above party politics and see this attempt to bring down the speaker and the government for the conspiracy that it was.

It is incumbent on the next Labor Government to announce a Royal Commission into this sordid affair.

Here is a link to Slippers response.

Sinking the Slipper, or Putting the Boot In

August 6, 2014
Written by: John Lord
16 Replies

In Australian slang, “Sinking the slipper” has a number of meanings. It can mean to kick someone, as in a street fight or brawl, or to kick someone when they’re down.

On July 28, Peter Slipper was found guilty of dishonestly using taxi vouchers: ACT Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker found the former MP dishonestly and knowingly misused the taxpayer-funded vouchers on three days in 2010. The case was adjourned, and Mr Slipper will appear for sentencing on September 22.

There is no doubt about his guilt. He misused $954 of taxpayer’s funds claiming expenses that were private, not parliamentary. It is possible that Slipper might face a goal term. Whatever his sentence he is a disgraced politician and rightly so.

But is he alone in his guilt? Is it fair that other politicians, including the prime minister, were allowed to repay expenses under the Minchin Protocol, which allows for the repayment of wrongly claimed entitlements, while others get off scott free? The protocol came about because of the abuse of the system, and it allowed members to repay money without further consequences when controversy arose.

Mr Slipper has on a number of occasions said that he tried to repay the money under the Minchin Protocol, but the avenue has been denied him:

“What is breathtaking is that I am before a court … despite a number of attempts on my part to resolve the matter administratively.”

Why is he in the courts, then? It can only be put down to LNP payback for his taking the Speaker’s job. But of course, with Royal Commissions into everything but the Labor Party itself, conservatives have shown a considerable propensity for retaliation generally, even to the point of releasing cabinet documents.

Does Slipper deserve a gaol sentence? Most certainly not. If he does, the law will have been shown to be an ass. He should have been given the same opportunity to repay the money that the others had. Already the commonwealth have spent $70,000 in pursuit of $954.

Attorney General George Brandis has never adequately explained why the Commonwealth pursued him over such a paltry amount and who it was who took the complaint to the AFP.

Some of my best friends are corrupt

By way of comparison, let’s look at Tony Abbott’s top 25 claims:

Abbott’s age of entitlement: Tony’s Top Twenty-five:.

In 2009 Tony Abbott falsely claimed flight and comcar costs while promoting his book and had to repay $9397.42. Here are 25 other examples of Abbott’s work-related claims:

In August 2009 Tony Abbott claimed $1720 in travel allowance + $1,883 for flights while “volunteering” as a truancy assistant in Aurukun
In April 2010 Tony Abbott claimed $1539 travel allowance for all nights of his Pollie Pedal charity bike ride from Melbourne to Sydney + $480 flight to Melbourne
In November 2010 Tony Abbott and family claimed $420 travel allowance, $1956 for flights + $354 in comcar costs to attend the Melbourne Cup
In December 2010 Tony Abbott and family claimed $1910 for flights + $171 in comcar costs to attend day 1 of Boxing day Ashes test in Melbourne
In April 2011 Tony Abbott claimed $2875 travel allowance for all nights of his Pollie Pedal charity bike ride from Gold Coast to Sydney + $556 flight to Brisbane
In May 2011 Tony Abbott and family claimed $420 travel allowance, $1646 in flights + $599 in comcar costs to attend the AFL Dreamtime game in Melbourne
In September 2011 Tony Abbott (+ passenger) claimed $744 travel allowance + $12133 for chartered flights from Sydney to St George and back to Brisbane to attend the Birdsville races
In October 2011 Tony Abbott and family claimed $424 travel allowance, over $823 for flights + $550 in comcar costs to attend the AFL grand final in Melbourne
In October 2011 Tony Abbott claimed $5623 for a chartered flight from Sydney to Bathurst return to attended the Bathurst 1000 V8 supercars
In October 2011 Tony Abbott and family claimed $848 travel allowance, $3722 for flights + $763 in comcar costs to attend the Victoria Derby in Melbourne
In October 2011 Tony Abbott claimed $351 travel allowance while “volunteering” as builder’s labourer in Hopevale
In November 2011 Tony Abbott claimed $349 travel allowance + $941 for flights to compete in 70.3 Port Macquarie ironman event
In January 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $424 travel allowance, $771 for flights + $515 in comcar costs to attend the men’s final of the Australian Tennis Open in Melbourne
In January 2012 Tony Abbott (and passenger) spent $9347 to charter a flight to Tamworth to attend the Tamworth Country Music festival.
In January 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $349 travel allowance + $1095 flights to Melbourne to compete in Pier to Pub swim in Lorne
In January 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $736 travel allowance, $1438 flights + $684 in comcar costs to participate in the Tour Down Under Charity ride in Adelaide
In March 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $3141 travel allowance for all nights of his Pollie Pedal charity bike ride from Geelong to Canberra + $482 flight from Canberra to Melbourne
In April 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $349 travel allowance + $2023 flights to compete in Hervey Bay Surf Lifesaving Pier to Pub swim
In May 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $424 travel allowance, $909 in flights + $328 in comcar costs to attend AFL Dreamtime game in Melbourne
In August 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $234 travel allowance while “volunteering” at Aurukun Mission and claimed $9636 for charter travel to/from Aurukun
In August 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $349 travel allowance + $650 flights to compete in Coffs Coast Cycle Challenge
In Sept 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $354 travel allowance + $160 flights to compete in Wagga ‘Lake to Lagoon’ fun run
In Sept 2012 Tony Abbott and family claimed $429 travel allowance, $1480 in flights + $540 in comcar costs to attend the AFL grand final
In November 2012 Tony Abbott and family claimed $848 travel allowance, $1053 for flights + $594 in comcar costs to attend the Victorian Derby in Melbourne
In December 2012 Tony Abbott claimed $1108 travel allowance for three nights while driving a big rig down the Pacific Highway.

That’s over $84,000 in work-related travel entitlements Abbott claimed while “volunteering”, running, swimming, cycling and attending major sporting events. There are of course many others from both sides who have repaid wrongly paid expenses:

• Attorney-General George Brandis repaid nearly $1,700 he had claimed from the taxpayer to attend the wedding of radio announcer Michael Smith in 2011.
• Former Attorney General Mark Dreyfus was forced to repay $466 claimed while he was away from Canberra on a skiing trip in August 2011, which his spokeswoman said was “an administrative error.”
• Former Trade Minister Richard Marles claimed flights to Labor MP Michael Danby’s 2008 Parliament House wedding but said he had meetings in Canberra the next day.
• Wayne Swan, when acting PM in 2010, took his two children to both the AFL grand final replay and NRL grand final by VIP aircraft, costing taxpayers more than $17,000 in one weekend.
• In August 2012 Mr Abbott went to Coffs Harbour for its cycle challenge, claiming $1,002.
• Julia Gillard repaid $4243 in 2007 when she was deputy opposition leader, in relation to her partner Tim Mathieson’s private use of a taxpayer-funded car.
• As a minister Mr Reith racked up a $50,000 phone bill at taxpayers’ expense, which he repaid.

The list goes on and on, yet the rules have never altered. In fact, Abbott’s response was to suggest his colleagues should “err on the side of caution”, and if they had any doubts about their entitlements they should “act immediately to clear the matter up” – but it still goes on.

When the Coalition came to office they promised an end of entitlement. Obviously it didn’t apply to them, because Coalition ministers appear to have developed a taste for VIP jet travel. A review of “special purpose” flights by Fairfax Media, covering the first three months of the Abbott Government, found ministers are routinely opting for a luxury Royal Australian Air Force-operated jet over the commercial alternatives of Qantas and Virgin, yet Department of Finance rules on entitlements state: “When considering tasks for special purpose aircraft, the approving authorities will take into account: a) the availability of flights on major domestic airlines.” However, in a two-month period between October 16 and December 12, 2013, eight ministers took 35 flights on busy intercity routes. The bill to taxpayers was $182,160.

If Peter Slipper gets a gaol sentence it will be a gross miscarriage of justice. Not of the court’s making, but that of a government more intent on punishing people than exercising leadership. Thus far it has been punishment of pensioners, the sick, the young, the unemployed, the opposition, and anyone who disagrees.

Meanwhile, the credit cards are quick to emerge from wallets filled with taxpayer’s funds.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

World Peace: Australia’s Role in Global Demilitarization

Dutton is a man of little compassion and…

Compost: a climate action solution

The River Road

Balancing eSafety and Online Censorship, 2024

Ignorant. Woke.

Violence in our churches

Treasuring the moment: a military tattoo

Tag Archives: Australian Labor Party

Labor’s plans for a highly skilled, smarter future for Australia

Jobs for now and the future!

My Thoughts on the Week That Was

My Thoughts on the Week That Was

Some thoughts on the gender pay gap

I look forward to suggestions from readers on how we can address this issue in a positive and progressive manner.

******

For those who doubt that women experience discrimination within the workplace a pay; please view the information below:

Discrimination against women arising from casualisation in the workforce and high numbers working in insecure employment and

Discrimination against women through the continuation of lower wages in ‘traditional women’s industries’, and the general availability of fewer opportunities of penalties and overtime. Please note that in 2011, the gender pay gap was 17.2% for full-time workers and

Discrimination against women in the workforce, or who are job seeking who either cannot access or cannot afford childcare

Discrimination against women in achieving leadership and management roles and

Discrimination by default, due to under-representation in management and board positions in Australia

Discrimination by default suffered by women who, as primary parental care givers, end up with reduced superannuation earnings in retirement and

Discrimination by default suffered by women, will receive less superannuation over time, through the continuation of lower wages in ‘traditional women’s industries’

The under-representation of women in parliament, amounting, in the absence of any system to redress the imbalance, to discrimination

Abbott’s disaster relief payment cuts are a disaster

Can it work the second time around for Malcolm Turnbull?

Good Government Starts Today … Or Tomorrow, But We’re Definitely Committed To It!

“I’m with Stupid” man arrested; imagine if he’d been against Stupid!

Whitlam eyed our conscience, not our wallet

With Gough’s passing, it’s time to think about where we are headed.

“A Giant of a Man”. Yes he was indeed.

Mark Latham: “The Political Bubble”

New James Ashby scandal could ‘rock’ Abbott Government

Sinking the Slipper, or Putting the Boot In

Some of my best friends are corrupt