By Ad astra

Can the body politic ever be freed from entrenched beliefs?

How many of you despair of our politicians? How many of you fume at the incoherence of the positions they take? How many bristle at their intransigence, their stubbornness, their adherence to outmoded dogma that is no longer supported by the facts? How many of you have a feeling of hopelessness about their conduct?

We watch incredulously as they appear on our media to announce their intentions, to denounce their opponents, to avoid answering questions, or simply to gain exposure. And they do this seemingly oblivious of the palpable disregard the electorate has for them, and the scorn that voters heap upon them every day. They often refer to ‘the Canberra bubble’, as if somehow it is occupied by others, not themselves. Yet it is they who exhibit the behaviour we might expect of those disconnected from the daily reality of ordinary folk.

Take the recent conference called by PM Morrison to discuss the present severe drought. Its object was laudable and the timing appropriate. It offered the opportunity to review the factors that are creating the unprecedented drought conditions we are enduring, to reflect on what the future might hold, and to consider how we might better prepare for future droughts. There was an elephant in the room though – climate change. Being a central issue, it ought to have been the focal point of the discussion. But the proponents could scarcely mouth the words. Pressed by journalists, Morrison turned on his usual loquaciousness, ducking and weaving to avoid the connection between the drought and climate change. The words eventually tumbled out, diluted in a torrent of obfuscation.

The only explanation I can give is that his, and the Coalition’s denial of the reality of global warming, creates a dissonance that renders words such as ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ verboten. Like an ecclesiastic being forced to utter blasphemy, to use obscenities, or to denounce long-held and cherished beliefs, Morrison is so repulsed by these words that they struggle excruciatingly to escape his lips.

How can we ever hope for a rational approach to the enduring and recurrent problem of drought when a major factor in its genesis is shunted onto a back road because of ideological roadblocks?

In recent weeks there has been a number of authoritative reports from reputable scientific bodies, not only documenting the reality of increasing greenhouse emissions, but also the extent of steady rises in global temperature, in sea levels, and in ocean acidification, which have already occurred and will continue to do so. Yet these reports have been ridiculed by the so-called Environment Minister, Melissa Price, and ignored by the Coalition and the PM. The message seems too indigestible for them to stomach. So wedded are they to coal, that they cannot bring themselves to contemplate a world without coal-powered electricity generators. The fact that renewables are overtaking fossil fuels economically, and will soon replace them, seems impossible for them to accept. Entrenched beliefs block their thinking and distort their reasoning. They behave like clerics wedded to their catechisms, chanting them mindlessly. All the while industry cries out for a coherent climate policy, and a previous Liberal leader, John Hewson, insists that it’s irresponsible not to have one.

What hope is there that change can ever take place?

When Kerryn Phelps won the Wentworth by-election, she said it was “a victory for democracy”, and signalled “a return of decency, integrity and humanity to the Australian government”. Laudably, she imagined a change in the behaviour of politicians towards what we expect of them. But what hope is there?

Writing in The Conversation, Clare Wright, Associate Professor of History at La Trobe University, said: ”As well as taking a progressive stand on social issues, Phelps vowed to represent all those who were disgusted by the internal brawling and destructive power plays of Australia’s elected officials.” She continued: ”One commentator rejoiced that people who were ‘tired of the spineless and incompetent politicians who are intent on destroying the joint’, were finally getting their moment in the sun.”

But it will take all of Phelps’ considerable skill and persuasion to dent the intransigence of PM Morrison and his party members on the subject of global warming. They are wedded to fossil fuels as ‘part of the mix’ of sources of energy, no matter how much damage they continue to inflict on the environment.

PM Morrison and the Coalition are permanently shackled by their climate change ideology.

The Coalition’s entrenched beliefs don’t stop with climate change. They contaminate every discussion of refugee policy.

There is rapidly gathering momentum in the electorate towards bringing to Australia the residual refugees on Nauru. It will prove to be irresistible. The government will have its hand forced.

Morrison’s though is still choking on what to do with them when they return. The New Zealand option, while an obvious solution to sensible voters, is anathema to Morrison, who is gripped with the entrenched belief that such a move would be an invitation to people smugglers to resume business, as they would then be able to bribe people to pay good money to board their boats by promising that they will eventually be able to get to Australia, even if by the circuitous route of a third country, in this case New Zealand. The obvious parallel though – the resettlement of refugees in the US – seems to Morrison not to constitute a rationale for people smugglers to induce people onto their boats. His logic escapes me!

So here is another example of a government and its leader shackled by ideology, petrified that any move to take up New Zealand’s offer to resettle 150 refugees will ‘open the floodgates’, encourage people smugglers, and result in flotillas of boats arriving on our shores. The government’s fear is heightened by opinion polls that show that voters overwhelmingly want the Nauru refugees repatriated here, but they still want strong border protection! Morrison and his immigration people simply don’t know how to achieve both. They have created the desire in the electorate for ‘strong border protection’ with all their exaggerated talk about hordes of refugees invading our shores in waves of Indonesian fishing boats. Now they have to deal with the feelings among voters that they themselves have shaped with their menacing rhetoric. They simply don’t know how!

We are left disillusioned and feeling hopeless because our government is so shackled by ideology that it can scarcely move, so immobilized by fear of contravening its entrenched beliefs that it cannot solve our nation’s problems, so sterile of ideas that it cannot think clearly, plan strategically, or put into action the changes the nation desperately desires and needs.

Is it any wonder voters despair?

Those who remember free to air television in the 80s and 90s will remember the advertising for ‘as seen on TV’ products marketed by a company called Demtel. A quick Google search will remind you of the process if you are fortunate enough to have either not lived through the era, only watched Channel 2 (the only ABC Channel in those long-gone days) or have completely and probably mercifully forgotten how annoying the advertising really was. Alternately, watch one of the TV shopping channels that infest digital television for ten minutes and think about how much they would have to speed up the delivery if they had to fit the product advertising into a minute or so long spot on one of the commercial television stations.

Demtel’s favourite ‘spruiker’ was Tim Shaw. He is famous enough to have a Wikipedia stub article. While the time-worn joke ‘but wait there’s more — ring in the next ten minutes and receive a free set of steak knives’ probably had its origins in a Demtel advertisement spruiked by Shaw, the promise of gold bullion or fame and riches beyond compare as the ‘free extra’ is probably an exaggeration. However, Shaw did attempt to sell the proverbial ice to Eskimos (with the previously mentioned steak knives as a free gift) with some initial success.

A bit like Scott Morrison really. Morrison has made a lot of announcements since his rise to the Prime Ministership. It’s almost looking like he’s back in the advertising agency brainstorming slogans to get the mug punter to buy the pretty shiny new toy they neither want or need. Former Liberal Party Leader (and co-incidentally also a former Member for Wentworth) John Hewson recently wrote an opinion article for Fairfax listing Morrison’s various policy announcements/backflips during the Wentworth by-election.

the lingering image of him hugging a lump of coal; his defence of advertising on the sails of the Opera House, wanting to see not just horse racing but also car racing; his mishandling of the issues of funding and independence of the ABC generated by the dismissal of chief executive Michelle Guthrie; his multiple positions on the treatment of gay students and teachers; the white supremacist/neo-Nazi parliamentary vote; announcing the possible shift of our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (even after most devout Jews in the electorate would have already pre-voted, to avoid having to do so on the Sabbath); the possible rejuvenation of a New Zealand deal on refugee resettlement; and then, finally, the assertion that a Kerryn Phelps win meant “instability”, conveniently ignoring the instability in his own party that had resulted in the byelection in the first place.

Fortunately, it seems others with some influence aren’t buying the slogans either. A group who manages substantial Qantas shareholdings have asked the company to review its policy of transporting refugees and asylum seekers at the behest of the Australian Government citing

Qantas is “exposed to certain human rights-related risks”.

“Allegations of human rights abuses can inflict, at a minimum, reputational damage and may dramatically affect shareholder value … We believe that a thorough review of how this issue is being handled would be in the best interests of shareholders.”

Shareholders of Whitehaven Coal are likewise concerned about climate change, possibly moving a resolution at the Annual General Meeting in the next few weeks that

calls on the company to disclose climate change-related risks to shareholders, in line with recommendations of the Financial Stability Board’s taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures.

Another proposal says that shareholders call on the board to make strategy and capital expenditure decisions “consistent with the climate goals of the Paris agreement” in order to safeguard the longer-term success of the company and respond to risks and opportunities posed by climate change.

The same article also reports that the rail transport company Aurizon acknowledged at their Annual General Meeting that parts of their rail network may be stranded assets at some point in the next 50 years due to reduced demand for coal.

Even Hewson has a problem with Morrison’s lack of real management ability. From the same article as above

Morrison’s only hope is a new beginning. He will surely last until the next election, so he should seize the opportunity by leading a complete policy reset, a complete repositioning of the Coalition. Not just a remarketing exercise, but a substantive reset, addressing issues such as climate, refugees, integrity in government, the cost of living and broad-based tax reform. Policy boldness would be his electoral friend. He simply must be seen to be attending to the health of the government horse, putting other potential jockeys in their place.

I doubt he is capable of even thinking about this. I fear he will continue to slide from bad to worse. The COAG energy ministers are to meet this Friday. Energy is mostly a state responsibility, the Commonwealth having only a limited platform for influence. Yet, apparently Energy Minister Angus Taylor is attempting to heavy them to ditch anything to do with emission reduction strategies and an effective transition to renewables in favour of his “socialist” regulation of the “gentailers”. In the hope of a genuine energy/climate action plan, the states must stand their ground.

Morrison doesn’t have a quality product to sell and while there are always those that will fall for the fancy new thing regardless of its actual usefulness or quality, as people realise they are getting poor value for their money, they’ll move on. Morrison has been in power for a couple of months and there has been no improvement in the polls, continual criticism of his actions by his own side of politics and amazement that he still can’t articulate why Turnbull was so bad he had to go (while continuing to implement Turnbull’s policy settings).

Maybe we should go back to Demtel to see how this ends. Tim Shaw is now the breakfast announcer of Canberra’s ‘talk radio’ station (which also relays Alan Jones and Ray Hadley) while the company owner spent nearly five years in jail for money laundering. ‘But wait- there’s more’ indeed.

What do you think?

By Barddylbach

So I’m thinking about kids on Nauru, global warming, the recent by-election and our idiot politicians who dish out cruelty like Smarties, smirk and think they’re smart. 

“No party seizes the imagination of the people unless the people know the party stands for certain things. And we’ll fight for those things until the bell rings” (Robert Menzies, c.1944).

Alas, today what the Liberals stand for and what they do are two different things, and both are very different from what Robert Menzies stood for and did all those years ago. He must be turning in his grave today.

Alas, Morrison’s ‘Until The Bell Rings’ (6 September 2018) speech in Albury was (still is) hogwash, full of holes, a sieve, a drain pipe, a sewer; and yes you can call it hypocrisy and sophistry, but hogwash will do. Morrison’s bell is already ringing after just a few weeks since the serpent crept in pretending to be Christian and a family man, a community man, an honest Australian.

That smug smirk, so this is his creed, believe what you will, but it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, not when you hold up a lump of coal in Parliament, mock and grin and hold the nation to ransom on behalf of the coal mining lobby, big banks, no energy policy and total contempt for climate change and global warming.

Not when you refuse to release children and their families dying from suicide and Resignation Syndrome, from false imprisonment, torture and access to basic medical health care offshore for five years with no hope in sight, can you claim the values and beliefs he claims to uphold in this ‘Until the Bell Rings’ speech. Menzies would be turning in his grave.

And when the world is held upside down and out to dry, besmirched and lost, tachyons glowing by the Morrison-Dutton Liberals; when our children’s children cry out in their anger and their shame on a dying world, Scott Morrison is the man who should have resigned – ‘Morrison’s bell, a treasurer’s creed’ and here’s my poem (below).

Yes, Australia, we should all be ashamed – road to damnation. And still Morrison ‘the original architect of a system that brought about the torture, the deaths in detention, both physical and mental, is holding firm’, still he lies to us telling us he has been slowly-quietly getting them out of detention, (that was Howard’s secret recalcitrant and grumbly way a long time ago before the current misguided regime). Dutton and Morrison’s Border Force and Department of Home Affairs, their wretched excuse for a government are still being mindlessly dragged through the Federal Courts over and over again to the point Dutton now seeks to overturn the Law of this Land, contesting the Judicial system’s jurisdiction, our constitution, separation of powers, the very fabric of society that protects us all – and Morrison lets him.

The bells are ringing loud and clear on our streets, (and Menzies words here to haunt us). Yes, it has taken many years for the Australian public to recognise this evil. It’s not too late for Australia to act, but too late to save our souls – dammed already, should have thought about that before locking up innocent children and refugees in the first place all those years ago, destroying their lives, ignoring the Rule of Law and International Law, ignoring our own duty and responsibility to justice, morality and fair go. What hypocrites we are! But certainly no reason for us to maintain the same direction, for to do so will destroy our own way of life, our children’s and our children’s children, not just the children on Nauru who reached out for our help while we continue to torture them and their families.

‘Kids off Nauru’

Morrison’s Bell – A Treasurer’s Creed

It was not the Pacific,
it was not the Great Barrier Reef,
it was not the Indue cashless welfare scam,
Baghdad or Jerusalem.

We know it was not the selling of arms to Saudi Arabia,
it was not control of the press, ABC
or the government lotto giveaway
to Adani and the mighty corporation.

It was not that banks could rip the hearts out
of every working Australian
or silence the majority,
the war on security,
freedom of speech,
privacy, the right to earn a decent living.

Abbott, Turnbull, Dutton, Morrison,
there were many others,
no greater lie than denial of humanity,
we missed that boat.

We all thought it was Islam, global warming,
refugees and over population,
violence is an offshore, off-world thing,
Nauru, the innocence of
little migrant children,
coal and original sin.

The drought,
the floods
they rage
and I shall not resign

It was not a Ring of Fire,
the total destruction of democracy,
the planet and our oceans,
the Trump and Putin smirk,
China, DMZ or North Korea.

But as I live and breathe
it was the loss of Wentworth,
the feast of Pentecost,
affluence
and our beloved country.

The storms,
the fire
they rage
and I shall not resign.

It was a Mexican standoff,
I missed the apology,
the final solution
I spun the world around
and turned it off,
tachyons glowing,
I hung it upside down
besmirched, and lost.

The children,
our children’s children,
they rage
and I,
I shall not resign.

Acknowledgements

Poem: Morrison’s Bell – A Treasurer’s Creed by Barddylbach, 25 October 2018 www.allpoetry.com/poem/14159662-Morrisons-Bell

Cartoon: For Whom the Wentworth Tolls by David Pope – via Twitter 20 October, 2018 https://twitter.com/davpope/status/1053562389323530240. (David Pope is editorial cartoonist for the Canberra Times).

References

What Goes Around, Comes Around by John Kelly (News & Politics) – The AIM Network, 28 October https://theaimn.com/what-goes-around-comes-around

Was Wentworth unworthy of the Liberals? by Jack Waterford – The Canberra Times, 27 October 2018 https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/federal/was-wentworth-unworthy-of-the-liberals-20181026-p50c31.html

Dutton’s department challenges federal court’s authority to order Nauru transfers – The Guardian Australia, 26 October 2018 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/26/duttons-department-challenges-federal-courts-authority-to-order-nauru-transfers

The children, the children! by George Theodoridis (Social Justice) – The AIM Network, 26 October 2018 https://theaimn.com/the-children-the-children/

Claimed emissions reduction from land use are very doubtful and must be verified by Kaye Lee (News & Politics) – The AIM Network, 26 October 2018 https://theaimn.com/claimed-emissions-reduction-from-land-use-are-very-doubtful-and-must-be-verified

A Message to the World – Hashem Al-Ghaili, 11 October 2018 (FB)https://www.facebook.com/ScienceNaturePage/videos/2441190252565502/

The Saudi Arabian Model: Blueprints for Murder and Purchasing Arms by Binoy Kampmark (News & Politics) – The AIM Network, 26 October 2018https://theaimn.com/the-saudi-arabian-model-blueprints-for-murder-and-purchasing-arms

Labor says banking inquiry failed to expose how legal system used to crush customers: Labor’s banking royal commission submission says Australians being forced into ruthless court processes – The Guardian Australia, 26 October 2018www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/26/labor-says-banking-inquiry-failed-to-expose-how-legal-system-used-to-crush-customers

Even for Trump, There Is Such a Thing as Too Far by Matt Barreto – The New York Times, 24 October 2018 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/opinion/trump-caravan-immigration-midterms.html

‘I Call ‘Pigsh*t!: Helen Razer On The ‘Historic’ Wentworth Win – New Matilda, 22 October 2018  https://newmatilda.com/2018/10/22/call-pigsht-helen-razer-historic-wentworth-win/

We May Have Escaped Prime Minister Dutton, But Scott Morrison Is Also Pretty Shit by Sam Langford – Junkee, 24 August 2018 https://junkee.com/scott-morrison-sucks/172890

Until The Bell Rings – Speech By Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Albury, 6 September 2018 https://www.pm.gov.au/media/until-bell-rings-address-menzies-research-centre

What is resignation syndrome? The condition is spreading among children on Nauru – The Economist, 24 October 2018  https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/10/24/what-is-resignation-syndrome

Resignation Syndrome – YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?

Family Law Reform Council: Media Release

PROTECTIVE parents and law reform advocates called for concrete action today in the wake of the National Apology to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

Family Law Reform Council Co-Director, Mishka Hudson, has demanded the urgent application of the findings of the Royal Commission to Australia’s family law system.

“Most child sexual abuse occurs in family contexts,” Ms Hudson said. “This was not addressed by the Royal Commission, and not directly encompassed in the PM’s National Apology speech.”

During his delivery of the National Apology to victims of child abuse in Canberra today the Prime Minister acknowledged that “the many survivors who were abused in their own homes” were not covered by the Royal Commission. In response, Mr Morrison announced the establishment of a national research centre aimed at understanding the impacts of child sexual abuse and developing “best practice for training and other services.” However, he stopped short of mentioning the family law system.

In his response to the apology, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said the findings of the Royal Commission must apply to all Australians, not only those who were abused in institutions.

“We are sorry that the abuse of children is still going on right here in this country … Too many Australian children are still living unsafe lives,” Mr Shorten stated. “We hear you now,” he said.

Mr Shorten continued, “the words of this apology must come with action,” noting this is “the true test of our words.”

However, Ms Hudson expressed concern at Mr Shorten’s description of children escaping institutions to report abuse, only to be returned by police to these abusive situations. “Do our leaders understand that this occurs every day to Aussie kids under Family Court recovery orders?” she asked. “Do they fully comprehend that parents and children who report abuse to our police and child protection departments are ridiculed and disbelieved when they explain their case is before the Family Court?” she asked.

When sexual abuse occurs in the home, child protection issues are commonly dealt with by Australia’s family law system, including the family courts, state police and child protection departments.

“The family law system is in crisis,” said Ms Hudson. “It is critical that the work of the new research centre applies, directly and urgently, to our family law system, including our family courts, police and child protection departments”.

“The vast majority of Australians would agree that children need to be protected from sexual abuse, wherever it occurs,” Ms Hudson said. “Our Prime Minister said, ‘I believe you. We believe you. Your country believes you.’ If this is so, the Government will take action to protect all Australian kids, immediately, by applying the findings of the Royal Commission directly Australia’s family law system.”

“We need concrete action to protect Australian kids – right now, today.”

Population Minister Alan Tudge has suggested that Melbourne and Sydney are experiencing significant pressure from excessive population growth. He’s probably got a point, but his ‘solution’ — forcing immigrants to live in areas with less population pressure for at least five years after permanent residency is granted — demonstrates Tudge’s complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter he is responsible for implementing on behalf of the Australian Government.

That’s not to suggest for a minute that there are not any other places worth living in across Australia — there are thousands of them. Small towns do generally have a greater sense of community, and clearly if immigrants move into regional communities with lower levels of population growth, there is an increase in demand for goods and services in those communities. That’s not a bad thing, but according to former Border Force Commissioner Quaedvilieg, the proposal to link residency visas with residential locations is difficult to enforce, even if it is theoretically legal.

The Department of Home Affairs and Border Security produced a report in January 2014 that concluded

The migration program has been one tool with which governments have attempted to support regional development by helping to meet the skills needs of regional employers and of adding to the stock of residents living in regional areas. However, one of the key challenges in utilising the migration program to assist in regional development outcomes has been in ensuring that migrants who do settle in regional areas stay there over the long-term. But the extent to which migration-based interventions actually facilitate long-term regional retention remains unclear. In order to develop more effective policies and programs in this area, the academic literature suggests that it is therefore important to develop an understanding of the factors that contribute to regional retention.

Loosely translated — there is more work to be done than to just tell people they have to stay in an area for five years which isn’t necessarily the person’s first choice.

Tudge, like a lot of coalition politicians is taking population growth, in part caused by migration, and comparing it with the infrastructure difficulties that are encountered in Sydney and Melbourne (as well as other areas of Australia such as South East Queensland). The connection is to a large extent nonsensical.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge was opened in 1932 and photos of the bridge in the ‘good ole days’ show rail lines where they are now, tram lines on the other extremity and six traffic lanes in between. While the tram lines were converted to traffic lanes, the Harbour Bridge was constructed with plenty of room for future expansion. It’s the same with the Storey Bridge in Brisbane, opened in the 1940’s with six traffic lanes.

Fast forward a few decades and the Harbour Tunnel was constructed to relive pressure on the Harbour Bridge. It opened in 1992 and has two lanes in each direction. By 2008, the tunnel was being used by up to 90,000 vehicles a day. Brisbane’s ‘Clem7’ tunnelwhich runs close to the Storey Bridge is also a two lane each way tunnel and has never met the traffic expectations of the proponents since it opened in 2010, probably because the ‘time savings’ do not justify the toll charge. Brisbane’s Clem7 could have been constructed with three lanes each way for another $20million on the $3.2billion construction cost, but the decision was made not to do so.

And there is the problem in a sentence. If you are buying clothes for your 2-year-old child, there is always the temptation to buy the next size up, even if it costs a little more upfront as the child will grow into the item of clothing and your dollar will go further. The alternative is going back to the store of your choice within a few weeks because of a growth spurt. Likewise, we know that (in this case) South East Queensland is growing rapidly. While a road tunnel with two lanes in each direction comfortably handled the traffic flows at the time it was opened and probably will for some for some years to come, it will reach capacity quicker than the three-lane tunnel proposal. Back in the first half of the last century they knew that cities, like children, would grow and built accordingly.

There was no need to build the Harbour Bridge, the Storey Bridge, St Kilda Road or any number of other pieces of infrastructure constructed in the first half of the last century to the scale they did, but they did it anyway. However as these structures that were designed with room for growth do eventually reach their capacity, there is frequently a decade or so of political infighting and sledging before the solution commences construction so we are stuck in a perpetual cycle of catching up to current demand.

In Melbourne, clearly the Westgate Bridge in Melbourne is at capacity — they are building a companion tunnel only 40 or so years after the bridge opened as poor planning has made it the only direct connection between Melbourne’s CBD and the western suburbs. The tunnel to act as a companion to the Westgate Bridge was first mooted in 2006 — it will apparently open in 2022.

While it seems that a lot of recent immigrants have settled in Sydney and Melbourne, it is disingenuous at best to suggest that infrastructure capacity problems are solely caused by immigration — it’s more to do with politicians lacking the vision that their predecessors from a century ago obviously had. After all, it’s not only recent immigrants that live in Sydney, Melbourne and other parts of Australia that are growing faster than the average.

The Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government has a long history of dog whistling to turn opinions against those who don’t look like them (generally middle-aged to elderly white men). First we had ‘stop the boats’, then the ‘gangs of African youths terrorising Melbourne’ and now the same people are being blamed for failures of politicians over the past 40 years to argue the case for additional capacity when expensive infrastructure is built. Because in the long term it’s cheaper to build it once with some growing room — just like the 2-year old’s new t-shirt.

It’s time to call Tudge’s thought bubble out for what it is — racism.

What do you think?

By Stephen Fitzgerald

Most of the problems we face, in Western society, are a result of the ravages of corporate greed. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is another example of corporates expanding their power base to the detriment of the countries they overrun.

In the news today, you will hear the distant rumblings of the true intent, and the inevitable impact, of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If we participate, the TPP will leave Australia exposed to unfettered corporate exploitation and abuse.

Misnomers that hide what the strong and rich control, and aspire to control, help promote our world’s numerous political and social ills. “Spreading democracy” in the Middle East and Africa has been used to excuse much slaughter, ruin and higher risks of wider war for purposes not remotely connected with democracy. It’s all about money, power and control driven by greed.

The designation “trade” used by politicians and the media when talking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact and the proposed Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement is another perfect example of a misnomer thanks to which a new shadow will be cast over the generally more fortunate parts of the world including Australia.

If signed and ratified, the trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic agreements, which seek to organize business activity under one gigantic umbrella of new rules, are likely to change our living environment in ways very different from what elected officials have been misled to imagine.

They have been peddled as trade treaties, and hence as being wonderful for economic growth, job creation, social well-being and general happiness. But, the TPP agreement, which aims to tie a dozen pacific nations together is not in the first place about trade and may hardly be significant at all for stimulating genuine exchanges traditionally labelled that way.

The TPP accord is about power, not trade. More specifically, the agreements are about changed power relations between a collective of politically well-connected large corporations and the sovereign states in which these entities want to sink their roots. In particular, these treaties would allow huge corporations to engage in conduct unchecked by national rules of the participating countries. In eyes not fogged over through neo-liberal dogma, such a thing would be recognised as predation.

Corporate clout veiled in secrecy

The most striking aspect of TPP negotiations has been the utter secrecy. Only “cleared advisers” most of them linked with the businesses that stand to gain from the deal, have had access to the agreements, and critics among them have been sworn to remain silent about what they consider unacceptable.

We do know a little of what went on behind closed doors. For example, we have seen that negotiators have concentrated on controlling labour laws, environmental legislation and intellectual property rights. Since traditional tariffs hardly appear to be an obstacle to trade nowadays, what else could they do? But it does go to show that the TPP is primarily a political program.

It is political because it aims to change the power relations between transnational corporations and foreign governments. It is political because it will create patterns of colonial dependence through agricultural agreements. It is political because it seeks to place the governments of the participating countries under a kind of legal discipline that has nothing to do with the rights of citizens and everything to do with the ability of powerful corporations to become even stronger.

Many details of the TPP agreement have yet to be divulged, but what is clear is that participating governments can violate its intended rules only at their own great disadvantage. In effect, the legal stipulations tied to the TPP agreement will created a new element of corporate groups operating internationally beyond any kind of accountability. The TPP will not be about economic development but about wholesale power shifts.

Those who can still make a political difference in Australia ought to study the reason for and, the nature of such shifts. Numerous large, politically connected transnational corporations operate in colonizing mode in the context of recently evolved methods of profit-making in the current phase of late capitalism.

The political class of the participants of the TPP agreement and the Europeans, who watch from the sidelines with the companion TPIP treaty in the back of their minds, are still affected by the lines of seduction about unfettered trade always being good for everyone.

Hence corporate hopes are specifically vested on two areas opened up by the TPP deal in participating countries permitting rent seekers and financial firms to become the top predators. The TPP agreement will massively expand their hunting territory and give them fierce fangs in the bargain.

Power play by the corporates

A new category came into general use in the last decade of the 20th century named “intellectual property” for the purpose of maximising rent extraction and the creation of monopolies. The expected intellectual property stipulations of the TPP accord related to medicine have drawn much attention, as these will enlarge the oligopoly power of pharmaceutical companies.

Global public health is likely to suffer from this because, from what is already known, the new rules will lengthen the period before the use of generic drugs is permitted, and these are the only affordable medicine for patients in poorer countries. Nongovernmental organisation Doctors Without Borders has concluded in a July 2015 press release that “the TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever”.

Then there is an even bigger beneficiary in the shape of the 21st-century global casino of speculating banks, which make untold multiples of capital with their money while bypassing the complication of investing in production. For them, the TPP deal is a dream come true. From what we know, the TPP agreement would ban capital controls, prohibit any kind of future taxes on speculation and block any move to separate investment from retail banking.

It would also block efforts to ban toxic derivatives that created the credit crisis of 2008. As with the manufacturers of controversial products, the financial industry will be given the means to demand compensation for regulations and policies that in their assessment may undermine their expected future profits. They will sue the governments who legislate against them.

It is difficult to understand why the TPP participants have not guessed that consequences of what they will be signing will bring social misery upon themselves as the TPP agreement is part of a full-spectrum dominance campaign. This leaves us with the puzzle of why those same participants have been mouthing job creating nonsense around the TPP rhetoric and appear unable to tackle intellectually the dominant power aspects of the treaty.

Perhaps this is because the world in which they exist is politically sterilised and those incapables, have been brain washed into believing they should give corporates whatever they want without question or analysis.

Since the political dimension to economic arrangements remains hidden in most discourse because political and economic reality are routinely treated as separate realms of life, few notice that what is justified by reference to “market forces” is frequently the result of heavy lobbying, political negotiation, interference and favours to corporates.

Politically well-connected corporations, paying for the election expenses of the political parties who help create their business environment, need not fear market forces. If the banks responsible for the credit crisis of 2008 and the subsequent global recession, that is still with us, had not been lifted out of “the market” by the state, they would no longer exist. They were bailed out by cohort governments with money from tax payers they had already plundered.

Buyer beware

Powerful corporations have been allowed to swallow the state; they have, as economist James Galbraith explains, created a “predator state,” which they naturally exploit for their own expansion. There is no frame of reference with which we can more convincingly define the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Politicians please read the small print and beware, if you sign up to the TPP you will be selling Australia down the river.

The sails of the Sydney Opera House were being used as a billboard for a horse race a few days ago. Regardless of the value of the horse race, or the ethics about using a UNESCO listed landmark for promotion of gambling, there is a problem about the way it was done.

According to The Guardian,

Racing NSW applied to the Opera House to use it as a venue to promote a horse race on Saturday 13 October, but Sydney Opera House chief executive Louise Herron drew the line at projecting horses’ names, the name of the race and the numbers of the barriers onto the Opera House sails.

Then Alan Jones interviewed Louise Herron. A couple of weeks after Jones, and by association his employers, had been found guilty of defaming the owners of a quarry in South East Queensland and ordered to pay $3.7 million, clearly he hasn’t yet learnt that his opinion is not necessarily fact, and bluster doesn’t change the facts. Jones

was furious and took up the case for Racing NSW on his program. “Louise I’m sorry I think you’re out of your depth here,” he said. “You should put your resignation on the table today … if you can’t come to the party, Louise, you should lose your job.”

Jones also threatened to ring NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian and demand Louise Herron be sacked. Berejiklian hasn’t sacked Herron but has overruled her decision to only allow horses’ colours to be displayed on the world-famous sails. Jones was reported as haranguing Herron by suggesting

who the hell do you think you are, you don’t own the Opera House, we own it … you manage it,” Jones said.

To that extent Jones is correct, Herron doesn’t own the Opera House. However, the NSW Government pays Herron to manage the facility on behalf of its owners — all those who live in NSW. So, by the same token Jones, the management of the Daily Telegraphor Berejiklian don’t ‘own’ it either.

All this happened on Friday 5 October and media reports the following Tuesday suggested that over 270,000 had ‘signed’ online petitions asking the NSW Government to reverse their decision. Accordingly it would be reasonable to suggest that a large group of the Opera House’s owners are aghast at the gambling promotion pushed by Jones and News Corp (with support from NSW Premier Berejiklian) being projected onto the building.

On Tuesday night about 1,000 people shone torches to dilute the projection and peacefully protested the use of the Opera House for the promotion of gambling. Racing NSW and the Premier claim they have heard the message ‘loudy’ and the stunt won’t be repeated. Waleed Aly also ‘went to town’ on the crass commercialisation of the Opera House by vested interests, including the two major political parties .

There is a significant cost to gambling across Australia. Tim Costello, a director of Alliance for Gambling Reform, detailed some of them in an opinion piece published in The Guardian. While Jones has given an half-hearted apology four days after the event for his bullying of Louise Herron, it still demonstrates that Jones and Berejiklian persist with accepting the cash over the ethics, and still steamroll those with alternative viewpoints.

Sadly, we should not have expected better. Also demonstrating an alternative world view of acceptable is the LNP’s Stuart Roberts. Roberts, Morrison’s choice for Assistant Treasurer and former ICT Executive, has been charging the Australian taxpayer (that’s you and me) over $1,000 a month for his 4G Internet connection since 2016. As the linked article reports, Roberts lives in a ‘semi-rural’ area behind the Gold Coast and the NBN has yet to reach his home. The article also reports that

Roberts told Fairfax Media he racked up a high bill [over $2,000] in May because he used 300 gigabytes of data, so had to pay for extra after exceeding his 50GB limit.

Optus currently offers unlimited 4G broadband for $90 a month, while Exetel offers 250GB a month for just $70.

Now it has become ‘an issue’, Roberts is apparently going to pay it back, despite claiming he had done nothing wrong. Those in his electorate that rely on Newstart are receiving not much more than $1,000 a month to live on.

Matthew Lesh, a research fellow with The Institute of Public Affairs has recently released a book suggesting that the major parties have a lot of difficulty in being relevant to those that live in the inner and outer suburbs of Australia’s major cities. Lesh suggests the politicians are aligning themselves too closely with the ‘inners’ and leaving the ‘outers’ to splinter groups such as Katter, Palmer and Hanson. Then, when the splinter groups can’t achieve what they promise (because they don’t get enough seats in parliaments across the country), people living in outer suburbs then get frustrated and disengage with the process.

There could be something to Lesh’s theory. In the electorate of Warringah, former PM Abbott has been the elected Member of Parliament for a considerable period of time. A group of people who live in the electorate, rather than disengaging, have a plan to crowbar Abbott from the seat at the next election by following the process used by Cathy McGowan’s supporters when they removed Sophie Mirabella from the seat of Indi in country Victoria. The President of WoW (Women of Warringah)

Louise Hislop, told Guardian Australia the group was created after Abbott’s refusal to engage on issues considered important to constituents, including climate change, plastics pollution, traffic issues, same-sex marriage and mental health services

Warringah, despite Abbott’s public posturing, recorded 75% support for the same sex marriage vote and it seems there is considerable community disquiet about Abbott’s role in the destruction of the Turnbull Government. Abbott’s schtick however does go down well in areas that support the Katters, Hansons and so on of this world.

If Lesh is correct, Jones, Berejiklian, Roberts and Abbott are all sailing into irrelevance as they clearly are not representing significant sections of their communities. Why do these people believe they don’t need to consider the views of others? It must be because those on the right are prettier and more confident!

What do you think?