Day to Day Politics: Being an Opposition Leader…

Wednesday 24 January 2018Leading your party in Opposition must surely be a…

One Year of Trump: The Defenders of Fictional…

It seemed so much busier, much more manic and crowded than the…

The Vancouver Foreign Ministers Meeting on Security in…

By Denis BrightIn co-hosting the meeting of twenty foreign ministers in Vancouver…

Australia Day - Invasion Day : Lessons from…

By John BarkerWith some trepidation, I’m weighing in on “the Argument” –…

Day to Day Politics: The things that pass…

Tuesday 23 January 20181 By the time you have read this Donald…

Oldman Take A Look At My Life OR…

I guess that I'm wrong more often than I'm right about things.Now…

For a ‘redeeming view’ of history

Part Two of a history of European occupation, rule, and brutal imperialism…

The end of Innocence

By Cally JettaAny parent can relate to the desire to protect their…

«
»
Facebook

Politics for Dummies

By Kyran O’Dwyer

Without a word of a lie, I searched this internetty thingy for ‘politics for dummies australia’ and only got a few results. Books and blogs written for the hapless voter to enable them navigate the jargon and crap prevalent in Australian politics.

Which was, at some time in the past, probably fair. Given the traditional discourse that Australian voters are too stupid, too lazy, too disinterested and/or too apathetic to ever take an active interest in the machinations of government.

I, however, tend to follow the sentiment of Howard Zinn:

What is called “apathy” is, I believe, a feeling of helplessness on the part of the ordinary citizen, a feeling of impotence in the face of enormous power. It’s not that people are apathetic; they do care about what is going on, but don’t know what to do about it, so they do nothing, and appear to be indifferent.

It is hard to remain interested, let alone passionate, about any ‘social’ issues when you know that, however reasoned and factual your dissertation on any subject may be, there will be the naysayers, often a minority group, who simply shout it down (albeit with megaphones, aka the media), and the politicians who simply won’t listen anyway (unless you’re a donor).

In the off chance you have missed it over the past few years, we have, allegedly, one of the most highly qualified parliaments in Australian history. Our politicians have more pieces of paper than a Sorbent jumbo roll. The problem is that their pieces of paper appear to have the same worth as toilet paper, but are less effective at cleaning up shite.

For years now, we have had ministers, assistant ministers, backbenchers, all manner of titles and occupants, professing their complete and utter ignorance of their portfolios and their policies, let alone their job descriptions. That’s without reference to their ethical and/or moral capacity. Which would be an incredibly short discussion.

Given the most recent debacle, I thought we need a new “Politics for Dummies – Australia”, written for the biggest dummies in Australia. Our politicians. It will have to be ‘plain English’ as anything too sophisticated for them (or too long, for that matter) will escape their very meagre grasp on reality, or their even more meagre attention span.

The AEC has produced a handbook for candidates, which makes the job measurably easier.

So, here goes nothing.

Naturally, we will have to start at the very beginning. Nominating for parliament. This is not difficult. As long as you are over 18, are an Australian citizen and are either enrolled or eligible to be enrolled on the Commonwealth electoral roll, off you go. We can visit the Sect 44 thingy a little later.

You fill out a declaration. The AEC website has a stern warning for applicants:

It is against the law to include false or misleading information in a nomination form. Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. In addition, you must not omit any information if omitting that information would be misleading. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 12 months.

If that warning intimidated you or caused you to rethink your application, good. It means you were never cut out to be a politician. You see, it’s a scam. The AEC has no right of scrutiny over the content. And anyone wishing to challenge the content of your nomination has only a 40 day period from the close of nominations to do so. And they must reside in your electorate.

All nomination papers are publicly produced at declaration time (12 noon on the day after nominations close) and the relevant AEO or DRO declares the name and address of candidates (address details for a candidate who is a silent elector will not be released or declared). All other contact information for candidates, which they have indicated is not for public release, will be removed from a candidate’s form before it is produced at the time of declaration.

Information listed for public release is also published on the AEC website during the election period. It should be remembered that the media and the public use this publicly available contact information to reach candidates for information about their candidature. All nomination forms are destroyed only after the next election.

This fellow Joyce, undeniably a political dummy of the first order, has been good enough to give us a real time demonstration of the process. Admittedly, it’s a by-election, not a full election. We are, apparently, going to have many by elections, until even the ‘Artful Lodge’r’ recognises the stupidity. Given his track record on ‘judgement’, it may well be a cold day in hell before his judgement comes to pass. Although some are tipping February. If you consider yourself a ‘political tragic’, feel free to have a guess at how many by elections will be required before a general election is called. Bonus points for guessing the LNP/IPA nominee for PM.

Apologies for the digression. Back to New Zealand. My bad, New England.

The close of nominations was midday, 9th November, and we’ll know the candidates by midday, 10th November.

By now, you will have got the gist. You can say anything you like in your nomination, because it will not be checked at any institutional level. Remember, it’s not a Centrelink or Immigration application. Be aware though, there are a few impediments. A lawyer in WA, Dr John Cameron, and a self-described ‘serial pest’, Mr Tony Magrathea, being two recidivist impediments. Rest assured, you will be protected by FOI (which, theoretically, stands for ‘Freedom of Information’) processes that will guard, at all costs, the reality. ‘FOI’ stands for ‘Feck off, idiot’.

Add to the mix the unhelpful contribution of Ms Sally McManus, who has volunteered the AFP to conduct raids, complete with real time media broadcast, on hapless nominees. This is based on their expertise at creating a TV show (hereinafter referred to as the Nightly News) at short notice and with no substance.

Don’t worry. In the unlikely chance you get caught, there is no prospect of restitution of your ill-gotten gains, let alone incarceration for your transgressions. Remember, it’s not Centrelink or Immigration here. Heck, it’s not even like you are an Indigenous person with unpaid fines.

Let’s go back to the Dummy extraordinaire, Joyce. He not only forgot his father was a Kiwi, he actually destroyed the APVMA, diverted water from the Murray Darling scheme, altered Hansard, pork-barreled three electorate offices, has his former chief of staff, Diana Hallam, in the position of general manager, Department of Infrastructure – Inland Rail Unit, overseeing the lay of the rail (where he coincidentally owns some ‘mongrel bush blocks) and, apparently, has had a dalliance with a female other than his wife (which is appropriate. It is ‘same sex marriage’ which will, according to him, destroy the ‘institution of marriage’, not the infidelity of those already married). Now, that’s only a few of the transgressions he committed as an illegal immigrant occupant of our parliament. If only Border Force could protect us from ‘illegals’.

His punishment? He has to stand again. Apparently with an unassailable lead in what is likely to be a one horse race. We’ll know soon enough.

Repayment of the financial advantage gained by deception? Incarceration (which would see him, rather ironically, still dependent on tax payer largesse for three meals and a roof over his head)?

Nope. Nope. Nope. You haven’t been paying attention. This is not Centrelink.

As for this Sect 44 thingy, here’s a radical thought. Don’t change it. Its intent, with respect to foreign allegiance, is clear. If you want to sit in Federal Parliament you can’t wear two hats.

Thanks to Dutton, we now have immigration lawyers par excellence, although it may seem an unlikely ally for a government that hates migrants. I have little doubt there would be no shortage of experts likely to offer their services pro-bono to the government to assist with an audit. A couple of retired judges would also likely assist. They have already offered to assist with corruption in calling for a Federal ICAC.

Even though there have been at least two reports commissioned regarding Sect 44, one in 2004 and one in 2010, both underscore a simple procedural change that is available, yet studiously ignored. Allow the AEC to vet applications. Notwithstanding the likely tongue in cheek suggestion of Ms McManus, there is every likelihood the AFP will have plenty of hours available to assist with the work, now that their foray into unions is temporarily suspended. Admittedly, this will only remain the case as long as Cash and De Garis remain in the AFP witness protection program. As an aside, it doesn’t take too many AFP officers, as the ever vigilant media don’t seem to be pursuing them. Notwithstanding the alleged fraud, this is not Centrelink.

Once the audit is done, call the general election. And repeat the AEC/AFP exercise every time.

With regard to the penalties that should be imposed for these careless recalcitrants, it seems only fair to note there is no need for new laws. Sect 46 of the Constitution provides for penalties, which were later codified in the ‘Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975’. No need for backdating something that’s over a century old!

What we need to do with the Constitution is throw it out and start again. This will never happen as long as our politicians exist above the law. We may as well focus on those things we can change, rather than become embittered by those things we cannot change.

Just for the record, there have been 44 referendums held since 1901 and only eight of these have been successful. The most successful referendum in Australia’s history was in 1967, where 90.77% of the nation came together in support of Indigenous rights.

The Constitution still allows racial discrimination – not just against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but against anyone.

Now, if we are to change the Constitution, which will more likely get up? A change to enshrine the right of Dummies, either illiterate or incapable of the most basic comprehension, to be Dummies, or the removal of racist provisions that underlay our mistreatment of our First People?

That’s before we even start on this government’s flagrant disregard for international law, which will likely see lives lost under the absurd and obscene dictum, ‘at least they didn’t die at sea’.

It is not until you have a government so woefully bad that you take time to think about the protections we, the people, need from Dummies.

Taking to the streets is a pointless exercise, as any protest will be ignored by our politicians and misrepresented by our media.

This should not be confused with apathy.

In the absence of any possibility of realistic or likely action being taken by a government that is so woefully bad, the very least we need to do is rewrite the rules so even these fools can understand them. We need to write a new handbook for our candidates.

Politics for Dummies.


18 comments

  1. John O'Callaghan

    Great piece of writing,and so true!!

  2. Möbius Ecko

    You know what is very telling about politics at the moment, caricatures.

    No need to state that a caricature is an exaggeration of a person’s features for comic effect. I saw Turnbull in a TV piece that other day and I swear that with his current downtrodden demeanor, in real life he looked more like a caricature than those drawn by cartoonists.

    When politicians start looking like cartoons you know politics has been reduced to a farce, and instead of a book on Politics for Dummies maybe what’s needed is a primary school level comic book with lots of pictures and very few speech bubbles.

  3. paul walter

    Dummies for Politics sounds like Hanson also.

  4. Gruntsky

    That would be Dummies as Politicians Paul 😉

  5. Kronomex

    The photo of Mutant Beetroot Man is terrifying.

  6. Glenn Barry

    You managed to avoid using the word accountability – I smiled

  7. wam

    According to the Lord, omission is a form of lying?

    Did you deliberately, omit the AEC instructions to dummies that suggested those in doubt should seek legal advice?

    Joyce would have had no doubts that he was not a citizen of NZ being born outside of NZ. He, like millions of us, may have been aware he could apply for citizenship.

    To suggest that a foreign government can legislate the birthright of an Australian is ridiculous.

    Ergo, the judges of the supreme court were wilful and are probably pissing themselves laughing.

    Perhaps you could write judging for dummies and have these twits proofread it?

  8. jim

    Barnaby “circus clown” Joice, and “Toxic: Tony Abbott, with Malcome “Truffles” turnbull and the LNP. make sure you put them last in the next Election. OK.

  9. jim

    MARK COLVIN ABC : The Queensland Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce is in political hot water again, this time over a suggestion that Australia should consider mining in Antarctica. 2005

    Senator Joyce’s suggestion comes after spending a month travelling to Antarctica, and despite Australia’s signature on a 50-year moratorium on mining and mineral exploration blurted this out on the ABCTV I remember it well Barnaby was very camera shy acting like a clown, blathering and giggling while wearing his Fn Hat at the Antarctic.
    at tax payers expense of course.

  10. guest

    wam, I have real problems reading some of your comments. Today is one of them. You think the court had no idea what to say about citizenship and should have a judging book written for them.

    Such a comment is as silly as Turnbull’s attempt to predict what the judges would decide – and he, a lawyer, was very wrong. So are you.

    Think about it.

  11. Zathras

    There seems to be a bit of the “she’ll be right” mentality generated at the top, but if you fail to cross a “t” or dot an “i” on a Centrelink or other Government application form they rain all sorts of misery down on you.

    It’s been said that Banana-by cried on the night of his election victory because he couldn’t understand why so many people didn’t like Gina Reinhardt like he did.Maybe it’s because they are both so far removed from everyday life and live in their own alternative realities – like most politicians it seems.

    Here’s an interesting summary –

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/malcolm-turnbull-is-a-dud-all-onion-and-no-abbott-just-how-cooked-is-he

  12. wam

    Dear guest,
    Thanks for trying to make sense of my writing. But it is:
    Tongue in cheek mixed with senility.

    I cannot understand why a judge would sanction the right of a foreign country to over rule the rights born in aust.

    These judges have agreed that joyce’s birth in australia is affected by his father’s birth.

    I maintain such paternal lineage cannot make him a Kiwi without action by him.

    I maintain there is no loyalty question, no doubt of Australian citizenship and no false declaration.

    QED joyce is not a dual citizen.

    To make this a legal certainty a law enshrining ‘born in Australia’ as a proof against usurping by other gov would reinstate all but the overseas born.

  13. totaram

    Zathras: Gina lives in Singapore to minimise her income tax. So how would she be in touch with ordinary Australians?

  14. Max Gross

    It will all end it tears… Guillotine Day cometh

  15. Kyran

    Thank you for your comments. The intent was not to (necessarily) lampoon the Dummy, Joyce, but a ‘system’ that would countenance reappointing (given the lack of ‘contest’ for the seat, you could hardly call it an election) someone who holds the ‘system’ in such contemptuous disregard.

    Mobius Ecko, you have reminded me of a series of books that fascinated my younger lad in primary school. Captain Underpants, by Dav Pilkey. I was always troubled by the puerile content, but encouraged him as it exposed him to the pleasure of reading and comprehension.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Underpants

    I haven’t thought of it in recent years, so I thank you for the reminder. Entirely coincidentally, if you have a look at the list of ‘Minor Characters’, you will find odd descriptions that befit our current crop of Dummies. With specific regard to “a primary school level comic book with lots of pictures and very few speech bubbles”, it would appear it has already been done. The only exception I can see is that the ‘speech bubble’, somewhat appropriately, emanates with as much gusto from the other end of the anatomy.

    Mr Barry, “You managed to avoid using the word accountability – I smiled”
    I was trying to be subtle. Regrettably, I wasn’t smiling. My tongue is still bleeding from the bite!

    Wam, I share others confusion. It seems to me you are confusing two issues. With regard to Australian citizenship, as I understand it, if you are born in Australia, you automatically have citizenship of Australia. Unless you are one of the scores of refugee’s born in Australia whilst your parents are detained without charge in our ‘facilities’. Australia, to my knowledge, is the only country on the planet that has legislated a non-birthright of a citizen.
    Access to parliament is, as a matter of law, held to a higher standard than mere citizenship. It is about allegiance and attempts to negate the slightest suggestion that a member of parliament may have more than one allegiance, either by actuality, eligibility or entitlement.
    There is no dispute that I have seen about where bananas was born or about his Australian citizenship. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.

    Just when you think this saga cannot deteriorate any further, there are now ‘doubts’ being circulated about Mr Pat Dodson’s eligibility.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-10/even-patrick-dodson-is-answering-citizenship-questions/9140026

    If that is not a satisfactory demonstration of the panic in the government, further example escapes me. This has now rocketed past absurd.
    And for those into Schadenfreude, as Terry2 pointed out elsewhere, how is the Holly Hughes saga going? She ‘lost’ in 2016, but was one of the beneficiaries of Brandis’s largesse in appointments to the AAT. With no apparent qualification. As a result of that privileged appointment, she may now be excluded from further privileged appointment.
    Popcorn, anyone? These incompetents can’t even do corruption properly.
    Thank you for your comments, commenters, and for the opportunity AIMN. Take care

  16. Kyran

    “Are you ready, hey, are you ready for this?
    Are you hanging on the edge of your seat?
    Out of the doorway the bullets rip
    To the sound of the beat

    Another one bites the dust
    Another one bites the dust
    And another one gone, and another one gone
    Another one bites the dust
    Hey, I’m gonna get you, too
    Another one bites the dust”

    “Federal Liberal MP John Alexander is set to announce his resignation after confirming he is a dual citizen.”

    “Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was informed of Mr Alexander’s situation on Monday, at which point the Sydney-based MP began contacting British authorities for clarification.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-11/john-alexander-to-resign-amid-dual-citizenship-concerns/9138814

    Leaving aside the question as to why he only commenced enquiries some months after the initial fracas (bearing in mind the Parry debacle), one is left to ponder exactly how many more Dummies don’t seem to know where their parents came from.
    Somewhat ironically (or should that be prophetically?), the article ends with;

    “More to come.”

    Oh dear. What a careless government. They’ve lost another member. If this isn’t a crisis, it is surely reminiscent of the infamous Black Knight, immortalised in Monty Python’s ‘Holy Grail’. May our government continue with its ‘It’s only a flesh wound’ narrative, in ignorance of the obvious haemorrhage. At what price, the Holy Grail?
    Oh dear.

  17. diannaart

    @ Kyran

    I think you meant to write ‘Michaela Cash’:

    Add to the mix the unhelpful contribution of Ms Sally McManus, who has volunteered the AFP to conduct raids, complete with real time media broadcast, on hapless nominees.

    Sally McManus on completely different team – ACTU

    Otherwise, yes a guide for political dummies would be good except for the conundrum of politicians never reading it.

Leave a Reply

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: