What a great night! Who would have thought that staring at numbers and graphs for six hours could be so exhilarating! The Howard era has finally ended.
I must say that Howard's concession speech was both dignified and gracious. He has (finally) accepted the responsibility for the Libs' woes. And, to be fair, a political career spanning a third of a century must be acknowledged and honoured, no matter how repugnant one considers his policies. Howard should also be given credit for remaining in his long-held, but somewhat marginal seat of Bennelong, rather than seeking a safer harbour. He looks likely to lose that seat, which would be symbolically appropriate - a captain going down with his ship.
Personally, I am not a Rudd fan (Gillard is closer to my end of political spectrum), but he deserves enormous credit for turning around the Labor party when it was drifting aimlessly in the political seas and leading the party to a decisive victory in a way somewhat reminiscent of Tony Blair. One can only hope that the party will be able to stay true to its principles and to its promises. We must also hope that the Labor government will repair some of the damage done to our values and our political institutions under Howard. That it will put a higher value on accountability, transparency, fairness, responsibility and intelligent public discourse. Eleven years is a lot of damage to repair and I'm not sure that Labor has the will to do it. But here's to hoping.
November 24th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Rudd and Labor, Australian election |
no comments
Well, it was certainly exciting watching the leadership debate, worm-free though it was. I must say that on the whole, I think Howard blew it big time - it is doubtful that he'll want a repeat closer to the election. Howard confirmed one of the most damaging perceptions of him and his government - stuck in the past, retrospective, with no new ideas. None of the policies he put forward did anything to displace that impression. His emphasis was on preservation, maintenance and restoration. The vision of the "future" of education was to restore "education standards" (bit hard to do, if you keep cutting funding), fix the mistake made 30 years ago of abolishing technical schools (what a novel idea!) and restore our teaching of history. There was nothing prospective about his plan.
On the history point, his "vision" of restoring the teaching of history was not one of development of analytical and critical thinking about history or of ways to make the study of history more appealing to students - it was to renew the "pride" in Australian history and in who we are - it is a good recipe for nationalism, but not a great one for learning from our past.
His vision on the economy was more tax cuts and that's it. The universal remedy to rising interest rates, rising food prices, rising education costs, decreasing housing affordability and increasing inflation! I'm sure a few hundred bucks will go a long way to alleviating the burden of an extra $10K in interest repayments on a $300K mortgage thanks to the interest rate rises in the last term of the Howard government.
Rudd performed better, although his emphasis on himself, constantly saying "I" rather than "we" (given that he is a spokesperson for the Labor party and a shadow front bench) was a bit disconcerting. Howard on the other hand placed a lot of emphasis on his new team strategy (which would have been more comforting if the various members of that team didn't stab each other in the back on regular basis).
I hope to do a couple more posts on what emerged from the debate, but it is hard to avoid the overall impression that the only thing that Howard was prepared to offer in terms of the future of Australia are more tax cuts (which are likely to increase inflationary pressures and most of which are, unfortunately, supported by Rudd), a rabid fear of unions and a lot of boasting of past achievements (not all of which can be attributed to good governance). There's going to be a lot of disappointment in the Liberal party circles tonight.
October 21st, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Rudd and Labor, Australian election |
no comments
Newsflash, newsflash! Four years ago Kevin Rudd had bit too much to drink (ie got pissed) and visited a "gentleman's club" (ie a strip joint) in New York. How absolutely dreadful! It's not like every one of us overindulged in alcohol at some point in our lives and its not as though almost every Australian male visited a strip club at least once. Rudd's actions are so outrageous that they deserve to be splashed on the front pages of every paper in Australia for at least the next week, unless something really important happens - like Paris Hilton getting thrown in jail again.
But if such un-Australian conduct was not enough, Rudd has done something that must surely disqualify him from becoming Prime Minister and indeed from politics altogether - he admitted to his actions and took responsibility for them. What utter disgrace! Hard to believe that this man wants to be our next PM. Didn't he learn anything from Howard's 11 year long stint in power? Well, here's a quick lesson for you Kev:
The cardinal rule of political longevity is to never ever admit responsibility for anything, except low interest rates and protecting Australia from the combined dangers of children-throwing queue jumpers, SIM-card sharing terrorists and nasty unions who deceive people into believing that losing all their rights at work is somehow bad for them. This technique works best in conjunction with blaming someone else for any adverse occurrences, be it your own departments who conveniently failed to inform you, State premiers or terrorists forcing you into the strip club at gun point (the last one is particularly effective - the word "terrorism" causes most people to accept the most implausible excuses). If all else fails, try taking a page out of Tony Abbott's book and claim that the trip to the club was "off the record" and therefore didn't exist.
Of course, just because the Australian people have readily swallowed the sleazy politics of the Howard government for over a decade, doesn't mean that Rudd should be able to get away with a visit to a sleazy club, any more than Julia Gillard should get away with the offence of having an empty fruit bowl. It's just too much for the current political climate.
August 19th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Rudd and Labor |
one comment
I am in the process of writing a post about what the dangers of overzealous anti-terrorism measures as illustrated by the Haneef case. But before that post is complete, it is worth commenting on responsibility of the various actors in the Haneef fiasco and the hypocrisy of denial of that responsibility by the government.
A government that is responsible for a mistake or a bad situation is not necessarily unfit to govern. Of course it depends on the nature of the mistake and the government's role in it, but we have to face the reality that mistakes, and sometimes serious mistakes, can and do happen. A government which makes a mistake, admits it, learns from it and does what needs to be done to correct the situation is not a bad government by reason of the error alone.
On the other hand, a government which is responsible (wholly or in part) for a mistake or a bad situation and does not admit its responsibility, instead blaming anyone or anything it can, is not fit to govern. Not because it is responsible for a situation, but because it is unwilling to be what a government in a democracy must be - responsible.
In the wake of the collapse of case against Dr. Haneef, the Howard government sought to distance itself from the fiasco, blaming anyone and anything it could point a finger at.
Let's take a look at some of the government's outrageous attempts to duck responsibility:
1. "We didn't detain him"
Perhaps the best example is the statement by Howard "The detention of the man was undertaken by the police and not at the request or direction or encouragement of the Government".
How stupid does Howard think we are? Haneef was granted bail and was to be released, until the government (via one of its ministers - Kevin Andrews) intervened and used its immigration powers to detain Haneef. I do not propose to repeat my previously expressed views about Andrews' action, but given that this action was taken, and apparently taken after discussions between Andrews and other members of the government, it is extraordinary that Howard would say that the government was not responsible for Haneef's detention! In fact, Haneef is still being detained (in residential detention), solely because of the government's action to revoke his visa.
2. We weren't involved at all - blame the AFP and the DPP
In a variation on the above theme, Howard and Downer joined forces to claim that the AFP and the DPP operated entirely independently and the government was not in any way involved in the prosecution of Haneef.
Immediately after making the "we didn't detain him" statement, Howard went on to say that "the case was prepared and presented by the Director of [Public] Prosecutions, I think that the right thing now is for those two men to explain the process and explain the reasons" and Downer added "These institutions operate at arm's length from the Government and they always should and they always have."
Yes, the AFP stuffed up (do I dare mention the additions to the diary?). The DPP stuffed up as one of their prosecutors incorrectly told the court that Haneef's SIM card was found in the burning vehicle at Glasgow Airport and that he resided with the London terror suspects. Yes, those two institutions should operate at arm's length from the government, but that's not what happened here - the government may not have conducted the investigation itself, but it was certainly involved. It became involved when it decided to make political mileage out of the whole affair.
Here are just a few examples of the government's involvement: publicly supporting extended detention of Haneef and the AFP handling of the matter, declaring Haneef to be of "bad character" and stating that he will be deported even if found not guilty, locking him up after he was granted bail, publicly attacking and threatening Haneef's lawyers for releasing a transcript of the interview (which they were entitled to release), putting pressure on the AFP and the DPP, implying that anti-terrorism laws may need to be strengthened (presumably to better deal with vicious SIM-card sharing doctors), etc.
Had the case succeeded, the government would not doubt be quick to claim responsibility and boast about the success of its anti-terrorism measures. But while it it happy to take credit for success, it won't take any responsibility for its part in the prosecution which has now been revealed as a sham.
3. The Opposition are to blame because they supported us
This has got to be the most amusing attempt to duck responsibility - Andrews blamed the Opposition for supporting the government on Haneef. That's right - Labor rather than the government are to blame because they didn't oppose the government's actions!
There can be little doubt that the Opposition deserves criticism (and a lot of it) for its supine, unprincipled and cowardly position during the entire affair. It's "me to" attitude on everything from extended detention to supporting Andrews' outrageous use of migration detention powers means that it deserves almost as much blame as the government.
Nonetheless, Andrews' suggestion is quite extraordinary, not least because it is not too hard to predict what the government would have done if Labor had some guts and stood up to it. Without a doubt Howard would have painted Labor as soft on terrorism, putting Australian lives at risk and trying to bring about the complete destruction of Australia. Consider the government's response to Peter Beattie's criticism of the AFP investigation (incidentally, Beattie deserves praised for doing what the federal Labor did not dare to do). Howard's response to Rudd would no doubt have been even more extreme and would have allowed Howard to score some much needed political points.
Let's contrast the government's failure to accept responsibility with other actors in this drama:
The government's lack of integrity, as evidenced by it playing the blame game, may be contrasted with the actions of others in the Haneef fiasco. Let's start with Damien Bugg, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who reviewed the case, admitted that a mistake has been made and took appropriate steps to remedy the mistake. That was his job, but it must have taken a lot of guts given how political the case is.
The government's actions may also be contrasted with that of Stephen Keim SC, whose decision to release a transcript of Haneef's interview probably significantly contributed to the speed with which the case unravelled. Keim immediately took responsibility for releasing the transcript to the media and stood his ground despite vicious criticism and threat of criminal sanctions by the government. Keim (and Haneef's solicitor, Russo) should be commended for having the integrity and courage that our government obviously lacks.
Without a doubt, the blame game will continue for some time. Perhaps we should take the opportunity to consider whether a government which cannot act with integrity and which cannot take responsibility for its failures is a government that we should return in the next election.
July 28th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Law, Howard government, Rudd and Labor, Terrorism and war on terror, Misconduct in politics |
one comment
A federal system of government (ie. a system of state and commonwealth governments) has many advantages. One of its disadvantages, however, is the ability of a government to pass responsibility or blame for various defaults to another government (eg. commonwealth to state and vice versa). The game of pass the responsibility is more likely to be played when the state and commonwealth governments are of different ideological persuasions…or if one of them is facing an election.
Thus, it is little wonder that this game is being played out again, over the state of Australia's healthcare system. Newly released reports indicate that elective surgery waiting times have gone up since 1999 and the state of dental health across the country is such that one in five Australians have moderate or severe gun disease and about a third avoid going to a dentist because of the high costs involved. Poor dental health can have significant consequences on physical and metal wellbeing and can lead to the patient requiring hospitalisation or contracting fatal infections.
Having dumped the commonwealth dental health program upon being elected in 1996, the Howard government now blames the deplorable condition of dental health in Australia on the States. Tony Abbott accused the States of acting like "glorified beggars" or "spoilt children", saying that "dental waiting lists remained high across the country" and that "these remained a state responsibility."
One might have thought that a nation-wide problem suggests that something may need to be done on a federal level, but passing the responsibility to the states is obviously a more attractive option. Kevin Rudd promised to re-establish the commonwealth dental health program, as part of the emphasis on preventative health. Whether that would ameliorate the problem is unclear, but this approach is likely to be more productive than the finger pointing that the government is engaging in.
It is little wonder that the governments' approach to the question of waiting lists for elective surgery was basically the same - denying that under the federal-state agreement, the commonwealth government underfunded the hospitals by $1.1 billion per year, shifting the responsibility back to the States.
Who is right and who is wrong is not the question. Perhaps both levels of government are at fault. But one thing is certain - our health is too important to play a game of pass the responsibility, even in an election year.
June 30th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Rudd and Labor, Health and Welfare, States |
3 comments
The Age reports that the Labor party are planning another "assault" on the Greens, with the aid of Dr Evil and Mini Me billboards and a website. The campaign is apparently to be based around the fact that the Greens have occasionally voted with the Liberal party opposition in Victorian parliament. No doubt the billboards will not allude to the fact that Greens voted with the opposition when "the issue at stake was the transparency of the Bracks Government."
Assuming that the report is true, the planned campaign seems nothing short of idiotic. Labor would do better to devote their energies to displacing the Liberal party from power, rather than fighting a party on its own side of political spectrum. One can also wonder why anyone would think that voters would respond positively to Austin Powers allusions or slogans such as "Gottcha" or "Why are the Greens being 'Mini Me' to the Dr Evils in the Liberal Party?".
Unfortunately, Labor's apparent fixation with fighting the Greens can be much more damaging than a few silly billboards. Recall the 2004 election when Labor allocated their preferences to the ultra-conservative Family First party, giving them the balance of power in the Senate. Whether that fiasco has taught Labor to be more responsible in directing their preferences remains to be seen, but the proposed "campaign" suggests we shouldn't get our hopes too high.
June 28th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Rudd and Labor, Australian election, Greens |
no comments
These days The Australian often reads like it is edited by the Liberal party. Today's editorial regarding Labor's IR policies is no exception. The backhanded compliments to Labor for "fine tuning" its IR policy do little to disguise the fact that the Australian apparently believes that the only way that Labor's IR position is going to be "acceptable" is if it mirrors that of the Liberals. The arrogant attitude that the only way that thinking of "the left" can be respectable is to become the same as ideology of "the right" was revealed in previous the Australian editorials.
This misleadingly complimentary editorial is perhaps more dangerous than the previous diagnosis of non right-wingers as "psychotic". Let consider the following statement:
The elephant in Labor's IR room, however, remains Ms Gillard's pledge to scrap AWAs. The Australian accepts collective agreements may be a beneficial safety net for low-paid workers. We accept that collective bargaining should be a right for those who seek it, but we fail to see the need for intrusion into the lives of highly paid workers who want to enter an individual non-union contract. To us, the Government's no-disadvantage test for workers earning less than $75,000 a year appears to be a reasonable compromise.
Let's forget for a second that the government doesn't have a "no-disadvantage test" - that's the test that it scrapped when it introduced WorkChoices. What it did introduce is the so-called "fairness test" (which is unlikely to remain for long should the government win the next election). Not only is the operation of the test uncertain, it is unreviewable by either the employer or the employee (except via the High Court). What is "fair" is decided by a government agency and there are no avenues for appeal or review. A right is not a right at all if it can't be enforced.
It is good to know that the Australian accepts the right to collectively bargain if an employee wants it, but that acceptance does not address the problem that employees face if their employment is made conditional on signing an AWA. The right to collectively bargain is meaningless if an employee has to chose between waiving that right and unemployment.
What the Australian editorial also seems to overlook is that, with or without AWAs, there is nothing stopping an employer and employee negotiating an individual non-union contract which is more favourable than award or collective agreement. What is objectionable about AWAs is that they can be used to undermine award or collective agreement conditions because they prevail over those agreements. Ie. AWAs remove the safety-net. An individual contract cannot prevail over collective agreements, but it will not stop "highly paid workers" negotiating more favourable conditions than the award safety-net.
The apparent reasonableness simply serves to conceal the disingenuousness of the stated position. The need to abolish AWAs stems not from "demands of unions", as the editorial suggests, but from the need to protect workers, especially vulnerable workers from exploitation. It is about our rights in the workplace.
By the way, yesterday I had the good fortune to attend a function where Julia Gillard gave a speech discussing, among other things, the impact of AWAs in the workplace, especially the impact on women. It was a very impressive speech and I'll do one or more posts about it in the next few days.
Thanks for reading.
June 27th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Industrial relations, Media, Rudd and Labor, Unions |
no comments
OK, lets face it, no one can be in the least bit surprised to learn that the intended advertising campaign by business organisations to promote WorkChoices is not quite independent of the Howard Government. The $11 million dollar ad blitz will be directed by a Liberal party pollster Mark Textor of a firm called Crosby/Textor, which does a lot of work for the Liberal party. A number of other personalities associated with the Liberal party are involved, including former advisers to Kennett and to Peter Reith. One would have to be really naive to believe that the big business advertising plans had nothing to do with the government.
There is nothing objectionable to the Business Council running ads, provided they are not misleading. Unlike the Howard government, they will not be using taxpayer funds. Personally I'd even welcome their advertising. It will highlight big business interest in maintaining unfair IR laws, it will highlight the links between big business and the government and it will make the government look even more hypocritical when it criticises advertising by unions.
It is not the plan to advertise itself that is disconcerting, but the reaction (or rather lack of reaction) to it from the Labor party. Howard government has been running a smear campaign against the unions and their connections to the Labor party. The government has, quite misleadingly, been using the spectre of "union power" to scare voters into believing that, should Labor win government, the whole world will be ruled by thugs in cricket pads.
From leaked material it appears that at least some advertising by the big business will be in the same vein - making voters afraid of reversing WorkChoices because of "control" it would give back to the unions. Naturally control by big business is much more palatable (not to mention more conducive to larger profits and executive salary packages). Other messages reportedly include "the old wharf strikes of the '70s" (wonder why they couldn't come up with any events less than forty years old) or "union leaders … having a BBQ in the backyard at Kirribilli" (not nearly as classy or acceptable as dinners for Liberal party supporters) - all of which is supposed to convince the voters that having any rights in the workplace will bring about the end of the world as we know it.
So why do we hear nothing from the Labor party about the cosy relationship between the Libs and the big business? Why was there no outcry to threats made by industry groups to undermine Labor if it persisted with plans to boost employee rights? If a union acted in such a manner Howard would be talking about it from now till election. Why is Labor not expressing outrage over the arrogance of business groups who claim to be non-political at the same time as making statements such as "this issue would be off the agenda if the ALP changed its industrial relations policy." (ie. we wouldn't have to advertise if the damn Labor party just did what we want!)
Is Labor simply unwilling to engage in this sort of slimy politics? That's doubtful - they must know that this election campaign is going to be dirty, very dirty. Is Rudd saving his best for later? Or is Labor too afraid to give an impression that they are attacking business? Is it because big business and business groups have so much power that Labor does not dare to punch back?
If unions are fair game for scare tactics and smear campaigns because of their support for Labor, but business groups cannot be touched even if they are clearly lobbying for the Liberal party, then it is clear who has too much power and whose power we should be concerned about.
June 20th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Industrial relations, Rudd and Labor, Unions, Australian election, Business groups |
no comments
In a post yesterday I contended that the government (with the help of right-wing commentators) has manipulated public discourse to stigmatise expressions of opinion adverse to their ideology. The post contained a few examples from the day's newspapers.
Well, how about some more evidence from today's papers:
First, there's Wilson Tuckey, a Liberal party MP from WA. Tuckey came out with wild claims that unions would intimidate people into voting Labor and were "going to kick their door in and threaten their kids" and would "start elbowing the Liberal and Greens and other how-to-vote card workers" outside polling booths. "There won't be enough police in the countryside to protect them." he ranted.
It is incredible that Tuckey (who incidentally is famous for threatening to run over a union official) can make these sorts of statements without arousing public outrage or earning a reprimand from the government. That is because this sort of conduct has become entrenched in public discourse. When the electorate has been conditioned over the last decade into believing that dissent is an act of evil, this sort of baseless, hateful rant ceases to astound. It is ok to portray a legitimate democratic activity of lobbying as something dark and evil - doesn't matter that the assertions are ridiculous, doesn't matter that they are not backed up by a single fact or the most minute shred of evidence, never mind that Tuckey predicts the unions will engage in very crude public unlawful behaviour at the same time that Howard is complaining about the sophistication of their campaigns. Liberals don't need to be consistent to be a great tool for inspiring fear.
Not to be outdone by Tuckey's paranoid rant, the ultra-conservative commentator Piers Akerman had a few gems of his own. I have previously written about the depth of Akerman's delusions and so it is no surprise that the prospect of ACTU lobbying against the government (ie exercising its democratic rights) sent Akerman's conspiracy theorising into overdrive. His article, creatively titled "Bully boys and bodgie barbecues", is a prime example how far the conspiracy discourse has come.
Just consider Akerman's language:
"Union HQ has authorised its stormtroopers to zero in on the nearly quarter of a million members who live in marginal seats - and work on them to ensure they vote the union line.
Using computer programs rather than the brick-through-the-window terror favoured by groups such as Hitler's Nazis, Stalin's communists and Mao's Red Guard, union activists have been told to home in on church groups, faith organisations and family members."
Wow - in two sentences a legitimate democratic activity of lobbying has been compared to military operations, terrorism, Nazism, Stalinism and the worst excesses of Communism.
The fact that unions know the details of their members (Akerman seems surprised by the fact that unions would know the details that the members themselves volunteer to their union) suddenly becomes a threat: "We know who you are and we know where you live, we know how many are in your family and even if they are entitled to vote."
Hmm, every time I receive promotional mail from the Liberal party or have a lobbyist call at my door, I'll have to feel really threatened too. They obviously know where I live and who I am and that I'm entitled to vote. Never quite saw it that way before, but when the Liberal party pre-election propaganda arrives, instead of putting "return to sender" on it and dropping it back in the mail box, I'll take it to the police.
But sarcasm aside, how has it become acceptable for democratic activity to be portrayed as "an affront to democracy"?
Why is initiating an actual discussion about government policy offensive, when spending billions of taxpayer money on misleading advertising isn't?
Why aren't we hearing talk of conspiracies when a building group threatens Labor in an attempt to modify its policies or when big business lobby international organisations on behalf of the government or employer groups run advertising campaigns in support of the government?
When opposition to government is defined as an act of evil, democracy withers. The question is are we going to allow this erosion to continue?
June 14th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Media, Rudd and Labor, Unions, Australian election, Democracy |
6 comments
A healthy democratic society thrives on debate and discussion of the merits of different view points. In a healthy democracy a multitude of voices can clamour for attention, each as entitled to be heard as the next, each equally entitled to persuade and lobby.
There are several ways to undermine a healthy democracy. One is by crude show of force, for example a government arresting or assassinating those opposing it. A society used to democratic ideals wouldn't react very well to such an unsophisticated attack. A government that took such action would find itself facing strong and unrelenting opposition. Another way is gradual and subtle - stigmatise the opposition, demonise the opposing viewpoints, paint all opposition to your ideological standpoint as a dark shadowy conspiracy. You have to have patience, you have to do it gradually, you can't rush it or you'll give away the gameplan.
There is a highly sadistic experiment that illustrates the difference in effectiveness between the two approaches. Take one live frog. Put it in a pot of boiling water. The frog will jump out of the pot, it will know that it was in mortal danger. Now put a frog in a pot of cold water and heat up the water to a boil. The frog will sit there passively slowly boiling to death, unable to perceive the gradual temperature changes as a threat to its existence.
It is this latter approach that the Howard government has adopted. It has gradually, with great patience and subtlety boiled the Australian democracy. It has managed to stigmatise all opposing view points. Any opposition to the government or its policies has become a dark conspiracy, any lobbying opposing the government a con on the voters. Voting out the government at the next election is no longer seen as an exercise in democracy, but as an attempt to destroy Australia. The government has made itself the country and any opposition to it a hatred of Australia itself.
You can see this daily in public discourse. For example, consider the government's portrayal of the ACTU plan to campaign in support of Labor. Today's newspapers (at least the Australian) and parliamentary debate were full of claim of "secret campaigns" (how secret can it be if Hockey spent half the day waiving around the so-called campaign manual), and "dirty tricks". There was talk of "union apparatchiks" (yep, its that threatening Communist word) who would "infiltrate" community groups (like KGB agents, no doubt) so that the corrupt union bosses could seize power.
A perfectly legitimate democratic activity has become a conspiracy. Democratic discourse has been portrayed as dirty, illegitimate tricks. Unions that are the enemy of the government have been portrayed as the enemy of Australia. Similar lobbying or advertising by big business is ok. It is not a dirty trick, it is not a conspiracy. Australians can trust organisations whose only aim is increasing their profits. But organisations whose aim is to protect Australian workers must be seen as evil. Government lies, lack of transparency, scaremongering or two billion dollar taxpayer funded advertising campaigns are legitimate. Lobbying for the Labor party is not. It is a conspiracy to "trick" the voters into supporting Labor.
In the same vein, and again, today, Julia Gillard's questioning about the governments undisclosed plans to force 20% of the Australian workforce on AWAs and about the deliberately misleading economic "studies" commissioned by the government (designed to give the answers the government wants) is nothing more than "visceral hatred of AWAs". The government does not have to account for its underhanded activities or plans that it neglected to share with the electorate. The challenge to the government is nothing more than hatred, not an exercise in democracy by an elected representative of the Australian. people.
If you read the newspapers regularly, you'll see examples of this erosion of democracy almost everyday. And it is working. The government's popularity in opinion polls (for all that they are worth) is rising.
We have allowed the government to convince us that opposition to it is an illegitimate conspiracy. We have allowed the government to brainwash us into believing that exercising our democratic choice in a way it doesn't approve of is nothing more than falling victim to deception. We have allowed healthy democracy to become a taboo.
It is not my contention that we should all chose Labor, only that we should chose. That our choice should be based on merits of competing discourses and not in a deluded belief that by not supporting the government we are partaking in a conspiracy to destroy Australia.
Thanks for reading, and please jump out of the pot, before the water comes to a boil.
June 13th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Political advertising, Rudd and Labor, Unions, Democracy |
one comment
RSS
